There's something weird in the fact that some New Democrats are musing about a leadership change while Liberals maintain a discrete silence about their meltdown.
Gordon Campbell's party is reviled over the HST and its performance has been stumbling.
An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll released this week found Liberal support has been halved since the May 2009 election. The party has the support of 23 per cent of decided voters. That's heading down to the levels of NDP support before voters elected just two New Democrats in the 2001 election.
Meanwhile, the NDP support stands at 46 per cent, up from 42 per cent in the election last year. The Greens are at 14 per cent and the B.C. Conservatives at eight per cent - not bad for a party that doesn't really exist yet.
But an online straw poll on the Georgia Straight website found 87 per cent support for dumping James and getting a new NDP leader before the next election.
The theory is apparently that the party could have more support and a bigger lead in the polls with a different leader.
It's an oddly self-destructive approach for the party.
If the New Democrats can hold this level of the support until the next election, they will have matched their best ever performance at the polls. (The NDP under Dave Barrett took 46 per cent of the support in 1979.)
And an election today would result in an NDP government with a comfortable majority.
That's not to give rave reviews to the party's performance under James. The HST debacle has been a gift to the New Democrats. And given the extent of the public anger, it's hard to raise other issues.
But the party hasn't effectively raised concerns about other issues, from school closures to cuts to people with disabilities to struggling rural economies.
Still, Campbell's approval rating plummeted to 28 per cent in a May Mustel Group poll, with 61 per cent of those polled saying he was doing a bad job. James had 40 per cent approval and 28-per-cent disapproval.
And an Angus Reid poll in April found Campbell brought to my mind arrogance (72 per cent); secretiveness (56 per cent); dishonest (55 per cent); uncaring (51 per cent); and out of touch (49 per cent).
James ranked highest for compassion (45 per cent); down to earth (40 per cent); weak (38 per cent); inefficient (35 per cent); and openness (33 per cent).
Not stellar, to be sure.
And it's a given, unless the Liberals have lost all touch with reality, that the NDP will face a new leader in 2013.
Assuming that everyone in the current Liberal ranks - certainly in cabinet - is disqualified because of the HST taint, that opens the door to a fresh start for the party. (The names of Carole Taylor, Surrey Mayor Diane Watts and ex-Liberal cabinet minister Christy Clark are most frequently mentioned.)
But still, the NDP is doing awfully well in the polls. Dumping the leader would be disruptive and divisive.
And there is no guarantee that a successor would have any greater appeal and the risk that whoever was selected would be less attractive to voters.
B.C. New Democrats always seem to like a good internal fight; it's one of the party's least useful, most destructive qualities.
And the NDP's ideological purists often appear determined to keep the party far enough to the traditional ''left' positions that a noble defeat is the almost certain election outcome.
A leadership challenge now would likely convince a lot of voters that the New Democrats just don't want to govern.
James and the New Democrat MLAs can do a better job. They need, among other things, to build confidence in their ability to govern and bring economic growth rather than just criticize.
But the notion that this is a good time for a leadership change - when the party's support matches its highest-ever popular vote in an election - is odd.
Footnote: The Angus Reid poll found 75 per cent of British Columbians would vote to abolish the HST in a referendum if one is held. Almost 50 per cent would definitely sign a recall petition and 18 per cent would probably sign.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Friday, July 09, 2010
HST ad-cost secrecy a Liberal self-inflicted wound
Poor Colin Hansen. Being the front man for the harmonized sales tax is a wretched job that seems to get worse every day.
Now that the anti-HST petition signatures are being counted, the government is launching its ad campaign to try and sell the tax. It's running radio ads around the province over the next three weeks and plans to mail flyers to every one of B.C.'s 1.7 million households.
But as the campaign lurched out of the starting gate, Hansen was back on the defensive.
What will the radio ads cost, reporters asked. I don't know, he said.
What about the flyer? I don't know that either, Hansen responded.
He was involved in planning the strategy and the messaging, Hansen acknowledged. But he doesn't know what it is costing taxpayers.
Which leaves the public to consider two options. Hansen doesn't pay much attention to how their money is spent. Or he's determined to keep it a secret in case people get angry about the expense.
The second is the correct answer, I'd say. As health minister, Hansen was amazingly well-informed on all aspects of the ministry, including the financial ones.
If he doesn't know what these campaigns cost, it's because the Public Affairs Bureau, finance ministry staff and Hansen decided it was best that he didn't. That way, he could avoid questions about the costs.
So as they met to develop the marketing plans, Hansen was careful never to say, "hey, what's this going to cost, anyway?" And the staff took care not to volunteer the information.
It's a dumb strategy. The Globe and Mail headline was "Liberals refuse to disclose costs of HST ads." A National Post online column was headlined "B.C. Liberals' HST amateur hour routine." Critics were quick to suggest Hansen was either not being honest or irresponsible in approving campaigns costing millions of dollars without knowing the price tag.
The Liberals have, despite all the open and transparent talk, always refused to reveal the cost of ad campaigns. The information would be available in the annual financial reports, they said.
So a year from now, taxpayers might be able to figure out how much they paid for the ads and the flyers about the HST.
It's hard to see how refusing to provide the information helps the Liberals. If they came clean, some people might be angry at the cost. But this approach means people can be angry about the cost and the secrecy.
This is also about what's right. You would expect a government, spending taxpayers' money, would be open.
That's what Gordon Campbell demanded in opposition. Ads promoting the NDP governments and their policies were "disgusting," he said.
When the government was slow to say what the campaigns cost, Campbell was furious. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution," he said.
But that was then. Now secrecy is OK. (It is worth noting that the NDP lost, spectacularly, the next election.)
Hansen said he wasn't interested in the cost, as long as the Public Affairs Bureau stayed within its budget for the year.
But two days later, he announced a lower-than-forecast deficit for the last fiscal year because the government, thanks to "unprecedented" spending scrutiny, had spent $833 million less than projected.
But the scrutiny apparently doesn't extend to PR campaign costs.
Meanwhile, the anti-HST battle is also moving to the courts with a legal challenge to the tax.
The government passed a bill eliminating the provincial sales tax. But, unlike other provinces, there was no debate or vote on the new tax.
I might have been inclined to dismiss the challenge. But the lawyer is Joe Arvay, former general counsel for the attorney general's ministry. Arvay is recognized as a top constitutional lawyer.
Footnote: The public accounts this week revealed the government spent $37 million on the "You gotta be there" Olympic ads. Bob Mackin of 24 Hours obtained government documents that said "voting age" British Columbians were a key target audience and the campaigns were to include "special Premier-focused promotions." Which sounds much like Liberal party advertising, paid for by taxpayers.
Now that the anti-HST petition signatures are being counted, the government is launching its ad campaign to try and sell the tax. It's running radio ads around the province over the next three weeks and plans to mail flyers to every one of B.C.'s 1.7 million households.
But as the campaign lurched out of the starting gate, Hansen was back on the defensive.
What will the radio ads cost, reporters asked. I don't know, he said.
What about the flyer? I don't know that either, Hansen responded.
He was involved in planning the strategy and the messaging, Hansen acknowledged. But he doesn't know what it is costing taxpayers.
Which leaves the public to consider two options. Hansen doesn't pay much attention to how their money is spent. Or he's determined to keep it a secret in case people get angry about the expense.
The second is the correct answer, I'd say. As health minister, Hansen was amazingly well-informed on all aspects of the ministry, including the financial ones.
If he doesn't know what these campaigns cost, it's because the Public Affairs Bureau, finance ministry staff and Hansen decided it was best that he didn't. That way, he could avoid questions about the costs.
So as they met to develop the marketing plans, Hansen was careful never to say, "hey, what's this going to cost, anyway?" And the staff took care not to volunteer the information.
It's a dumb strategy. The Globe and Mail headline was "Liberals refuse to disclose costs of HST ads." A National Post online column was headlined "B.C. Liberals' HST amateur hour routine." Critics were quick to suggest Hansen was either not being honest or irresponsible in approving campaigns costing millions of dollars without knowing the price tag.
The Liberals have, despite all the open and transparent talk, always refused to reveal the cost of ad campaigns. The information would be available in the annual financial reports, they said.
So a year from now, taxpayers might be able to figure out how much they paid for the ads and the flyers about the HST.
It's hard to see how refusing to provide the information helps the Liberals. If they came clean, some people might be angry at the cost. But this approach means people can be angry about the cost and the secrecy.
This is also about what's right. You would expect a government, spending taxpayers' money, would be open.
That's what Gordon Campbell demanded in opposition. Ads promoting the NDP governments and their policies were "disgusting," he said.
When the government was slow to say what the campaigns cost, Campbell was furious. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution," he said.
But that was then. Now secrecy is OK. (It is worth noting that the NDP lost, spectacularly, the next election.)
Hansen said he wasn't interested in the cost, as long as the Public Affairs Bureau stayed within its budget for the year.
But two days later, he announced a lower-than-forecast deficit for the last fiscal year because the government, thanks to "unprecedented" spending scrutiny, had spent $833 million less than projected.
But the scrutiny apparently doesn't extend to PR campaign costs.
Meanwhile, the anti-HST battle is also moving to the courts with a legal challenge to the tax.
The government passed a bill eliminating the provincial sales tax. But, unlike other provinces, there was no debate or vote on the new tax.
