HST report makes the tax a much tougher sell

The Liberals’ hope of saving the HST took a big blow this week.
The government asked an impressive expert panel to do an independent report on the tax, hoping to build support.
Instead, the report trashed the government’s claims. 
The panel did find the tax would help the economy and result in more jobs. 
But it would also increase taxes for 85 per cent of families and reduce taxes for business. The costs to families were greater than the government had claimed. The economic benefits were much smaller. The government’s credibility on the HST was further shredded.
Three issues are likely to come into play in the referendum — the actual impact of the harmonized sales tax, the incompetence or dishonesty of the government in introducing it and the costs of getting rid of the HST.
They all matter. And the report offers the most credible assessment so far of all three.
The report found the harmonized sales tax will cost families and individuals an extra $1.33 billion a year, after accounting for the rebates and tax changes introduced to ease its impact.
That’s $295 for every person — adults and children — in the province.
In practice, the impact isn’t the same for everyone. Broadly, the more you spend the more you pay. Only the poorest people, with incomes under $10,000, will come out ahead thanks to tax rebates, the panel found.
Everyone else is paying more as a result of the HST. For a family with a household income of $70,000, the HST adds $527 a year in taxes on basic living expenses, the report says. That doesn’t include the HST on less frequent items, like new home purchases or big repairs.
That’s far more than the government claimed when it introduced the tax. In fact, its website set up to sell the tax continues to claim a family at that income level is only paying about $107 more in tax — one-fifth the amount the panelt says is the real cost.
The panel found the government has provided — and continues to provide — wildly inflated estimates of the economic benefits.
The government has been claiming, based on a $12,000 study it commissioned after the tax was introduced, that the HST would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020. (The government did no studies or analysis before introducing the tax.)
But the panel says benefits are hard to assess, but the most likely estimate is an extra $2.5 billion in economic activity and 24,400 more jobs by 2020 — less than one-quarter the job growth the government has claimed.
Any new jobs are welcome. But the report is projecting just 3,000 additional jobs a year; B.C. added three times that number last month, by way of perspective.
The panel also found the government has presented inaccurate information on two other important aspects. The tax is not revenue neutral — while individuals and families are paying $1.33 billion a year more, companies are paying $730 million less. That means the HST is, in fact, a tax increase. It also means claims that consumers would also see price decreases because of the reduced tax on businesses were exaggerated.
The report radically changes the cost-benefit assessment from the glowing picture presented by the government. The extra tax on consumers will add up to more than $10 billion by 2020. The economic benefits will be much smaller.
And it will fuel the anger of those determined to vote against the tax because of the way it was introduced. The clash between the panel’s assessment and the information provided by the government will be seen as evidence of incompetence or dishonesty.
The report did find that returning to the provincial sales tax would be costly and difficult. The government would lose the extra tax revenue and likely have to repay the $1.6 billion Ottawa provided as an inducement to harmonize the provincial sales tax and the GST.
But its overall findings are bad news for the government.
Footnote: The government appears to be considering changes to the HST to make it more palatable, including promises of a lower rate. The problem is that it has insisted in the past that changes — such as exemptions for restaurant meals or for bicycles — are impossible under the agreement with the federal government.

You should read this. Really

Here.
And then think about what matters to you.

Opposition choices: Co-operate, or be crushed

The federal election results have sparked a lot of discussion about the need for a party that could unite centre-left voters - people not inclined to vote for Harper’s Conservatives.
That rates a separate column.
But there are incentives for the opposition parties to co-operate now. If they don’t, they risk being rolled over by the Conservatives.
Jack Layton is the opposition leader. But his caucus includes many MPs who never thought they would be elected; they ran as placeholders. Some will likely be effective. Others will hate the job, or be dismal at it.
Unexpected political success is risky. I was living in Peterborough when Bob Rae’s NDP won a surprise Ontario election victory in 1990. Our MPP, who ran as a New Democrat candidate expecting to be defeated by a popular Liberal incumbent, ended up as energy minister. Six disastrous months later, she was dropped from cabinet. It was not a happy experience for anyone. The Rae government was a one-term flop.
The Liberals are shattered. Leaderless, adrift, rejected, demoralized and broke.
And while Green leader Elizabeth May is buoyant now, rightly, the challenges in Ottawa will be tough.
All parties face the end of public funding, one of the changes Stephen Harper promised if he won a majority. The funding - roughly $2 each year per vote received in the previous election - was an overly generous replacement when corporate and union donations were banned.
The change is huge.
The Green party raises about $1.1 million in donations from supporters, and received $1.9 million in public funding. Spending will have to be slashed.
The New Democrats got about $4 million in donations and $6 million in public funding. About 60 per cent of their spending is going to have to stop.
The Liberals got $7.3 million in public funding and $9 million in donations. They too face cuts.
The Conservatives will be affected. As the top vote-getters, they received $10.4 million in public funding.
But they also pulled in $17.7 million in donations. The other three parties combined received $15.1 million.
The opposition parties also face a skillful Conservative government, with - based on the finding of contempt of Parliament - a willingness to do whatever it takes to reach political goals.
The questions around long-term alliances, or new parties, are complex.
But if the NDP, Liberal and Green MPs don’t co-operate now, at least in the short term, they’re likely going to be shredded.

Hallsor on Lunn's defeat, and the election

Bruce Hallsor was Gary Lunn's campaign manager. (And a controversial figure in the last election - see here.)
He offered a simple, but inaccurate explanation for Elizabeth May's convincing victory over Lunn this time.
Hallsor said Lunn's support stayed about the same, and May united the non-Conservative
vote.
That's only partially true. Lunn actually captured about 3,500 fewer votes than he did in 2008.
And even if he had held all his support, he would have lost this time.
Hallsor said May's success was in winning Liberal and NDP support. "We're used to having the opposition split and Elizabeth pulled it together."
There's more basis for that claim. And the vote split was a factor that produced Conservative victories in a lot of ridings this election. The number of people voting jumped by seven per cent — about 4,500 more people cast ballots than in 2008.
It appears the Greens captured the interest of non-voters and had the organization to get them to the polls.

Conservatives poised for long time in power

Assuming Stephen Harper and the Conservatives don't mess up, they are now poised to settle into government for many years.
It's not just that Harper has finally won a majority on his fourth try.
But the victory came largely because of the dramatic collapse of the Liberals. The party, for the first time in Canadian history, fell to third place in Monday's election. With 34 seats as I write this, the party is desperately weak. It faces fierce challenges in the months ahead and might not survive.
The New Democrats made big gains as a result of falling Liberal support and the collapse of the Bloc Québécois. The party, for the first time in its history, has the second largest number of seats, at 104. Jack Layton will lead the official Opposition.
But the NDP surge also is largely responsible for the Conservative majority. (The Conservatives' targeted campaign also deserves credit.)
The Harper party's share of the popular vote scarcely changed, from 37.6 per cent in 2008 to about 40 per cent in this election.
That translated into a 20-per-cent increase in seats, because the NDP gained votes in ridings that had been held by the Liberals. In many of those, the result was a Conservative victory.
The Liberals are left in a dismal situation, which will only get worse. They will have a minor role in Parliament and face a potentially divisive leadership campaign to replace Michael Ignatieff.
Harper's majority means he will go ahead with his plan to end public financial support for political parties. Liberal donations will plummet as a result of their third-place finish, leaving the party short of the money needed to rebuild.
All this should create some hard decisions for the two main opposition parties. The Liberals aren't beaten into the dirt as the Conservatives were in the 2000 election, setting the stage for their takeover by the Canadian Alliance.
But they aren't far off. The Conservatives won 12 seats in 2000; the Liberals' 34 in this election isn't much more impressive.
The Liberals are lost. They can't pry votes from the Conservatives' base and they can no longer count on being the default choice of centre-left voters.
That's almost certain to lead to pressure to unite the centre-left, as Harper united the centre-right.
And those discussions will create additional problems for the Liberals, with members likely to be sharply divided on any alliance with the New Democrats.
The Bloc collapse was even greater than the Liberal stumble, with the party reduced from the 49 seats won two years ago to just three. That's not necessarily a good thing in terms of national unity.
The Conservatives have just six seats in the province; Quebecers will again be on the outside of the national government.
It's also hard to know what to make of Green party leader Elizabeth May's victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands. It's a historic win; the Greens have never had a seat in Parliament.
But at the same time, the party's support across Canada fell sharply and it has demonstrated no potential as a serious political force. May has four years to change that.
Now the attention shifts to Harper. His entire campaign was based on the need for a majority to allow him to complete his agenda (and the perils of a coalition by the other parties).
But Harper still only has the support of a minority of Canadian voters, and he faces some significant challenges in fulfilling his commitments. Big spending cuts, for example, will be needed to meet the timeline for eliminating the deficit, with no clear indication where those savings will be found.
And, based on the campaign, Layton will be an effective opposition leader. His success in the election came from a positive campaign that convinced many Canadians he understood the issues that mattered to them. He now has four years to reinforce that, while portraying Harper as out of touch.
It's customary to claim most elections bring dramatic change to the political landscape. This time, it's true.
Footnote: The Conservatives elected the most MPs from B.C. with 20, but they and the Liberals still lost seats. The Liberals are down to two MPs. The New Democrats gained and have 13 seats.

Reminder on strategic voting

A pretty thorough riding by riding guide is available here.

About those fat severance cheques

The federal election shifted attention from the $2.4 million in severance payments made after Christy Clark decided on some post-victory housecleaning. That's only a small part of the total cost - more people were fired as part of the purges.
The Times Colonist had a useful editorial Saturday, reprinted below.



"Generous severances

Taxpayers should feel abused by the rich severance payments to 13 senior managers terminated by Christy Clark days after she took office.

The payments totalled $2.4 million, or about $185,000 per person. The highest payment went to Gordon Campbell's displaced deputy Allan Seckel, who got $550,000. Paul Taylor received $114,000 even though he had only been hired as Campbell's chief of staff six months ago. The amounts will rise once bonuses are added.

The payments -first reported by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com -raise two issues. First, did Clark need to terminate all these people, or could they have been offered other positions and continued to contribute? Most could and that would have been less disruptive and saved money.

And second, why are these payments so generous? Employees terminated without cause are entitled to severance and government managers should be treated no differently. Political staff, in particular, live with limited job security -if the election brings a new government, they are likely going to be looking for new jobs.

But severance is not supposed to be a windfall. It is intended to provide replacement income for a reasonable period, allowing the terminated employee to find comparable work. Typically, barring unusual circumstances, courts will award something like one month per year of service. Employers sometimes choose to continue monthly payments, rather than a lump sum, and halt the severance payments once the employee finds a new job.

Instead, the government chose to be generous with taxpayers' money. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon noted the maximum payments were equal to 18 months' pay, and said some of the people had been employees for years.

But in the private sector, the payments would almost certainly be much less.

The payments also highlight the gap between what the government considers fair for itself and for other British Columbians. The Employment Standards Act sets out severance payments for similar terminations. Under those rules, payments are capped at a maximum of two months, no matter how long an employee has served. Taylor's six months on the job would entitle him to severance pay equal to one week's salary.

People in the public sector have to be treated fairly, and pay and employment conditions should be competitive.

These payments go well beyond those standards."