I might have been inclined to dismiss the challenge. But the lawyer is Joe Arvay, former general counsel for the attorney general's ministry. Arvay is recognized as a top constitutional lawyer.
Footnote: The public accounts this week revealed the government spent $37 million on the "You gotta be there" Olympic ads. Bob Mackin of 24 Hours obtained government documents that said "voting age" British Columbians were a key target audience and the campaigns were to include "special Premier-focused promotions." Which sounds much like Liberal party advertising, paid for by taxpayers.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Canada's invisible quote
You have seen it hundreds, thousands, of times, but never taken notice.
"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
- Gabrielle Roy
Where? See here.
"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
- Gabrielle Roy
Where? See here.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
How much damage is a mine worth? (Not a rhetorical question)
How much environmental damage is justified as a trade-off for the jobs and revenue from a big new open-pit mine?
The proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. Good news.
And it would require turning a lake into a tailings dump and have "significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations," according to a federal environmental review. Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk. Bad news.
So what's your decision - approve the mine, or reject it?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the federal cabinet will face that question in the next few months.
It's a pivotal moment for B.C. And the Prosperity file is an illustration of how poorly the current approval process serves the public interest.
There's a bit of irony in all this. The mining industry has worked hard to improve its image. Too hard, perhaps. It's painted a soft-focus picture of deer grazing amidst the pines on a former mine site. That's what people now expect.
Really, mines almost always mean environmental damage. (So do the communities we live in and airplanes.)
Unless you're prepared to say B.C. is off limits to new mines, the issue should be balance. What's the public benefit - jobs, government revenue, opportunities for new businesses - and what are the costs?
Taseko Mines has been in the approval process since 1995 and has spent about $100 million to get this far. It wants to dig a big open-pit mine over 20 years, then let it fill up with water. A trout lake would be turned into a tailings dump, to be replaced ultimately by a new man-made lake. There would be a mill, roads and a 125-kilometre power line cut through the forest.
Taseko figures it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40-per-cent pretax return. The public, which owns the minerals, gets $400 million. (That's one of the places where the process breaks down.)
The B.C. government's environmental assessment process was completed late last year; in January, Environment Minister Barry Penner and then-mines minister Blair Lekstrom said the project should go ahead.
But he federal review rejected some of the key conclusions of the provincial assessment, especially around First Nations' rights. (The governments have been talking about creating a single process; this project raises questions about what standards would be in place - Ottawa's, or the apparently more relaxed provincial rules.)
One missing element is a chance to adjust the deal to get the best deal for the public.
Taseko could build a tailings pond instead of destroying the lakes, for example, though that would add to the $800-million project cost.
Or the company could attempt to address First Nations' concerns through economic measures.
Taseko maintains the federal cabinet will approve the project.
But the company's shareholders appear less confident. The stock plummeted after the federal panel report; it's still down about 20 per. The value of the company has dropped by about $165 million.
The concern doesn't just reflect the uncertainty around federal government approval. First Nations have promised to fight the mine in the courts. The federal environmental assessment report gives them useful ammunition.
There is no easy response to this kind of proposal. The region is facing tough economic times for decades, in part because of the pine beetle disaster. The jobs would be welcome.
And the mining industry will likely say B.C. is a bad place to invest if approval isn't granted.
Two elements are missing from this process: Greater transparency in the way politicians make the final decisions and more opportunities for negotiated steps to balance the costs and benefits.
Footnote: Here's an indication of the uncertainty around the assessment. The CBC report was headlined "Panel sees BC mine as environmental threat." The Vancouver Sun said "Federal panel remains neutral on proposed Prosperity mine." And the Globe and Mail headline was "Environmental review puts future of BC copper-gold mine in doubt."
The proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. Good news.
And it would require turning a lake into a tailings dump and have "significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations," according to a federal environmental review. Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk. Bad news.
So what's your decision - approve the mine, or reject it?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the federal cabinet will face that question in the next few months.
It's a pivotal moment for B.C. And the Prosperity file is an illustration of how poorly the current approval process serves the public interest.
There's a bit of irony in all this. The mining industry has worked hard to improve its image. Too hard, perhaps. It's painted a soft-focus picture of deer grazing amidst the pines on a former mine site. That's what people now expect.
Really, mines almost always mean environmental damage. (So do the communities we live in and airplanes.)
Unless you're prepared to say B.C. is off limits to new mines, the issue should be balance. What's the public benefit - jobs, government revenue, opportunities for new businesses - and what are the costs?
Taseko Mines has been in the approval process since 1995 and has spent about $100 million to get this far. It wants to dig a big open-pit mine over 20 years, then let it fill up with water. A trout lake would be turned into a tailings dump, to be replaced ultimately by a new man-made lake. There would be a mill, roads and a 125-kilometre power line cut through the forest.
Taseko figures it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40-per-cent pretax return. The public, which owns the minerals, gets $400 million. (That's one of the places where the process breaks down.)
The B.C. government's environmental assessment process was completed late last year; in January, Environment Minister Barry Penner and then-mines minister Blair Lekstrom said the project should go ahead.
But he federal review rejected some of the key conclusions of the provincial assessment, especially around First Nations' rights. (The governments have been talking about creating a single process; this project raises questions about what standards would be in place - Ottawa's, or the apparently more relaxed provincial rules.)
One missing element is a chance to adjust the deal to get the best deal for the public.
Taseko could build a tailings pond instead of destroying the lakes, for example, though that would add to the $800-million project cost.
Or the company could attempt to address First Nations' concerns through economic measures.
Taseko maintains the federal cabinet will approve the project.
But the company's shareholders appear less confident. The stock plummeted after the federal panel report; it's still down about 20 per. The value of the company has dropped by about $165 million.
The concern doesn't just reflect the uncertainty around federal government approval. First Nations have promised to fight the mine in the courts. The federal environmental assessment report gives them useful ammunition.
There is no easy response to this kind of proposal. The region is facing tough economic times for decades, in part because of the pine beetle disaster. The jobs would be welcome.
And the mining industry will likely say B.C. is a bad place to invest if approval isn't granted.
Two elements are missing from this process: Greater transparency in the way politicians make the final decisions and more opportunities for negotiated steps to balance the costs and benefits.
Footnote: Here's an indication of the uncertainty around the assessment. The CBC report was headlined "Panel sees BC mine as environmental threat." The Vancouver Sun said "Federal panel remains neutral on proposed Prosperity mine." And the Globe and Mail headline was "Environmental review puts future of BC copper-gold mine in doubt."
Monday, July 05, 2010
Some good news on addicton, crime and mental illness
There is much encouraging in this report on an effort in Victoria to reduce the number of people with addictions and mental illness caught in a perpetual, stupid relationship with the criminal justice system.
Perhaps most usefully, the integrated court project is a reminder that individuals can — and are — finding ways to make progress.
Perhaps most usefully, the integrated court project is a reminder that individuals can — and are — finding ways to make progress.
Friday, July 02, 2010
The business groups baffling attack on the anti-HST petitions
The legal attack on the HST petition by business groups is terrible for the Liberals.
In fact, when the release announcing the court action showed up in my inbox, I wondered if it was a hoax.
It wasn’t.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries; Mining Association of B.C.; Independent Contractors and Businesses Association; Western Convenience Stores Association; Coast Forest Products Association; and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
The work of hundreds of volunteers and the signatures of more than 700,000 people would then be junked.
Under the initiative process, proponents draft a bill to go before the legislature, in this case the HST Extinguishment Act.
The business group’s main argument is that the HST has now been imposed by federal legislation. The B.C. legislature can’t vote to undo a federal law, it says, and the courts should declare the petition not valid.
Maybe they’re right. The court will decide. (Although Elections B.C. approved the initiative after a legal review.)
But in waging an unnecessary fight to protect the harmonized sales tax, the business groups are doing more damage to the Liberals’ already battered chances of winning the next election.
The intent of the petition is clear — to tell the government to cancel the tax.
And that is within the province’s power. If the B.C. Liberal government accepted the voters’ wishes and asked the federal government to let the province out of the deal, the federal Conservatives would likely go along. They have seen the anger directed at the provincial Liberals; no minority government wants to turn its candidates into pariahs.
The legal challenge reinforces the impression that the Liberals are governing in the interests of business, not individuals and families.
And the timing seems certain to infuriate the people who supported the anti-HST initiative.
The business groups announced their challenge the day before Bill Vander Zalm and supporters delivered petitions with the names of more than 700,000 British Columbians to Elections B.C.
That’s 11 weeks after the petition information was made public. It’s three weeks after former attorney general Geoff Plant wrote an article in the Vancouver Sun questioning the petition’s legality.
The last-minute intervention will be seen as an attempt to sink the effort after the volunteers have done all the work.
It’s baffling. The government is not going to retreat on the HST anyway, barring a Liberal leadership change. The business groups’ effort seems unnecessary.
If they win, HST opponents will feel cheated. They will still expect the government to act on the petition, signed by about the number of people who voted Liberal in the last election.
And there is the issue of political donations. The Vancouver Sun noted that the Independent Contractors and Business Association has contributed $62,455 to the Liberals since 2005, the Coast Forest Products Association $61,700, the Council of Forest Industries has $24,615, the Mining Association of B.C. $13,180 and the Western Convenience Store Association gave $500.
But the $162,000 is a small part of the picture. Members of the forest industry council contributed another $957,000 to the Liberals in the same period; mining association member companies contributed $913,000.