The necessity of strategic voting

If we had a better electoral system, then strategic voting would be less important.
But we don't. So if you're a New Democrat or Liberal in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and you don't want to be represented by Green candidate Elizabeth May, then you need to vote for Conservative Gary Lunn.
If you don't want a Conservative majority, then you need to vote for May.
The race is close enough that neither of the two are assured of victory. Liberals and New Democrats with a strong preference have to rethink their choice.
The same is true in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, although the choices are different. A poll on the Project Democracy website puts Conservative Troy DeSouza at 40 per cent support, New Democrat Randall Garrison at 35 per cent, Liberal Lillian Szpak at 15 per cent and Green Shaunna Salsman at 10 per cent.
So Green and Liberal voters who would prefer a Conservative MP over a New Democrat, or favour a Harper majority, should likely vote Conservative. Greens and Liberals who are worried about the possibility of an NDP-led official opposition should vote for for DeSouza.
It's a inexact business - who knows how accurate the projections are. But it's what we've got.

There's useful information on strategic voting, particularly in B.C., here.

What's the point of a legislature that doesn't sit?

MLAs found their way back to the legislature this week. It might have been tricky for some. There have only been four sitting days in the past 10 months.
And since the 2009 election - two years, in which most working British Columbians have put in 472 days on the job - the legislature has been in session for 90 days.
MLAs are still working when the legislature isn't sitting. They deal with constituents' issues and go to meetings. The caucuses talk about strategy and issues.
But is that a $100,000 a year job?
MLAs could also be working in legislative committees, examining important issues.
Except the committees don't meet. There's a legislative committee on health, for example. But the MLAs haven't met to do any work since 2006. I can think of about 20 issues the committee could have explored.
It's the same for the education committee, which also has been inactive for five years.
It's the premier's decision to sideline the committees. But MLAs take the insult.
MLAs used to send more time in the legislature - about 76 days a year through the 1990s, compared with 45 days in the last two years.
More sitting days isn't automatically a good thing, of course. There's no sense having MLAs fill time or pass unnecessary laws.
But real, important work has been neglected.
We're a month into the fiscal year, and the government has already spent some $3 billion. But the budget hasn't even been reviewed by MLAs. What's the point of budget debate after the money is spent?
And Clark is shutting down the legislature June 2, after just 20 sitting days.
That means MLAs will have 17 days for estimates debates - the formal review of the budgets and programs of every ministry and Crown corporation.
The debates are central to any attempt at accountable government - the one chance MLAs on both sides have to question spending plans, raise concerns and suggest alternatives. They should be a time for careful, detailed review and answers from ministers.
Instead, much of the budget will be passed with little or no discussion, because there won't be time. MLAs will be reviewing and approving $2.5 billion in spending plans per day.
There is no reason for the rush. MLAs could stay on the job through June. Last year, the spring session lasted 46 days - twice as long.
So either Clark doesn't like the idea of oversight by the people's elected representatives or she wants the budget passed quickly to clear the way for an early election.
The government's failure to let the legislature do its work has been damaging in other ways.
Liberal house leader Rich Coleman says the government doesn't have much of a legislative agenda anyway.
But important legislation has been stalled as the legislature sat empty over the past 10 months.
Take one example.
The government set up a task force to look at the serious problems in the rules governing municipal elections. There are, practically, none. Anyone with enough money could buy control of a council. The public doesn't know who funds candidates. The door is open to corruption and campaign abuses.
The task force made useful recommendations. And Ben Stewart, the minister responsible at the time, said all 31 recommendations would be implemented in time for this fall's municipal elections.
But last week, the Liberal government reneged. It was too late to make the changes, said Ida Chong, the minister responsible. They would be introduced in 2014.
That's inexcusable. The reforms are needed, as Stewart acknowledged. And a competent government - and a legislature sitting for more than four days - could easily have passed the laws early enough to allow candidates and municipalities to prepare.
Instead, voters will have another round of flawed municipal elections.
The government just isn't letting MLAs do their jobs.
And accountability to elected representatives - central to democracy - is being lost.
Footnote: Governments also don't like question period - the daily grilling of cabinet ministers by the opposition. Based on the first two days of this session, expect a lot of NDP attention to the HST referendum and amount of money the government will spend trying to get a yes vote.

The cost of Christy Clark's transition

Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman has the results of an FOI on severance payments to people fired by Christy Clark as part of the transition process. The tab - which is partial - is more than $2.4 million. Martyn Brown, Gordon Campbell's long-time deputy, left with $416,000. Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in children and families, with $324,000.
OK, a new boss needs to make changes and getting rid of people without cause is expensive.
But $2.4 million is a lot of money for taxpayers to hand over to political appointees. It would be nice to be more confident that every option to keep them on the job in useful roles had been explored.
Holman's post is here.

Christy Clark's costly firings

Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman has the details on $2.4 million in severance paid to 13 people sacked by Clark without cause.
Read it here.