Which is all perfectly legal; B.C. electoral laws set no limits on corporate, union or individual donations.
But again, some of those volunteers who spent days gathering petitions are likely to believe that the big donations earned the companies special benefits — including the HST's $1.9-billion tax cut for business, with the costs shifted onto individuals and families.
If the petition is tossed, the Liberals will be blamed. The recall campaigns will be energized.
And the growing perception that the Liberals aren’t listening will be reinforced.
The business groups have, oddly, increased the chances of an NDP government after 2013.
Footnote: How bad could this get? Here’s Rick Jeffrey of the Coast Forest Products Association in the Globe and Mail. “We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition – they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn’t really know what they were signing.”
Not just wrong, but hapless, witless dupes.
In fact, when the release announcing the court action showed up in my inbox, I wondered if it was a hoax.
It wasn’t.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries; Mining Association of B.C.; Independent Contractors and Businesses Association; Western Convenience Stores Association; Coast Forest Products Association; and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
The work of hundreds of volunteers and the signatures of more than 700,000 people would then be junked.
Under the initiative process, proponents draft a bill to go before the legislature, in this case the HST Extinguishment Act.
The business group’s main argument is that the HST has now been imposed by federal legislation. The B.C. legislature can’t vote to undo a federal law, it says, and the courts should declare the petition not valid.
Maybe they’re right. The court will decide. (Although Elections B.C. approved the initiative after a legal review.)
But in waging an unnecessary fight to protect the harmonized sales tax, the business groups are doing more damage to the Liberals’ already battered chances of winning the next election.
The intent of the petition is clear — to tell the government to cancel the tax.
And that is within the province’s power. If the B.C. Liberal government accepted the voters’ wishes and asked the federal government to let the province out of the deal, the federal Conservatives would likely go along. They have seen the anger directed at the provincial Liberals; no minority government wants to turn its candidates into pariahs.
The legal challenge reinforces the impression that the Liberals are governing in the interests of business, not individuals and families.
And the timing seems certain to infuriate the people who supported the anti-HST initiative.
The business groups announced their challenge the day before Bill Vander Zalm and supporters delivered petitions with the names of more than 700,000 British Columbians to Elections B.C.
That’s 11 weeks after the petition information was made public. It’s three weeks after former attorney general Geoff Plant wrote an article in the Vancouver Sun questioning the petition’s legality.
The last-minute intervention will be seen as an attempt to sink the effort after the volunteers have done all the work.
It’s baffling. The government is not going to retreat on the HST anyway, barring a Liberal leadership change. The business groups’ effort seems unnecessary.
If they win, HST opponents will feel cheated. They will still expect the government to act on the petition, signed by about the number of people who voted Liberal in the last election.
And there is the issue of political donations. The Vancouver Sun noted that the Independent Contractors and Business Association has contributed $62,455 to the Liberals since 2005, the Coast Forest Products Association $61,700, the Council of Forest Industries has $24,615, the Mining Association of B.C. $13,180 and the Western Convenience Store Association gave $500.
But the $162,000 is a small part of the picture. Members of the forest industry council contributed another $957,000 to the Liberals in the same period; mining association member companies contributed $913,000.
Which is all perfectly legal; B.C. electoral laws set no limits on corporate, union or individual donations.
But again, some of those volunteers who spent days gathering petitions are likely to believe that the big donations earned the companies special benefits — including the HST's $1.9-billion tax cut for business, with the costs shifted onto individuals and families.
If the petition is tossed, the Liberals will be blamed. The recall campaigns will be energized.
And the growing perception that the Liberals aren’t listening will be reinforced.
The business groups have, oddly, increased the chances of an NDP government after 2013.
Footnote: How bad could this get? Here’s Rick Jeffrey of the Coast Forest Products Association in the Globe and Mail. “We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition – they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn’t really know what they were signing.”
Not just wrong, but hapless, witless dupes.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
An HST review worth a read
Now that you're paying the harmonized sales tax, I suggested heading over here for Sacha Peter's "spin-free discussion on HST." It's an excellent primer on the tax and its impact.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Questions raised about why prosecutors didn't charge officers in Dziekanski's death
Why did the province's criminal justice branch decide against charges in Robert Dziekanski's death without gathering the needed facts?
In the aftermath of the Braidwood inquiry, the government appointed Richard Peck as a special prosecutor to review the decision not to lay charges.
This week, Peck recommended the file be re-opened. The government news release said Peck cited “factual material that was not available to the branch at the time, including but not limited to expert video analysis and expert opinions relating to the reasonableness of the escalation and de-escalation of force.”
Note that he is not referring to newly discovered evidence or information that was beyond the reach of the criminal justice branch when it decided against charges.
Which raises the obvious question: Why did prosecutors and senior lawyers in the Attorney General's Ministry make a decision on charges without those expert opinions?
It can't be lack of funds - the RCMP had enough money to send four officers to Poland to dig into Dziekanski's background.
And it wasn't time pressure. The decision not to lay charges came 14 months after Dziekanski died.
And the branch should have known of the public interest in the case and concern that the investigation of the four officer's actions was done by the Lower Mainland's integrated homicide investigation team, which includes the RCMP.
So why didn't the branch ask independent experts to review the video and the officer's actions?
At the time, a spokesman for the branch said the force used to subdue and restrain Dziekanski was "reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances." There was no substantial likelihood of conviction on any charges, he said.
Most people who watched the video would disagree. The Braidwood inquiry did.
And at the least, most people would believe the evidence should be put before a judge or jury for a decision.
The government needs to explain two things: Why did it disagree; and why did it not seek independent expert opinions, as Braidwood did, before deciding the officers should not face charges.
In the aftermath of the Braidwood inquiry, the government appointed Richard Peck as a special prosecutor to review the decision not to lay charges.
This week, Peck recommended the file be re-opened. The government news release said Peck cited “factual material that was not available to the branch at the time, including but not limited to expert video analysis and expert opinions relating to the reasonableness of the escalation and de-escalation of force.”
Note that he is not referring to newly discovered evidence or information that was beyond the reach of the criminal justice branch when it decided against charges.
Which raises the obvious question: Why did prosecutors and senior lawyers in the Attorney General's Ministry make a decision on charges without those expert opinions?
It can't be lack of funds - the RCMP had enough money to send four officers to Poland to dig into Dziekanski's background.
And it wasn't time pressure. The decision not to lay charges came 14 months after Dziekanski died.
And the branch should have known of the public interest in the case and concern that the investigation of the four officer's actions was done by the Lower Mainland's integrated homicide investigation team, which includes the RCMP.
So why didn't the branch ask independent experts to review the video and the officer's actions?
At the time, a spokesman for the branch said the force used to subdue and restrain Dziekanski was "reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances." There was no substantial likelihood of conviction on any charges, he said.
Most people who watched the video would disagree. The Braidwood inquiry did.
And at the least, most people would believe the evidence should be put before a judge or jury for a decision.
The government needs to explain two things: Why did it disagree; and why did it not seek independent expert opinions, as Braidwood did, before deciding the officers should not face charges.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Business tries to sink HST initiative, at great cost to the Liberals
This is such a bad idea I wondered at first if it was a hoax e-mail.
The province's big business organizations have gone to court to argue that the anti-HST initiative petition should be declared invalid and tossed.
People who signed the petition were supporting a bill eliminating the HST. The business groups maintain that the federal government has responsibility for the tax and provincial legislation killing it would be unconstitutional.
The courts will sort out the arguments. But the last-minute effort to thwart the initiative is a disaster for the Liberals. The legal challenge reinforces the public perception that the tax benefits corporations, not individuals and families.
If it's successful, the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition will feel cheated. And the Liberals' chance of re-election in 2013 would shrink dramatically.
Surely the last thing the business community should want is an NDP government in three years.
Update:
Here's an example of how badly this could unfold, from Justine Hunter's article on the legal challenge in the Globe.
“We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition – they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn’t really know what they were signing,” said Rick Jeffrey, president of the Council of Forest Industries.
So it's not that the business groups disagree with the people who signed the petition; just that they think those 700,000 people are dupes too dim to know what they were signing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement re launch of Judicial Review of HST initiative
Business Groups Seek Certainty on Validity of HST Extinguishment Act
Vancouver (June 29, 2010) - In a June 4, 2010 article in the Vancouver Sun, former BC Attorney General Geoff Plant questions the constitutional validity of the draft bill at the heart of the anti-HST initiative – the so-called “HST Extinguishment Act.”
Mr. Plant’s argument is rooted neither in the politics nor in the substantive merits of the HST itself. Rather, he focuses on whether or not the draft bill at the core of the anti-HST initiative can, constitutionally speaking, become law in British Columbia. If the draft legislation is unconstitutional, the B.C. legislature will be legally unable to enact the bill as drafted by its proponents, regardless of how many signatures the petition receives.
The vast majority of B.C. business organizations support the HST as an integral component of the province’s long-term economic prosperity. The tax will make B.C. businesses more competitive in Canada and around the world, and will encourage investment and job creation in the province. However, concerns about the constitutionality of the draft HST Extinguishment Act – such as those raised by Mr. Plant – give rise to uncertainty about the future of the province’s tax policy. This uncertainty has the potential to harm B.C. businesses and the economy at large.