Fear-mongering on refugees

Are they scoundrels or less than competent? That seems the choice when it comes to the Harper Conservatives' proposed legislation on human smuggling.
And the law is just a symptom of our bizarre approach to broader immigration issues.
Bill C-49, introduced after a boatload of Tamils arrived off Vancouver Island, is grandly called the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. (Which sounds like a Maoist slogan.)
All the opposition parties rejected the legislation, which died with the last government. Stephen Harper has pledged to pass it if he gets a majority.
It's a bad law. False refugee claimants are already deported. And human trafficking is already a serious Criminal Code offence.
What this bill does - besides political posturing - is to introduce penalties for legitimate refugees who arrive in a group.
Unlike other refugees, they would be barred from applying for permanent residence or reuniting with their family for five years even if their claims are accepted. They could also be detained for a year without any right to challenge their detention in court.
So a refugee, fearing death or persecution in his homeland, who cobbles together money for false documents and a plane ticket and makes it into Canada is treated one way.
His neighbour, with less money, who chooses a dangerous three-month journey on a ship is treated much more harshly.
It makes no sense. Either people are legitimate refugees or they aren't.
The law was rejected by a majority of MPs. It's unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge. And it won't accomplish anything.
The Conservatives either haven't thought this through or are attempting to use a bad law to win votes.
The sleazy election flyer I got from attacking Michael Ignatieff for being "weak on border security, dangerously soft on crime" suggests a cynical political ploy at the expense of refugees.
That would continue a pattern.
When the Sun Sea arrived in Canadian waters last summer with 492 Tamil passengers, the Harper government did much fear-mongering about terrorists on the ship.
So far, two people have been found to have ties to the Tamil Tigers, a group that used terror tactics against the Sri Lankan government. They have been deported. Another 30 are still being investigated.
The other 460 were deemed no threat and their refugee applications are being assessed.
Still, the Conservatives are warning about the dire threat posed by migrants and citing the danger posed by the Tamil Tigers.
But, at the same time, the party has nominated Tamil Ragavan Paranchothy as a candidate in a Toronto suburb. (Toronto has a community of some 200,000 Tamils.) Last November, Paranchothy hosted a TV special marking an annual commemoration of dead Tamil Tiger fighters. He described them as "strong and faithful people who stood guard for the Tamils, fought for freedom and peace."
And The Globe and Mail reported this week on consultants working in China who make illegal immigration to Canada possible for anyone with money. A federal program welcomes immigrants with $1.6 million in assets, skills and a clean record. The consultants fake the skills and records. The immigrants get a clean way Canada.
The government has yet to talk about bills to curb those abuses.
And, as the Conservative government frets about a few hundred men, women and children risking their lives for better futures, it brings in more and more people on temporary work permits to provide cheap labour.
Canada had 281,000 immigrants last year. But there were 283,000 people here on temporary permits, at the request of employers. The number has increased 76 per cent increase since 2006.
Our government will accept temporary foreign workers to clean our hotel rooms, but won't welcome refugees looking for a safe future.
That seems a bizarre attitude for an underpopulated, demographically challenged nation of immigrants.
Just as it seems bizarre to introduce bad laws to score political points.
Footnote: Immigration is a touchy election issue for the Conservatives. All parties attempt to woo "ethnic" voters, who tend to favour measures that increases immigration, particularly family reunification programs. The Harper party also stress their social conservativism, which aligns with the traditional values of many of the communities.
But at the same time, the Conservative rhetoric on refugees attempts to appeal to other voters nervous about new Canadians.

Everyone is a suspect in Campbell River

When Stephen Harper comes to town, even the Conservative riding association president is a terror suspect, it seems.

Vancouver's killed casino might be symbol of change

Vancouver council's decision to reject a mega-casino - and the provincial government's muted reaction - might be symbols of change.
The casino project was backed by Gordon Campbell and promoted by Liberal insiders who stood to profit. It was cited as justification for the $563-million new roof for B.C. Place.
But many Vancouver residents were opposed to another 1,500 slots. The health authority thought it would increase addiction and care costs.
And a lot of business owners weren't keen. A B.C. Lotteries study projected that gamblers from the Lower Mainland would lose $580,000 a day in the casino. That's money that wouldn't be spent in bars or movie theatres (or, for some addicts, on food for the family).
Vancouver council voted unanimously against the casino.
If Campbell were still the boss, Vancouver's politicians would have paid a price for defying the government.
Instead, a quick provincial government news release quoted Jobs Minister Pat Bell saying the government "respects the province and Vancouver city council's decision."
And the release put some distance between the current government and Campbell.
"We have a renewed government under the leadership of Premier Christy Clark, and we are going to take a fresh look at options to develop this property," Bell said (he didn't really say it, of course - no one talks like that).
It's a big reversal. In March 2010, Campbell and cabinet ministers Rich Coleman and Kevin Krueger announced the project as a done deal. It would bring economic activity, Campbell said, standing beside the managers from Paragon, the casino's prospective operator.
But the deal quickly raised questions.
Start with the B.C. Place roof project launched in 2008.
PavCo, the Crown corporation that oversaw the $500-million cost overrun on the Vancouver convention centre, put out a request for proposals for a contractor to put a new roof on the stadium on Nov. 3, 2008.
It gave companies two weeks to bid on a project that would end up costing more than $500 million.
That was ludicrous. Companies couldn't possibly prepare competent, competitive bids.
On Nov. 26, nine days after bidding closed, PavCo signed an agreement with PCL Constructors Canada Inc. It took 17 working days to go from the first call for bids to a commitment.
PCL was also the convention centre builder for PavCo. Its regional manager was a big Liberal donor.
PavCo's plan to pay for the roof relied mainly on leasing public land around the stadium for the development.
That money could have been used for needed services or facilities around the province, or to pay down debt. But the government wanted that new stadium roof.
So on March 6, 2009, PavCo put a formal request for "expressions of interest" and gave potential developers just three weeks to respond.
Three weeks to come up with a plan for a big, prime piece of real estate in a desirable city.
PavCo picked qualified contenders and on April 20 called for proposals, giving companies five weeks to put in bids. Again, not much time for a considered approach, or to line up funding.
Only two bids were submitted.
And Paragon's casino plan won.
Paragon had tight ties to the Campbell government. Insider T. Richard Turner is a party donor - he gave the Liberals $50,000 last year - and was appointed chairman of the B.C. Lottery Corp. and ICBC by the Liberals.
Turner was well-enough connected that when the government started getting spooked about the huge cost of a new stadium roof, he called then-tourism minister Kevin Krueger and told him the roof was a "deal-breaker." Build it, or the casino deal wouldn't go ahead.
So the government went ahead with the roof, at a cost of $125 for every person in the province.
Paragon and B.C. Lotteries might be back with a revised plan.
But right now, Vancouver seems to have made a good choice.
And the new Liberal government seems to have accepted it.
Footnote: Who knows, the Clark government may even abandon the plan to work each year to increase both the number of people who gamble in the province and the amount each one loses. Clark did run for office in 2001 on a promise to halt gambling expansion, a promise that was quickly shredded as the Liberals went on a gambling spree.

Don't be quick to underestimate Dix

I've already blown it once when predicting how new NDP leader Adrian Dix would do as a politician.
Back in December 2004, when Dix won an NDP nomination, I wrote that the Liberals should be pleased.
"For Gordon Campbell, it's like Christmas came three weeks early," I wrote. "Figure the Dix nomination is good for a few Liberal wins in close seats, as well as big laugh lines in campaign speeches."
Dix had, after all, been Glen Clark's closest political adviser as the NDP government plummeted in public support,
And after police raided Clark's home, Dix had produced a memo he had written that he said showed Clark had nothing to do with a friend's casino licence application.
The memo was dated almost a year earlier. But Dix had actually written the memo months later, got the office date stamp from a secretary's desk, and rolled the date back. Dix admitted wrongdoing and resigned.
I predicted Dix would be an easy target for Campbell and the Liberals.
And I was dead wrong. Carole James made Dix critic for the children and families ministry. He was by far the most effective New Democrat (helped by Liberal bungling).
Dix had command of the issues, raised them clearly and revealed government incompetence and indifference. He made life heck for Liberal cabinet ministers.
And, most important, actually made things better for kids and families who depended on the ministry.
The lesson is don't underestimate Dix.
The conventional wisdom, following his third-ballot victory, is that Dix isn't a great choice as NDP leader. Too left, too serious, too much baggage. Mike Farnworth or John Horgan would appeal to more voters, the theory goes.
When an election is called, likable Christy Clark will move move the Liberals to the centre, serious Dix will take the NDP to the left. The Liberals will win re-election, because most voters are moderate, the analysis goes.
Maybe.
But you could make an alternate argument that if Farnworth, for example, and Clark were both claiming the centre, voters might see no reason to swap a known quantity for a new governing party with a similar approach.
And, as I learned, it's a mistake to underestimate how much a very smart, hardworking and, perhaps, excessively focused person can accomplish.
Dix has continued to be an effective critic and strong constituency MLA. He championed the fight against school closures in his riding and helped parents mount an effective case.
His challenge - aside from the baggage - will be convincing voters his policies won't hurt the economy.
Still, Liberals are happy he won the leadership. The association with the late-1990s NDP government will hurt Dix, they think.
And Clark will portray him - accurately - as a supporter of having big business pay more in taxes. That will cost jobs and growth, she'll say.
Dix has a chance to present himself as the smart, slightly nerdy guy who will make government think first of how it can make life better for people who live here. Who will spend less time listening to corporations, and more to people. And who can pull the fractious NDP together.
Clark has her own baggage as deputy premier in the early years of the Campbell government, and a less than dazzling track record as a cabinet minister.
And she risks casting herself as the defender of the status quo.
I'm not sure how many people are fond of the status quo in B.C.
I'm also not sure people are ready to take a chance with Dix.
I am sure that my 2004 predictions that Dix would be a liability were wildly wrong.
Most Liberals seem genuinely pleased the New Democrats chose Dix to lead them into an election, likely this fall.
It's far from certain they will be feeling the same way as a September election campaign unfolds.
Footnote: B.C. Conservative leader-in-waiting John Cummins was quick to congratulate Dix. The Conservative impact is still the biggest unknown in the election, with the potential to cost the Liberals votes and seats.
Dix might help Clark in her effort to warn against splitting the centre-right vote.

Teachers court win a big challenge for Clark

The teachers' union big win in court this week has created big headaches for Christy Clark.
Practically, the ruling that the Liberals acted illegally in stripping class size and composition limits from teachers' contracts in 2002 could end up adding to the education.
It will certainly make contract talks with the B.C. Teachers Federation, already underway, much more difficult.
Politically, the ruling raises questions about Clark's judgment. She was education minister at the time and a key architect and defender of the discredited legislation.
And it reminds people that, while Clark has been working to distance herself from the Campbell years, she was a cabinet minister and deputy premier for the Liberals' first three years in government, when some of the most controversial decisions were made.
The issue isn't complex. The teachers' union had successfully bargained to have class size and composition limits in contracts. (Composition refers to the number of special needs students in a class.)
In 2001, the newly elected Liberals thought the limits were too restrictive, costly and properly a matter of education policy.
So they passed laws in 2002 to strip them from the contract and bar the union from negotiating the issues in future.
The Liberals had a point. Class sizes are matter of education policy, which should be the responsibility of school trustees and MLAs.
But a sensible government would recognize they are also an issue of working conditions. Unions negotiate working conditions. There needs to be some balancing of interests.
Clark didn't see it that way. The government used legislation to strip the contracts. (In spite of Gordon Campbell's pre-election promise to honour all signed agreements.)
It did the same thing with health workers, leading to the firing of some thousands of employees to be replaced with people working for much lower wages.)
The health unions won their lawsuit in 2007. That cost taxpayers $85 million in settlement costs.
Now the teachers' union has won a similar victory. The court found there was no justification for stripping the contract and removing teachers' right to bargain working conditions - especially when they had agreed to other concessions in negotiations in return for the class size and composition limits.
The court didn't rule teachers had an absolute right to negotiate class size limits.
But it found the government hadn't made any real case that the issues couldn't have been addressed through bargaining and had made no effort to find other, less draconian solutions.
Before Clark and company stripped the contracts, there months of consultation with the B.C. School Employers' Association, which bargained for school districts.
But none, literally, with the B.C. Teachers Federation on ways of dealing with the underlying issues.
OK, the BCTF was a difficult union. (And still is - the union is seeking outlandish wage increases in the current round of negotiations.)
But the government's failure to make any effort before using legislation to strip contracts was thuggish and incompetent.
And costly. If the government had made any sort of real effort to seek solutions to real problems, the outcome of the court case might have been different.
The law on bargaining rights was unclear at the time. The health unions' 2007 Supreme Court of Canada victory changed that.
But practically and ethically, seeking a solution without attacking the bargaining rights of teachers - and creating years of costly conflict - would have been much smarter.
Instead, the government blundered ahead. In court, it couldn't provide any evidence class size limits were a real problem. It couldn't offer any evidence that a negotiated resolution wasn't available. And it conceded it didn't even try to solve the problem without a harsh law.
Those were costly mistakes. The court gave the government 12 months to address the rights' violation, but the teachers' union is not going to sign a new agreement that doesn't reflect the judgment.
Clark faces an early test. And not an easy one.
Footnote: It's also surprising that the government didn't try to negotiate a settlement with the teachers once the health unions won in 2007.
The clear legal victory gives the BCTF considerable bargaining clout in the current talks, which the union will certainly use.