Concerned about this uncertainty, a number of business associations have today filed for Judicial Review of the decision to approve the initiative petition and its draft bill in the first place. This process will enable a judge to make a simple determination as to whether the draft bill is constitutionally valid and therefore suitable for introduction to the Legislature. The petitioners are the Council of Forest Industries, the Mining Association of British Columbia, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Western Convenience Stores Association, the Coast Forest Products Association, and the BC Chamber of Commerce.
We are hopeful that the Judicial Review we have requested can be completed expeditiously, providing British Columbians with certainty and confidence that considerable time and money will not be expended on a draft bill that is constitutionally unsound and therefore incapable of becoming law. The Judicial Review will provide clarity as to whether or not the petition can legally move forward.
Seeking judicial review at this juncture will avoid the considerable legal confusion that would result if the initiative process were to proceed unchecked on its current course. There should be no hesitation whatsoever in taking the necessary steps to ensure that British Columbians are presented with all the pertinent facts as they consider government policies that will profoundly impact the province’s future.
- 30 -
For further information, contact:
John Allan, President & CEO, Council of Forest Industries
Pierre Gratton, President & CEO, Mining Association of BC
Philip Hochstein, President, Independent Contractors & Businesses Assoc.
Wayne Hoskins, President, Western Convenience Stores Association
Rick Jeffery, President & CEO, Coast Forest Products Association
John Winter, President & CEO, BC Chamber of Commerce
The province's big business organizations have gone to court to argue that the anti-HST initiative petition should be declared invalid and tossed.
People who signed the petition were supporting a bill eliminating the HST. The business groups maintain that the federal government has responsibility for the tax and provincial legislation killing it would be unconstitutional.
The courts will sort out the arguments. But the last-minute effort to thwart the initiative is a disaster for the Liberals. The legal challenge reinforces the public perception that the tax benefits corporations, not individuals and families.
If it's successful, the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition will feel cheated. And the Liberals' chance of re-election in 2013 would shrink dramatically.
Surely the last thing the business community should want is an NDP government in three years.
Update:
Here's an example of how badly this could unfold, from Justine Hunter's article on the legal challenge in the Globe.
“We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition – they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn’t really know what they were signing,” said Rick Jeffrey, president of the Council of Forest Industries.
So it's not that the business groups disagree with the people who signed the petition; just that they think those 700,000 people are dupes too dim to know what they were signing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement re launch of Judicial Review of HST initiative
Business Groups Seek Certainty on Validity of HST Extinguishment Act
Vancouver (June 29, 2010) - In a June 4, 2010 article in the Vancouver Sun, former BC Attorney General Geoff Plant questions the constitutional validity of the draft bill at the heart of the anti-HST initiative – the so-called “HST Extinguishment Act.”
Mr. Plant’s argument is rooted neither in the politics nor in the substantive merits of the HST itself. Rather, he focuses on whether or not the draft bill at the core of the anti-HST initiative can, constitutionally speaking, become law in British Columbia. If the draft legislation is unconstitutional, the B.C. legislature will be legally unable to enact the bill as drafted by its proponents, regardless of how many signatures the petition receives.
The vast majority of B.C. business organizations support the HST as an integral component of the province’s long-term economic prosperity. The tax will make B.C. businesses more competitive in Canada and around the world, and will encourage investment and job creation in the province. However, concerns about the constitutionality of the draft HST Extinguishment Act – such as those raised by Mr. Plant – give rise to uncertainty about the future of the province’s tax policy. This uncertainty has the potential to harm B.C. businesses and the economy at large.
Concerned about this uncertainty, a number of business associations have today filed for Judicial Review of the decision to approve the initiative petition and its draft bill in the first place. This process will enable a judge to make a simple determination as to whether the draft bill is constitutionally valid and therefore suitable for introduction to the Legislature. The petitioners are the Council of Forest Industries, the Mining Association of British Columbia, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Western Convenience Stores Association, the Coast Forest Products Association, and the BC Chamber of Commerce.
We are hopeful that the Judicial Review we have requested can be completed expeditiously, providing British Columbians with certainty and confidence that considerable time and money will not be expended on a draft bill that is constitutionally unsound and therefore incapable of becoming law. The Judicial Review will provide clarity as to whether or not the petition can legally move forward.
Seeking judicial review at this juncture will avoid the considerable legal confusion that would result if the initiative process were to proceed unchecked on its current course. There should be no hesitation whatsoever in taking the necessary steps to ensure that British Columbians are presented with all the pertinent facts as they consider government policies that will profoundly impact the province’s future.
- 30 -
For further information, contact:
John Allan, President & CEO, Council of Forest Industries
Pierre Gratton, President & CEO, Mining Association of BC
Philip Hochstein, President, Independent Contractors & Businesses Assoc.
Wayne Hoskins, President, Western Convenience Stores Association
Rick Jeffery, President & CEO, Coast Forest Products Association
John Winter, President & CEO, BC Chamber of Commerce
Summits cost you $32 and delivered little
The big G8/G20 summits in Ontario look like a ripoff.
The three days of meetings cost Canada $1.1 billion. That's about $32 for every one of us; $128 for a family of four.
In return we got mostly bad publicity, thuggery, mass arrests, a sneak violation of citizens' rights and statements of good intentions from the world leaders.
It's useful for the presidents and prime ministers to gather and exchange ideas and concerns. Even better if they come up with agreements on a co-ordinated approach to problems.
But it's bizarre that the leaders had to bring 8,000 other people along to talk about the importance of reducing deficits.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the ugly scenes in Toronto - windows smashed, three police cars set on fire - justified security spending of almost $1 billion.
Among the thousands of protesters, a few hundred were violent. Their actions and locations were predictable. Yet the security measures were inadequate.
What about the results?
Look at a couple of issues. The leaders were trying to figure out how to deal with government deficits and debt.
Some wanted dramatic deficit reductions immediately; others feared that would slow - and maybe halt - the economic recovery. They agreed to cut their deficits in half from current levels by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.
Or more accurately, they agreed that would be a good idea, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Deficits are a problem. Like families, governments that borrow have to pay interest. Choices today mean fewer options for coming generations.
But government spending - like Canada's infrastructure fund - eased the impact of the recession by providing jobs. Cut spending too rapidly, and citizens are hurt and the economy suffers.
It was striking that all the coverage viewed this as a commitment by the governments to cut spending.
That's not what the agreement said. It talked about reducing deficits, which could also be accomplished by raising government revenues - collecting more in taxes or royalties.
The fact the current orthodoxy doesn't even acknowledge that approach as a possibility shows an alarming blindness to basic fiscal management.
Which leads to another summit non-commitment.
At a 2009 summit, the G20 agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The subsidies are costly and encourage energy consumption that produces greenhouse gases.
In Toronto, the leaders agreed again to the "phase out over the medium term of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs."
Not exactly a rock-solid commitment.
Which is shame. According to the last year's summit, getting rid of the subsidies by 2020 would mean a 10-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.
And it would reduce government deficits around the world by $560 billion a year - the amount spent on various subsidies supporting oil and gas and coal use.
Most of the subsidies go to keep gas cheap for consumers - drivers in Iran pay about 10 cents a litre, which costs the government about $100 billion in subsidies.
Producing nations and provinces also subsidize the industry. They offer grants or build roads or cut royalties to encourage the companies to develop oil and gas in their jurisdiction. They want the royalty revenue and the jobs.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta energy policy organization, estimates federal government subsidies to the oil and gas industry at $2 billion. The B.C. government provided subsidies of $327 million.
The case for subsidies is based on the need to compete with other jurisdictions for energy industry investment. So if Alberta cuts royalties, B.C. does the same.
If Canada and other jurisdictions were serious about the commitment, the need to sell resources at a discount would be eased.
There was better progress on a plan to improve maternal health in the developing world, with G8 countries promising $5 billion over five years. But that's less than Harper hoped for and governments have failed to honour past commitments.
Footnote: An independent review of security would be useful. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had 50 observers at the protest and reported police conduct "was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive." Mass arrests of 900 people captured peaceful protesters and bystanders without stopping the vandalism and destruction.
The three days of meetings cost Canada $1.1 billion. That's about $32 for every one of us; $128 for a family of four.
In return we got mostly bad publicity, thuggery, mass arrests, a sneak violation of citizens' rights and statements of good intentions from the world leaders.
It's useful for the presidents and prime ministers to gather and exchange ideas and concerns. Even better if they come up with agreements on a co-ordinated approach to problems.
But it's bizarre that the leaders had to bring 8,000 other people along to talk about the importance of reducing deficits.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the ugly scenes in Toronto - windows smashed, three police cars set on fire - justified security spending of almost $1 billion.
Among the thousands of protesters, a few hundred were violent. Their actions and locations were predictable. Yet the security measures were inadequate.
What about the results?
Look at a couple of issues. The leaders were trying to figure out how to deal with government deficits and debt.
Some wanted dramatic deficit reductions immediately; others feared that would slow - and maybe halt - the economic recovery. They agreed to cut their deficits in half from current levels by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.
Or more accurately, they agreed that would be a good idea, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Deficits are a problem. Like families, governments that borrow have to pay interest. Choices today mean fewer options for coming generations.
But government spending - like Canada's infrastructure fund - eased the impact of the recession by providing jobs. Cut spending too rapidly, and citizens are hurt and the economy suffers.
It was striking that all the coverage viewed this as a commitment by the governments to cut spending.
That's not what the agreement said. It talked about reducing deficits, which could also be accomplished by raising government revenues - collecting more in taxes or royalties.
The fact the current orthodoxy doesn't even acknowledge that approach as a possibility shows an alarming blindness to basic fiscal management.
Which leads to another summit non-commitment.
At a 2009 summit, the G20 agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The subsidies are costly and encourage energy consumption that produces greenhouse gases.
In Toronto, the leaders agreed again to the "phase out over the medium term of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs."
Not exactly a rock-solid commitment.
Which is shame. According to the last year's summit, getting rid of the subsidies by 2020 would mean a 10-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.
And it would reduce government deficits around the world by $560 billion a year - the amount spent on various subsidies supporting oil and gas and coal use.
Most of the subsidies go to keep gas cheap for consumers - drivers in Iran pay about 10 cents a litre, which costs the government about $100 billion in subsidies.
Producing nations and provinces also subsidize the industry. They offer grants or build roads or cut royalties to encourage the companies to develop oil and gas in their jurisdiction. They want the royalty revenue and the jobs.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta energy policy organization, estimates federal government subsidies to the oil and gas industry at $2 billion. The B.C. government provided subsidies of $327 million.
The case for subsidies is based on the need to compete with other jurisdictions for energy industry investment. So if Alberta cuts royalties, B.C. does the same.
If Canada and other jurisdictions were serious about the commitment, the need to sell resources at a discount would be eased.
There was better progress on a plan to improve maternal health in the developing world, with G8 countries promising $5 billion over five years. But that's less than Harper hoped for and governments have failed to honour past commitments.
Footnote: An independent review of security would be useful. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had 50 observers at the protest and reported police conduct "was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive." Mass arrests of 900 people captured peaceful protesters and bystanders without stopping the vandalism and destruction.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
If John Les walks, so should bureaucrat
Les Leyne reviews the special prosecutor's report on John Les and Chilliwack bureaucrat Grant Sanborn in today's column.
Sanborn faces criminal charges for not doing his duty in processing development applications, including a project led by Les, then the mayor. Charges weren't recommended against Les.
Leyne notes the prosecutor found Les and council were strongly pro-development and encouraged city staff to see regulations and bylaws "as guidelines only, with a goal of finding creative ways to make development opportunities happen."
If the political masters told staff bending the law was OK, then it's wrong to penalize staff alone, Leyne concludes.
Worth a read.
Sanborn faces criminal charges for not doing his duty in processing development applications, including a project led by Les, then the mayor. Charges weren't recommended against Les.
Leyne notes the prosecutor found Les and council were strongly pro-development and encouraged city staff to see regulations and bylaws "as guidelines only, with a goal of finding creative ways to make development opportunities happen."
If the political masters told staff bending the law was OK, then it's wrong to penalize staff alone, Leyne concludes.
Worth a read.
Friday, June 25, 2010
No room for retreat on HST
With a few days left before the HST kicks in, it’s hard to see any way out of the muck-filled hole the Liberals have dug for themselves.
No other MLAs have followed Blair Lekstrom’s lead and resigned. Businesses are getting ready to charge the new tax beginning Thursday. The government’s pro-HST ad campaign is all ready to go.
Which all leaves the Liberals in a bad spot. The tax takes effect as proponents of an anti-HST initiative say they have the signatures of almost 670,000 people who want the tax repealed. About 752,000 people voted Liberal in the last election.
If government doesn’t pledge to repeal the tax, the opponents say they will start recall campaigns against targeted MLAs in November.
The Liberals won’t repeal the tax. They’re convinced they are right and the public is wrong; they don’t want to look erratic; and the process is too far along.
The last point is legitimate. Even two months ago, the Liberals could have - and should have - put the tax on hold for proper analysis, consultation and discussion. (None of those steps were taken before the HST deal was done with the federal government.) Now, retreat isn’t warranted.
The harmonized sales tax will cost most people more money. The Times Colonist asked Statistics Canada to run a forecast based on peoples’ spending, the HST and other tax changes and credits. The HST will cost an average family an extra $521. Everyone will pay more, but the cost will be greatest for those with higher incomes.
Shifting $1.9 billion in taxes off businesses and on to individuals and families is bound to mean higher taxes for most British Columbians. And many of them don’t like the idea of paying more to provide tax breaks for corporations, not to improve health care or public safety.
For some people on tight budgets, the extra cost will pinch. But the higher costs will be manageable for most people.
They will also be highly visible. Eat out, pay a gym membership, buy vitamins, use a cellphone, hire a carpenter to fix something and you’ll pay seven per cent more starting on Thursday.
The Liberals continue to pitch the benefits. The theory is that businesses, now facing $1.9 billion less in taxes, will pass the savings on in cheaper prices.
In some competitive sectors, that will happen. But is the carpenter really likely to cut his hourly rate to reflect his savings from the HST?
And many of the industries that benefit sell their goods outside the province - the forest industry will save $140 million a year - so lower prices won’t mean savings for most British Columbians.
That raises the other claim for the HST. If forest companies can sell more wood, then they will be more likely to expand, which could mean additional jobs. A lower tax burden might also encourage business to locate here - again bringing jobs. And, some economists suggest if there is more demand for employees, wages might rise.
The government, relying on a report by University of Calgary economics prof Jack Mintz, says the HST will bring 113,000 additonal jobs by 2020. That’s good. But there are about 2.9 million people with jobs in B.C. today. Adding 13,000 jobs a year isn’t going to create much upward wage pressure.
So the tax will come in. People will see they’re paying more, though not that much. The benefits will invisible.
Even if the HST brings benefits, it’s not about the tax policy anymore. Polls - and all those names on the petitions - indicate people think the Liberals were dishonest in rejecting the HST during the election campaign and then starting talks with Ottawa about the new tax days after taking power.
They are angry at being ordered to pay more taxes so business can pay less, with no discussion or consultation.
And they’re insulted that Campbell and company say the problem is that voters can’t grasp the obvious benefits - that they are, in short, not as smart as their masters.
Footnote: The government’s pro-HST ad campaign starts once the petition drive ends. The risk is a backlash when the public sees tax dollars spent to promote a tax change the public has rejected.
No other MLAs have followed Blair Lekstrom’s lead and resigned. Businesses are getting ready to charge the new tax beginning Thursday. The government’s pro-HST ad campaign is all ready to go.
Which all leaves the Liberals in a bad spot. The tax takes effect as proponents of an anti-HST initiative say they have the signatures of almost 670,000 people who want the tax repealed. About 752,000 people voted Liberal in the last election.
If government doesn’t pledge to repeal the tax, the opponents say they will start recall campaigns against targeted MLAs in November.
The Liberals won’t repeal the tax. They’re convinced they are right and the public is wrong; they don’t want to look erratic; and the process is too far along.
The last point is legitimate. Even two months ago, the Liberals could have - and should have - put the tax on hold for proper analysis, consultation and discussion. (None of those steps were taken before the HST deal was done with the federal government.) Now, retreat isn’t warranted.
The harmonized sales tax will cost most people more money. The Times Colonist asked Statistics Canada to run a forecast based on peoples’ spending, the HST and other tax changes and credits. The HST will cost an average family an extra $521. Everyone will pay more, but the cost will be greatest for those with higher incomes.
Shifting $1.9 billion in taxes off businesses and on to individuals and families is bound to mean higher taxes for most British Columbians. And many of them don’t like the idea of paying more to provide tax breaks for corporations, not to improve health care or public safety.
For some people on tight budgets, the extra cost will pinch. But the higher costs will be manageable for most people.
They will also be highly visible. Eat out, pay a gym membership, buy vitamins, use a cellphone, hire a carpenter to fix something and you’ll pay seven per cent more starting on Thursday.
The Liberals continue to pitch the benefits. The theory is that businesses, now facing $1.9 billion less in taxes, will pass the savings on in cheaper prices.
In some competitive sectors, that will happen. But is the carpenter really likely to cut his hourly rate to reflect his savings from the HST?
And many of the industries that benefit sell their goods outside the province - the forest industry will save $140 million a year - so lower prices won’t mean savings for most British Columbians.
That raises the other claim for the HST. If forest companies can sell more wood, then they will be more likely to expand, which could mean additional jobs. A lower tax burden might also encourage business to locate here - again bringing jobs. And, some economists suggest if there is more demand for employees, wages might rise.
The government, relying on a report by University of Calgary economics prof Jack Mintz, says the HST will bring 113,000 additonal jobs by 2020. That’s good. But there are about 2.9 million people with jobs in B.C. today. Adding 13,000 jobs a year isn’t going to create much upward wage pressure.
So the tax will come in. People will see they’re paying more, though not that much. The benefits will invisible.
Even if the HST brings benefits, it’s not about the tax policy anymore. Polls - and all those names on the petitions - indicate people think the Liberals were dishonest in rejecting the HST during the election campaign and then starting talks with Ottawa about the new tax days after taking power.
They are angry at being ordered to pay more taxes so business can pay less, with no discussion or consultation.
And they’re insulted that Campbell and company say the problem is that voters can’t grasp the obvious benefits - that they are, in short, not as smart as their masters.
Footnote: The government’s pro-HST ad campaign starts once the petition drive ends. The risk is a backlash when the public sees tax dollars spent to promote a tax change the public has rejected.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Why Obama should fire his Afghan commander
Barack Obama has an interesting problem.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, heading up the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, has been called back to Washington. The general, a generally astute politician in his own right, co-operated with a Rolling Stone magazine profile.