Debate draw is a good outcome for Harper

It always seems a bit goofy to be scoring a political debate like a boxing match or a dog show.
But that's largely what these one-off encounters are about. The four party leaders spent Tuesday evening trying to persuade voters to give them the prize for best in show.
And like a dog show, the ribbon doesn't go to the smartest or friendliest, but to the one who looks like the best example of his breed.
On that basis, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives should be pleased. Harper's message was simple - economic growth is the priority, his government is competent and people should pay no attention to all that talk of contempt for Parliament and wasteful spending.
That's all "bickering," not something Canadians should be worried about.
He had an advantage. Front-runners always do. The other leaders - especially Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff - had to look significantly better than people expected; Harper just had to avoid looking worse.
Mostly, he did that.
But not always. It should irritate some voters that Harper seemed so dismissive of the finding that his government had wrongfully concealed information from MPs and been found in contempt of Parliament.
That is not just squabbling, or political games. The Speaker supported the finding and any fair reading of the record shows that the Harper government's secrecy made it impossible for MPs to do their job of scrutinizing the costs and benefits of legislation,
And Harper's claims that he did not contemplate some form of coalition government in 2004 were contradicted by NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, who co-signed a letter to then Gov.-Gen Adrienne Clarkson that certainly seemed to suggest that was his plan.
Ignatieff spent much of the debate stressing three themes. Harper is an undemocratic control freak who won't work with others; the Conservatives will waste money on more prisons, fighter jets and corporate tax cuts at the expense of the interests of ordinary Canadians; and the only alternative is a Liberal government. "You didn't tell Parliament the truth," he said. "You abused democracy."
Ignatieff was OK. But there was no magic moment of connection that would make an uncommitted voter suddenly sit up and decide that Ignatieff really gets it and would be a great leader.
Layton performed at a similar level. He had one of the better lines - "I don't know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the Senate."
But while he was successful in challenging the Conservative's record and raised fears about their actions if they won a majority, Layton had a harder time differentiating the New Democrats from the Liberals.
As always, Duceppe had an advantage. His job was just to push the other leaders into positions that would play badly in Quebec, demanding, for example, that the province's language laws be extended to cover federally regulated workplaces.
He too had a good line. The debate was based on six questions from Canadians. When Harper responded to the first, Duceppe congratulated him for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in the campaign.
There wasn't a lot of policy discussion, beyond the themes the parties have already laid out.
That was particularly striking when the leaders dealt with the last question, about health care.
None of them had any new ideas or approaches. The issue quickly became how to pay for health care. Harper said tax cuts meant a stronger economy and more money for services; Layton and Ignatieff said any government would have to choose between health care and jails, jets and corporate tax giveaways, to use the talking point.
Three weeks to go until election day. Perhaps some of the debate themes will stick - the Conservatives should be vulnerable on their undemocratic tendencies, for example. Or perhaps new issues, like the suspect $50 million in G8 spending will emerge.
If not, we are likely on the way to another minority government. Nothing the leaders did Tuesday was enough to change that.
Footnote: B.C. got short shrift. There was a video question about crime and light sentences from a man in Gibsons, which never struck me as a particularly dangerous place.
And Layton accused Harper and Ignatieff of imposing the HST on the province. Beyond that, there was nary a mention that I noted in the two-hour debate.

The case for a heritage fund

The Globe had an interesting piece on the collapse in B.C. gas exploration auctions. Oil and gas companies had been paying big prices for gas leases - $70 million a month, on average, last year. But the last three auctions have produce an average $6 million.
The action has moved on. The best properties had been claimed and natural gas prices are low.
Which has Energy Minister Rich Coleman thinking about selling the gas more cheaply by cutting royalty rates.
And me wondering again if a heritage fund for non-renewable resource sales would be more responsible and encourage better government decisions.

Coleman takes first step on B.C. Hydro rates

Energy Minister Rich Coleman's quick review of B.C. Hydro might ease the hit from planned 10-per-cent annual rate increases.
But it remains to be seen if the three deputy ministers tapped to do the investigation will be willing to go far enough in looking at the decisions that landed the Crown corporation in this spot.
B.C. Hydro plans to raise rates by almost 10 per cent a year for each of the next three years.
Infrastructure has been neglected, the corporation says, and it needs to spend about $6 billion - $3.4 billion in the next two years alone - to get things back on track.
And B.C. Hydro has been forced into some costly ventures by the government as part of Gordon Campbell's energy plans. Those too are sending rates soaring.
Coleman has asked three deputy ministers - John Dyble from the premier's office, Peter Milburn from finance and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland from the environmental assessment office - to take a quick look at B.C. Hydro.
They've got a mandate to examine everything, with the goal of keeping rate increases down and will report by June 30. It's a worthwhile exercise. And keeping the review in-house is cheaper and faster.
But it also raises concerns. For example, if B.C. Hydro's dams and transmission lines have really been neglected for years, meaning customers today are being stuck with big catch-up bills, how did that happen? Will the deputies point fingers at their political masters?
And it's unclear whether the three really have a free hand. Coleman has already said he's sold on B.C. Hydro's $1-billion plan to install smart meters in every home. Will the reviewers take a hard look at the costs and benefits?
The review should include a hard look at the energy policies of the Campbell government, particularly last year's Clean Energy Act.
That act, along with past government policies, set B.C. Hydro off in some very costly directions.
The government has insisted that B.C. Hydro make the province self-sufficient in meeting electricity needs.
That means more generating capacity and contracts with private producers than are actually needed most of the time so that B.C. Hydro can meet the peak demand with in-province power production.
It might well be less costly for Hydro - and thus its customers - to continue to buy some power from sources outside the province to meet peak demand.
The requirement is linked with another policy push to make B.C. a power exporter.
But again, that requires commitments of billions of dollars in infrastructure and long-term deals with private power producers. That new power comes at a very high rate; if B.C. Hydro can't sell it a profit, then customers must pay higher rates to cover the losses.
Christy Clark has been quick to signal a new direction in some areas. But the private power companies are keen on the lucrative long-term contracts and would object to any changes. It's hard to know where the deputy ministers will be willing - or have time - to reconsider the policy.
The Clean Energy Act also weakened the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The commission is supposed to regulate hydro rates. It reviews the Crown corporation's applications for rate increases and scrutinizes its spending plans to make sure no more money is being spent than is necessary. That included a review of capital projects and plans to buy energy from private suppliers.
It's an important function anytime there is a monopoly supplier.
But the act barred the commission from scrutinizing a wide range of projects, from the proposed multibillion-dollar Site C dam on the Peace River to the northwest transmission line.
And it prevented the utilities commission from reviewing B.C. Hydro's call for high-priced clean or renewable energy from private companies.
Removing that protection put consumers at risk.
Coleman's panel might be a useful start. But a thorough review of the government's energy policy is needed.
Footnote: The government's position on smart meters is puzzling. The meters are controversial; the best argument for them is that they allow different electricity rates at different times of day. Rewarding people for using power at off-peak periods means less capacity is needed and overall rates can be lower. But Coleman has ruled out that kind of pricing.