The subhead captures the flavour" "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." McChrystal and his aides see the people elected to run the governments as incompetent schmos in their way, the article suggests.
The generals call the shots in many countries. Obama now has to decide if the U.S. is one of them.
Of course, Canada has had its flirtations with the military. Here's what I wrote in 2008 when Gen. Rick Hillier stepped down as head of the Canadian Forces.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defense staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, heading up the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, has been called back to Washington. The general, a generally astute politician in his own right, co-operated with a Rolling Stone magazine profile.
The subhead captures the flavour" "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." McChrystal and his aides see the people elected to run the governments as incompetent schmos in their way, the article suggests.
The generals call the shots in many countries. Obama now has to decide if the U.S. is one of them.
Of course, Canada has had its flirtations with the military. Here's what I wrote in 2008 when Gen. Rick Hillier stepped down as head of the Canadian Forces.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defense staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
Waiting to see if the RCMP will really change
Don't be too quick to think the RCMP has really learned from the death of Robert Dziekanski.
Former justice Thomas Braidwood's inquiry report, even with its narrow scope, was devastating. The four officers who responded to a call about a man behaving erratically were incompetent, poorly trained or bad hires. Their actions weren't justified and resulted in Dziekanski's death.
Their statements and written reports were "deliberately misrepresented and overstated" to try and make Dziekanski look bad and justify the officers' actions, Braidwood found. In other words, they lied.
Yet an RCMP internal investigation found no wrongdoing. No one was fired or disciplined. The force said the officers acted appropriately.
Prosecutors, based on the information provided by the RCMP, decided against criminal charges.
And after the death, Braidwood found the RCMP provided the media with statements that weren't deliberately misleading, but included "factual inaccuracies, consistently self-serving, painted Mr. Dziekanski in an unfairly negative, and the officers in an unfairly positive, light."
When the RCMP knew the comments in false, it chose not to correct them - an "error in judgment," Braidwood concludes.
Incompetence is expected in large organizations. The RCMP has about 27,000 employees, about twice as many as the Canadian navy. Things will sometimes go badly wrong. Braidwood noted the case should not reflect unfairly on the reputation of thousands of RCMP officers respected for protecting communities across Canada.
But the RCMP never really acknowledged the officers had done anything wrong.
Quite the opposite. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologized to Dziekanski's mother earlier this year.
But the apology went through a dozen drafts and Bass, in an internal memo obtained through freedom of information laws, assured his fellow officers he wasn't apologizing for anything the airport four had done. Another apology after the report was released was less equivocal.
While the RCMP was clearing its own, it was diligent in preparing for the inquiry, sending a team of officers to Poland to look into Dziekanski's background. (Which is to say, to dig up dirt). They came back with nothing.
Braidwood's main recommendation was that the RCMP quit investigating themselves when there are concerns or allegations of wrongdoing.
Investigations into potential deaths, serious bodily harm or other possible offences by officers should be conducted by an independent investigation unit staffed by civilians, he recommended.
That's the only way to avoid the perception - or reality - of bias.
It's not a new recommendation. Ontario and Alberta has had such a unit for years. A similar approach has been recommended for B.C.
But the RCMP have always refused such oversight. And since they are responsible for policing about 70 per policing in B.C., the provincial government has never gone ahead.
The provincial government was quick to accept Braidwood's recommendations and promised to create a civilian investigative unit to deal with cases of possible police wrongdoing.
The RCMP, in February, said it would accept independent investigation if provinces had the ability to conduct them.
But it was not clear that the force would also accept the jurisdiction of the B.C. Police Complaints Commission. That too is necessary to ensure true accountability.
None of this is to slight the job done by police officers every day. They face physical risks and complex challenges on our behalf. One minute, they are subduing an angry drunk; the next they are effectively social workers trying to sort out some person's problems. They are expected to ignore provocations.
That doesn't reduce the need for accountability. We give police great powers, including the power to take away the liberty - and in rare cases - lives of other citizens.
That kind of power requires checks and balances that satisfy the public interest.
Perhaps the RCMP will learn from the Braidwood inquiry.
But the culture of any large, hierarchal organization is deeply entrenched. And the RCMP culture has too often placed the interests of the force ahead of accountability.
Footonote: The Dziekanski case cannot be treated as an aberration. In a number of deaths and other incidents in B.C. in recent years, the RCMP has acted in a manner that suggested little interest in accountability or concern about the perception of bias in dealing with possible crimes by officers.
Former justice Thomas Braidwood's inquiry report, even with its narrow scope, was devastating. The four officers who responded to a call about a man behaving erratically were incompetent, poorly trained or bad hires. Their actions weren't justified and resulted in Dziekanski's death.
Their statements and written reports were "deliberately misrepresented and overstated" to try and make Dziekanski look bad and justify the officers' actions, Braidwood found. In other words, they lied.
Yet an RCMP internal investigation found no wrongdoing. No one was fired or disciplined. The force said the officers acted appropriately.
Prosecutors, based on the information provided by the RCMP, decided against criminal charges.
And after the death, Braidwood found the RCMP provided the media with statements that weren't deliberately misleading, but included "factual inaccuracies, consistently self-serving, painted Mr. Dziekanski in an unfairly negative, and the officers in an unfairly positive, light."
When the RCMP knew the comments in false, it chose not to correct them - an "error in judgment," Braidwood concludes.
Incompetence is expected in large organizations. The RCMP has about 27,000 employees, about twice as many as the Canadian navy. Things will sometimes go badly wrong. Braidwood noted the case should not reflect unfairly on the reputation of thousands of RCMP officers respected for protecting communities across Canada.
But the RCMP never really acknowledged the officers had done anything wrong.
Quite the opposite. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologized to Dziekanski's mother earlier this year.
But the apology went through a dozen drafts and Bass, in an internal memo obtained through freedom of information laws, assured his fellow officers he wasn't apologizing for anything the airport four had done. Another apology after the report was released was less equivocal.
While the RCMP was clearing its own, it was diligent in preparing for the inquiry, sending a team of officers to Poland to look into Dziekanski's background. (Which is to say, to dig up dirt). They came back with nothing.
Braidwood's main recommendation was that the RCMP quit investigating themselves when there are concerns or allegations of wrongdoing.
Investigations into potential deaths, serious bodily harm or other possible offences by officers should be conducted by an independent investigation unit staffed by civilians, he recommended.
That's the only way to avoid the perception - or reality - of bias.
It's not a new recommendation. Ontario and Alberta has had such a unit for years. A similar approach has been recommended for B.C.
But the RCMP have always refused such oversight. And since they are responsible for policing about 70 per policing in B.C., the provincial government has never gone ahead.
The provincial government was quick to accept Braidwood's recommendations and promised to create a civilian investigative unit to deal with cases of possible police wrongdoing.
The RCMP, in February, said it would accept independent investigation if provinces had the ability to conduct them.
But it was not clear that the force would also accept the jurisdiction of the B.C. Police Complaints Commission. That too is necessary to ensure true accountability.
None of this is to slight the job done by police officers every day. They face physical risks and complex challenges on our behalf. One minute, they are subduing an angry drunk; the next they are effectively social workers trying to sort out some person's problems. They are expected to ignore provocations.
That doesn't reduce the need for accountability. We give police great powers, including the power to take away the liberty - and in rare cases - lives of other citizens.
That kind of power requires checks and balances that satisfy the public interest.
Perhaps the RCMP will learn from the Braidwood inquiry.
But the culture of any large, hierarchal organization is deeply entrenched. And the RCMP culture has too often placed the interests of the force ahead of accountability.
Footonote: The Dziekanski case cannot be treated as an aberration. In a number of deaths and other incidents in B.C. in recent years, the RCMP has acted in a manner that suggested little interest in accountability or concern about the perception of bias in dealing with possible crimes by officers.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Polak stumbles on issue of children at risk
It's tough to figure out what Children's Minister Mary Polak was thinking.
The Representative for Children and Youth had just released a detailed audit of a government child support program that found many problems.
The most significant was that ineffective - or non-existent - screening meant some of the 4,500 children had been placed in homes that posed risks. The audit found children had ended up in homes with past records of child protection issues or where caregivers had troubling criminal records.
The report included a number of recommendations - the first identifying an "urgent need" to rescreen all the homes. More than 1,000 children could be at risk.
No, said Polak. I disagree.
Polak did not dispute the report's findings of incomplete or missing home assessments. She didn't say why she believed there weren't risks. She just disagreed.
It was an inadequate response to a report involving children's safety.
Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had audited the Children in the Home of a Relative program. The concept is excellent. If parents can't care for a child and a relative is willing to take on the responsibility, the program provides a small amount of financial support - $250 to $450 a month.
It's much better for children, as a rule, to stay with relatives than to go into government care. Their lives are more and stable and they remain connected with family. The financial support makes that possible - and saves government a great deal compared with the costs of care.
But there are still risks. The government belatedly realized that; in 2008, it started a screening process to make sure homes were safe and suitable and the relatives could actually cope. Once we're involved, as a society, in a child's life there shared obligations. The government has acknowledged that.
Front-line agencies have warned about problems with the program for years. The audit found they had grounds for concern.
"These children do, in most cases, become invisible to government and are unable to have their voices or concerns heard," Turpel-Lafond said.
Screening was inadequate and even when risks were identified, there was no action to protect the children's safety.
Polak's talking points in responding to the report were bizarre.
In rejecting rescreening, she said wanted to reassure relatives that they don't "have to be living in fear of us coming and knocking on their door."
It's a bad way for a minister to characterize front-line staff - as people families should fear.
A reporter asked if that meant relatives whose criminal records - perhaps for sexual assault - hadn't been identified before a child entered the home also wouldn't have to fear a knock on the door.
Ridiculous, Polak said.
But she didn't say why it's ridiculous, since the audit found children could be living in such homes.
The minister also suggested rescreening wasn't needed because no new children were being taken into the program.
The average stay is three years, she said, so the 4,500 children would move out of the program over the next several years.
That hardly reduces the risks.
Polak didn't have to accept all the recommendations. But when children's safety is involved, she did have to offer a credible response.
The Children in the Home of a Relative program was cancelled after the representative started the audit. It's been replaced by the Extended Family Program.
The report expressed concerns about that program as well.
Eligibility has been tightened, so fewer children and families will be helped. Some of the changes make little sense. Relatives who have legal guardianship won't be eligible; even though they were encouraged to seek guardianship under the previous program.
And while there are improvements in the plans, funding appears inadequate.
These relatives are making a great contribution and show the way families can stick together. Many are grandmothers raising grandchildren. Many are poor - 20 per cent are on income assistance themselves.
They deserve our thanks and support. And the children also deserve the basic efforts to ensure they are in a safe and secure home.
Footnote: The representative reports through the legislature committee on children and youth, which currently has no meetings scheduled. Given the ministry's response, chair Joan McIntyre, a Liberal MLA, should be calling a meeting as soon as possible.
The Representative for Children and Youth had just released a detailed audit of a government child support program that found many problems.
The most significant was that ineffective - or non-existent - screening meant some of the 4,500 children had been placed in homes that posed risks. The audit found children had ended up in homes with past records of child protection issues or where caregivers had troubling criminal records.
The report included a number of recommendations - the first identifying an "urgent need" to rescreen all the homes. More than 1,000 children could be at risk.
No, said Polak. I disagree.
Polak did not dispute the report's findings of incomplete or missing home assessments. She didn't say why she believed there weren't risks. She just disagreed.
It was an inadequate response to a report involving children's safety.
Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had audited the Children in the Home of a Relative program. The concept is excellent. If parents can't care for a child and a relative is willing to take on the responsibility, the program provides a small amount of financial support - $250 to $450 a month.
It's much better for children, as a rule, to stay with relatives than to go into government care. Their lives are more and stable and they remain connected with family. The financial support makes that possible - and saves government a great deal compared with the costs of care.
But there are still risks. The government belatedly realized that; in 2008, it started a screening process to make sure homes were safe and suitable and the relatives could actually cope. Once we're involved, as a society, in a child's life there shared obligations. The government has acknowledged that.
Front-line agencies have warned about problems with the program for years. The audit found they had grounds for concern.
"These children do, in most cases, become invisible to government and are unable to have their voices or concerns heard," Turpel-Lafond said.
Screening was inadequate and even when risks were identified, there was no action to protect the children's safety.
Polak's talking points in responding to the report were bizarre.
In rejecting rescreening, she said wanted to reassure relatives that they don't "have to be living in fear of us coming and knocking on their door."
It's a bad way for a minister to characterize front-line staff - as people families should fear.
A reporter asked if that meant relatives whose criminal records - perhaps for sexual assault - hadn't been identified before a child entered the home also wouldn't have to fear a knock on the door.
Ridiculous, Polak said.
But she didn't say why it's ridiculous, since the audit found children could be living in such homes.
The minister also suggested rescreening wasn't needed because no new children were being taken into the program.
The average stay is three years, she said, so the 4,500 children would move out of the program over the next several years.
That hardly reduces the risks.
Polak didn't have to accept all the recommendations. But when children's safety is involved, she did have to offer a credible response.
The Children in the Home of a Relative program was cancelled after the representative started the audit. It's been replaced by the Extended Family Program.
The report expressed concerns about that program as well.
Eligibility has been tightened, so fewer children and families will be helped. Some of the changes make little sense. Relatives who have legal guardianship won't be eligible; even though they were encouraged to seek guardianship under the previous program.
And while there are improvements in the plans, funding appears inadequate.
These relatives are making a great contribution and show the way families can stick together. Many are grandmothers raising grandchildren. Many are poor - 20 per cent are on income assistance themselves.
They deserve our thanks and support. And the children also deserve the basic efforts to ensure they are in a safe and secure home.
Footnote: The representative reports through the legislature committee on children and youth, which currently has no meetings scheduled. Given the ministry's response, chair Joan McIntyre, a Liberal MLA, should be calling a meeting as soon as possible.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Liberal MLAs could have saved Campbell
One of the scariest and saddest revelations in the wake of the Blair Lekstrom resignation is that Liberal MLAs were told the HST was coming two days before the public.
They weren't asked their opinions. The decision was already made.
They were told the new harmonized sales tax was coming, it was the right thing to do and their job was to defend it.
OK, the Liberal MLAs could have spoken up. But they were told about the new tax last July 21, barely two months after the election. And 18 of the 46 MLAs had just been elected a few months earlier and were still feeling their way.
Gordon Campbell told caucus it was a done deal and would the new tax would be announced two days later. Resistance would seem both futile and likely to bring reprisals.
It's insulting. For voters, and for the Liberal MLAs. These are elected representatives from all around the province. They have diverse backgrounds and a lot of experience and achievements. The voters respect them. The theory is that they represent the views of their constituents as the government sets policy.
And as well as being insulting, it's dumb.
James Surowiecki writes a column on business and finance for The New Yorker. He also wrote The Wisdom of Crowds, a fascinating book with the central thesis that the best decisions are reached when people with diverse backgrounds, skills and perspectives are brought together to solve a problem.
Surowiecki cites examples. A lot of very bright NASA people, he notes, were monitoring the space shuttle Columbia after it was damaged on takeoff in 2003. They decided it could return safely; it burned up on re-entry, killing seven people.
But while they were smart, they were also all engineers with similar perspectives and experience. There was no one to bring a different perspective.
Surowiecki also looks at the TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Contestants had to answer questions to win money. They had the chance, if they were uncertain, to call an expert - the most knowledgeable person they knew.
And they could poll the audience, a random group of American game-show fans, and go with their choice of the right answer.
Who was the best bet - the smartest person the contestants knew or a bunch of TV fans?
You can guess the answer. The expert offered the right answer in 65 per cent of questions. The studio audience picked the right answer 91 per cent of the time.
Many people together, with different skills and insights and perspectives, reach the best decisions. (If the process allows them to express those views and encourages discussion and debate.)
That's how our government is supposed to work. Elected representatives - MLAs or MPs - debate policy and make the decisions. Historically, they decide who should be premier or prime minister.
But the HST disaster shows how far we have moved from that traditional model of representative democracy.
The decision was made by a handful of people, who were as much, or more, alike as the NASA engineers.
They deferred to the premier. He had spent nine years surrounded by people telling him how smart he was, which does not encourage critical thinking
The result was disastrous. The tax, which shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals, might make economic sense. But it has enraged the public.
If Liberal MLAs had been given a real, meaningful chance to talk about the tax, instead of being treated like sheep, the Liberals wouldn't be in such a mess.
The bigger question is why this happens. The people in ridings send their representatives off to Victoria or Ottawa with great hopes.
And they fall silent in the face of party discipline.
We all lose when our representatives are reduced to irrelevancy.
Footnote: The B.C. Rail corruption trial is providing interesting perspective on all this. It appears Campbell sent memos to ensure ministers mentioned his "strong leadership" when they made speeches. Orders to laud the boss don't encourage full and frank debate of his ideas.
They weren't asked their opinions. The decision was already made.
They were told the new harmonized sales tax was coming, it was the right thing to do and their job was to defend it.
OK, the Liberal MLAs could have spoken up. But they were told about the new tax last July 21, barely two months after the election. And 18 of the 46 MLAs had just been elected a few months earlier and were still feeling their way.
Gordon Campbell told caucus it was a done deal and would the new tax would be announced two days later. Resistance would seem both futile and likely to bring reprisals.
It's insulting. For voters, and for the Liberal MLAs. These are elected representatives from all around the province. They have diverse backgrounds and a lot of experience and achievements. The voters respect them. The theory is that they represent the views of their constituents as the government sets policy.
And as well as being insulting, it's dumb.
James Surowiecki writes a column on business and finance for The New Yorker. He also wrote The Wisdom of Crowds, a fascinating book with the central thesis that the best decisions are reached when people with diverse backgrounds, skills and perspectives are brought together to solve a problem.
Surowiecki cites examples. A lot of very bright NASA people, he notes, were monitoring the space shuttle Columbia after it was damaged on takeoff in 2003. They decided it could return safely; it burned up on re-entry, killing seven people.
But while they were smart, they were also all engineers with similar perspectives and experience. There was no one to bring a different perspective.
Surowiecki also looks at the TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Contestants had to answer questions to win money. They had the chance, if they were uncertain, to call an expert - the most knowledgeable person they knew.
And they could poll the audience, a random group of American game-show fans, and go with their choice of the right answer.
Who was the best bet - the smartest person the contestants knew or a bunch of TV fans?