Leaders eerily silent on our two wars

It's amazing that we're fighting two wars during an election campaign and nobody is talking about them as issues.
People might just be tired of Afghanistan. Our troops have been fighting for nine years. We're stepping back, sort of, this year.
Still, it's not clear how many Canadians will stay in the conflict, or whether anything lasting has been accomplished. Those should be campaign issues.
Libya is brand new. Canada signed on to a military mission there March 19, just before the election campaign started.
That should be a big decision. As citizens, we bear responsibility for government actions. And going to war should bring the greatest responsibility.
Not just for our troops. In fact, Libya has been pretty safe for them. Our role has involved bombing targets with no real resistance from Libyan forces.
But people get killed when you drop bombs. And once you jump into a fight in another country, you're committed.
This week, people in Libya described a massacre in Misrata, as government troops closed in on rebel forces. Our intervention set the stage for that massacre.
The original reason for United Nations intervention was to prevent Moammar Gadhafi from killing rebels who had been empowered by the spirit of protest in North Africa. Gadhafi has oppressed his people for decades; his people were rising up; the West would make sure they weren't slaughtered, but not actually help them fight.
It was all tidily limited. We'd bomb, but we wouldn't invade.
But surely someone in Canada's government, or Parliament, should have asked questions.
What if bombing wasn't enough, for example? Would we send troops to protect the insurgents, or watch them be massacred?
Canadians needed those answers. The insurgents needed them a lot more.
Stephen Harper, unlike most western leaders, said Canada was engaging in "acts of war" against the Libyan government. That suggests pretty committed support for the anti-Gadhafi forces now facing disaster as they confront trained, well-equipped government troops.
Harper also seemed surprisingly uninformed as he predicted western support would lead to Gadhafi's quick defeat.
"He simply will not last very long," Harper said last month as Canada signed on to the effort. "I think that is the basis on which we're moving forward. If I am being frank here, that is probably more understood than spoken aloud. But I just said it aloud."
But Gadhafi is lasting. He's killing the people who rose up, and who counted on us.
It appears now that Libya could be carved up into two nations - never a recipe for long-term stability.
It's also increasingly clear that little is known about the power groups within the rebel forces or their ability to co-operate if they do control all or part of the country.
After the world stood by as horrific massacres took place in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, Canada led in developing the concept or a "responsibility to protect."
When innocents were being massacred, the global community should not defer to national sovereignty, the doctrine holds. The greater duty was to those in peril.
In the real world, it is a difficult construct. Why Libya, and not the Ivory Coast? If aerial bombings are ineffective, does the responsibility demand arms support for the insurgents, or Canadian troops on the ground? How many years will Canadian jets patrol Libyan skies?
I have no idea. But surely our elected representatives should be discussing these questions seriously.
That has not happened. All four parties with representatives in Parliament supported the Libyan intervention. No MPs asked hard questions about what would happen if the plan didn't work. (The Green oppose the military intervention, favouring diplomatic efforts.)
It looks like a political issue for them. And life or death for Libyans.
The responsibility to protect people at imminent risk of violence is a fine principle.
But putting it into action requires careful thought and planning and a full public discussion of the goals, methods and what could go wrong.
All were missing in the Libyan intervention.
Footnote: Harper has used the mission to justify buying new jet fighters. The argument could equally be made that Canada could have fulfilled its role with other contributions and the Libyan interventions shows just how rarely the costly jets would be needed.