You can guess the answer. The expert offered the right answer in 65 per cent of questions. The studio audience picked the right answer 91 per cent of the time.
Many people together, with different skills and insights and perspectives, reach the best decisions. (If the process allows them to express those views and encourages discussion and debate.)
That's how our government is supposed to work. Elected representatives - MLAs or MPs - debate policy and make the decisions. Historically, they decide who should be premier or prime minister.
But the HST disaster shows how far we have moved from that traditional model of representative democracy.
The decision was made by a handful of people, who were as much, or more, alike as the NASA engineers.
They deferred to the premier. He had spent nine years surrounded by people telling him how smart he was, which does not encourage critical thinking
The result was disastrous. The tax, which shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals, might make economic sense. But it has enraged the public.
If Liberal MLAs had been given a real, meaningful chance to talk about the tax, instead of being treated like sheep, the Liberals wouldn't be in such a mess.
The bigger question is why this happens. The people in ridings send their representatives off to Victoria or Ottawa with great hopes.
And they fall silent in the face of party discipline.
We all lose when our representatives are reduced to irrelevancy.
Footnote: The B.C. Rail corruption trial is providing interesting perspective on all this. It appears Campbell sent memos to ensure ministers mentioned his "strong leadership" when they made speeches. Orders to laud the boss don't encourage full and frank debate of his ideas.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Lekstrom turns up the heat on Liberal MLAs
Blair Lekstrom's resignation Friday capped a lousy week for the Liberals.
Lekstrom gave up his post as energy minister and left the party to sit as an independent because he can't support going ahead with the HST.
He's been wrestling with his obligations, Lekstrom said.
"I believe that my first priority as an elected official is to the people that elect me and then to the political party I represent," he concluded.
And the people were telling, him overwhelmingly and strenuously, that they didn't like the tax or the way the Liberals had introduced it. About 5,000 people have signed the anti-HST petitions in Peace River South; that's more than the 4,805 people who voted for Lekstrom in the last election.
Earlier in the week, Lekstrom had suggested putting the HST on hold for six months or a year to his cabinet colleagues and involving the public in a full discussion of tax options.
But Premier Gordon Campbell nixed the idea. He still maintains the problem is that people don't understand how positive the tax will be. (That seems to make people angrier, since it can be taken as an insult. And it raises the question - if the tax is such a no-brainer, why did the Liberals reject it for years - including through the election campaign?)
Cynics might grumble that Lekstrom left it awfully late. But it remains a principled move, one that will cost him about $50,000 a year.
The biggest impact will be on other Liberal MLAs. They too know their constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax, the secretive introduction, or both.
Lekstrom's example leaves other Liberals to explain why they are willing to ignore the will of the people they represent.
And while one resignation won't shift the premier, two or three might. At the least, they would kick start the race to replace him.
The resignation came in the same week as an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll that should give Liberal MLAs serious concern.
The party's support has dropped to 26 per cent, with the NDP at 46 per cent. That's still above the amazing lows of the former NDP government in its last days, but not a whole lot.
It gets worse for the Liberals. The poll found three-quarters of respondents opposed the HST.
And it found that in Liberal ridings across the province, 45 per cent of those surveyed said they would definitely sign a recall petition against their MLA given a chance; another 17 per cent they would probably sign.
And they might get a chance.
The anti-HST petition looks to be successful. The government would then have several options in responding to it.
But some of the campaigners have said that unless the HST is axed, they will launch recall campaigns in November. Successful campaigns would mean the seats would be declared vacant and byelections held.
It's difficult to stage a successful recall campaign. Proponents would need signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - not just of the number who actually cast ballots.
But there is a lot of anger and a well-organized cadre of volunteers in place.
Liberal MLAs in ridings where the HST opposition is fiercest and margins of victory were small should be looking over their shoulders.
Some will likely be wondering how much they should suffer for decisions they had no real part in making.
It's unlikely the public will be much cheerier in November. Campbell has been dismal in defending the tax and the way it was sprung on British Columbians without analysis or discussion.
And a planned advertising blitz - at taxpayer expense - is likely to make people angrier.
With the legislature shut down, likely until next spring, MLAs are going to be spending a lot of time in their ridings.
They better be able to defend both the tax - and the damaging way their leader has handled it.
Footnote: Lekstrom has acted independently in the past. He voted against the legislation gutting the contracts of public sector unions and opposed the Tsawwassen First Nations treaty. No other obvious potential defectors among the Liberal MLAs come to mind.
Lekstrom gave up his post as energy minister and left the party to sit as an independent because he can't support going ahead with the HST.
He's been wrestling with his obligations, Lekstrom said.
"I believe that my first priority as an elected official is to the people that elect me and then to the political party I represent," he concluded.
And the people were telling, him overwhelmingly and strenuously, that they didn't like the tax or the way the Liberals had introduced it. About 5,000 people have signed the anti-HST petitions in Peace River South; that's more than the 4,805 people who voted for Lekstrom in the last election.
Earlier in the week, Lekstrom had suggested putting the HST on hold for six months or a year to his cabinet colleagues and involving the public in a full discussion of tax options.
But Premier Gordon Campbell nixed the idea. He still maintains the problem is that people don't understand how positive the tax will be. (That seems to make people angrier, since it can be taken as an insult. And it raises the question - if the tax is such a no-brainer, why did the Liberals reject it for years - including through the election campaign?)
Cynics might grumble that Lekstrom left it awfully late. But it remains a principled move, one that will cost him about $50,000 a year.
The biggest impact will be on other Liberal MLAs. They too know their constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax, the secretive introduction, or both.
Lekstrom's example leaves other Liberals to explain why they are willing to ignore the will of the people they represent.
And while one resignation won't shift the premier, two or three might. At the least, they would kick start the race to replace him.
The resignation came in the same week as an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll that should give Liberal MLAs serious concern.
The party's support has dropped to 26 per cent, with the NDP at 46 per cent. That's still above the amazing lows of the former NDP government in its last days, but not a whole lot.
It gets worse for the Liberals. The poll found three-quarters of respondents opposed the HST.
And it found that in Liberal ridings across the province, 45 per cent of those surveyed said they would definitely sign a recall petition against their MLA given a chance; another 17 per cent they would probably sign.
And they might get a chance.
The anti-HST petition looks to be successful. The government would then have several options in responding to it.
But some of the campaigners have said that unless the HST is axed, they will launch recall campaigns in November. Successful campaigns would mean the seats would be declared vacant and byelections held.
It's difficult to stage a successful recall campaign. Proponents would need signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - not just of the number who actually cast ballots.
But there is a lot of anger and a well-organized cadre of volunteers in place.
Liberal MLAs in ridings where the HST opposition is fiercest and margins of victory were small should be looking over their shoulders.
Some will likely be wondering how much they should suffer for decisions they had no real part in making.
It's unlikely the public will be much cheerier in November. Campbell has been dismal in defending the tax and the way it was sprung on British Columbians without analysis or discussion.
And a planned advertising blitz - at taxpayer expense - is likely to make people angrier.
With the legislature shut down, likely until next spring, MLAs are going to be spending a lot of time in their ridings.
They better be able to defend both the tax - and the damaging way their leader has handled it.
Footnote: Lekstrom has acted independently in the past. He voted against the legislation gutting the contracts of public sector unions and opposed the Tsawwassen First Nations treaty. No other obvious potential defectors among the Liberal MLAs come to mind.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
If health authority boards ran the schools
If you like the way your regional health authority board is working, the government's review of the Vancouver school district will please you.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
Double standard on drunk driving?
A National Post editorial today takes a tough stand on drunk driving and particularly charges against a Liberal MP.
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Want open and transparent? Try Washington
After the B.C. cabinet met with the Washington State counterparts, the New Democrats submitted FOI requests here and in Washington to find out what had been talked about.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Conservatives chip away at offshore moratoriums
It certainly looks like the federal government is making it a lot easier for offshore oil and gas drilling and tanker traffic in B.C.'s coastal waters.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chrétien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chrétien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Vote for the Best party
A dandy political video. (No, not the U.S. one with the guy and his horse.)
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem
Do big campaign contributions influence politicians' decisions?
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Lifestyles of the rich and famous changes our brains
Thanks to Cathy Woods, for noting this interest/disturbing article.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Poverty meeting leaves premier looking bad
Liberal MLA Joan McIntyre didn't likely intend to take a shot at Premier Gordon Campbell.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Things get very complicated if HST petition passes
Even if the anti-HST initiative gets the required number of signatures, there is no guarantee the tax is dead.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why did Liberal MLAs march into HST debacle?
What if just one or two Liberal MLAs had decided it was a mistake to bring in the HST without seeking the public's views?
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Following the BC Rail corruption trial
As well as the usual sources, I suggest anyone interested in the trial check out pacificgazette.blogspot.com.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Liberals stumble, again, on children and families
Monday was a bad day for the Liberals.
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Province's role in capital marina dispute
A proposal for a marina in the Inner Harbour across from the legislature has created a great divide in the community. The marina is to target really large yachts. Opponents fear a wall of big boats blocking the water and problems for kayakers and other waterfront users.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Gulf oil spill burying B.C. offshore dreams
All that oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and washing up on U.S. shorelines is going to have an impact in B.C.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Children lose as government fights to keep secrets
Something has gone badly wrong when the person charged with looking after the interests of vulnerable children in B.C. ends up suing the government to get information.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