Harper raising trust issues - about himself

It's early days, but Stephen Harper could be blowing the election. He's making himself look like someone who shouldn't be trusted to govern.
Harper's harping on the threat of an evil NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition offers the best example of the problem.
It was a decent enough gambit to kick off the campaign.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion had attempted to forge a coalition government with the NDP in 2008, supported by the Bloc Quebecois.
Coalition governments are unfamiliar - though not unheard of - in Canada. (Though Britain has had one since last May.) And many people would object to a formal Bloc Quebecois role in a coalition.
So it was reasonable for Harper to claim that unless the Conservatives won a majority the three opposition parties might come up with a common program and form a government.
Then Michael Ignatieff clearly ruled out a coalition.
That might have been foolish; a Liberal-NDP government could be preferable to another election. But it made continued dramatic warnings about a coalition less credible, more bluster than substance.
Still, Harper might have been able to keep up the attacks.
Except NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said Harper had laid plans to form a coalition government with them in 2004 if the Liberal minority government fell on a non-confidence motion.
The three leaders even signed a letter to then governor general Adrienne Clarkson urging her not to automatically call an election if the government fell, but to consult the opposition parties and "consider all of your options."
That sounds like a coalition. And Tom Flanagan, Harper's former chief of staff, said the goal in 2004 was to install Harper as prime minister with the support of the other two parties.
Then a TV interview from 1997 emerged, in which Harper predicted the Liberals would eventually lose office when they were in a minority, with the largest number of seats. The opposition parties could then co-operate and form a "coalition" to govern, he said.
A fair observer would conclude Harper was attacking Ignatieff, who had rejected a coalition, even though he had tried to form one and publicly supported the principle.
The big problem is Harper's response. He didn't drop the claims or say he once thought coalitions were OK but had changed his mind.
Harper came up with excuses and evasions. He claimed he hadn't been talking about governing coalitions, but about uniting the right.
That's simply not credible given the letter to the governor general and the clear statement in the TV interview.
That creates a trust issue. If voters believe Harper will say anything to win - even in the face of evidence that he's being hypocritical at best, dishonest at worst - they will wonder if they can trust any promises he makes over the course of the campaign.
And that's a damaging, a self-inflicted wound.
Harper made another serious stumble. When Green leader Elizabeth May was barred from the leadership debates Wednesday, Harper said he was "open to any number of possibilities," including May's participation.
"We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself," Harper said. "After all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support." (That coalition thing again.)
Great, Ignatieff said. Let's have a one-on-one debate.
But the next day, Harper was in retreat. He's only willing to do the two group debates, one in English and one in French, he said. He refused to debate Ignatieff.
And Harper dodged the debate on the same day questions were raised about his tightly controlled campaign. Unlike the other leaders, he will only take five questions a day - four from the journalists on the campaign, one from local media. There are no public events; only Conservative supporters on pre-approved lists can attend.
The election was seen as Harper's to lose. Based on the early days, he might.
Footnote: Getting bounced from the debate got May great media coverage, and she should have been included. More importantly, the TV companies should have clear, consistent criteria for their decisions and the debate schedules. The backroom deals between companies and parties breed suspicion.

Harper's family tax plan misses the mark

Stephen Harper wasted no time unveiling his first big campaign promise, a proposal to let families with children split their incomes to reduce their tax bills.
It's likely a political winner. But it's bad public policy, especially if the aim is to strengthen families.
The big beneficiaries are the rich - people who least need help with the cost of raising children.
It's also a distant prospect. Harper says the change won't come until the budget is balanced, which isn?t supposed to happen until 2015.
The theory is that some two-parent families with children under 18 should pay less tax.
Harper proposes that they be allowed to shift up to $50,000 in income from the highest paid spouse to the one who earns less, or stays at home. The high earner then drops into a lower tax break and pays less.
The Conservative news release offered examples. Someone earning $70,000 with a stay-a-home spouse could shift half the income. Each parent would pay taxes on $35,000. Because they would be in lower tax brackets, they would save almost $2,000.
But the release didn't set out other scenarios.
For example, someone being paid $200,000 a year could transfer $50,000 to a stay-at-home spouse. That family would pay $7,000 less in taxes.
And a large number of families would get nothing out of the change. Two people both earning $40,000, for example, would see no change in their tax bill.
Neither would any family getting by on a modest income, because they are already paying minimal taxes.
And single parents - most in need of assistance - would be left out entirely.
In short, the people who really need help raising their children would get little benefit; the people who didn't would get the biggest tax cut.
Providing this tax break is expensive. The Conservatives estimate it will cost $2.5 billion a year.
That leaves two options. Other taxes will have to go up to cover the lost revenue, which could mean other taxpayers will pay more to subsidize people already well off.
Or the government will have to cut $2.5 billion worth of services.
Politically, it's not a bad campaign promise. Supporting families always sounds good. People with families vote - especially affluent people with families.
And social conservatives see the tax change as a way of making it easier for families to get by on one income, so moms can stay home and look after the children.
That's not a goal that should be dismissed. There are benefits to having a parent in the home with children, to the family and society. Stay-at-home moms - and a relative handful of dads - also make a big contribution in volunteer roles.
But the tax change won't really do much to achieve that goal. The Conservatives say the average tax reduction would be $1,300. That isn't going to let most families give up a second income.
What was also missing was a consideration of what else a prudent government could do with that $2.5 billion a year. Based on population, that's about $330 million a year for British Columbia.
That much money, targeted to the children and families who really need help, could make a huge difference. Early childhood education, longer parental leave, nurse support for new moms, more affordable day care - there are many options that could improve life - now and for generations - for children starting out in tough circumstances.
That kind of approach would pay a lot greater return than a tax cut that delivered the greatest benefits to people who were being paid two or three times the average wage of British Columbians.
But Conservatives calculated the tax change would play well, or believe affluent families should pay much less in taxes.
That's a legitimate position, of course. But voters assessing the party platforms should be clear about what Harper offered in his first major commitment.
And about who would win, and who would be left behind.
Footnote: Why a promise that won't take effect for four years. The Conservatives said they couldn't agree to NDP demands for more support for seniors, a move which might have averted the non-confidence vote and election, because there is no money. That makes it hard to offer any promises not already in the defeated budget.

Both sides to blame for coming teachers' strike

We're heading toward another teachers' strike in B.C., and parents and taxpayers should be angry at the government and the B.C. Teachers Federation.
The bargaining relationship - or non-bargaining relationship - between the union and the government is needlessly destructive.
Worse, the parties - the BCTF, the school employers bargaining association and government - seem incapable of taking the basic steps to fix it.
The current contract expires June 30. The government says teachers will be subject to same two-year compensation freeze as all other public sector unionized employees. That still leaves room to shuffle money around - higher salaries in return for reduced benefit costs, for example.
The union wants raises to bring salaries in line with Alberta and Ontario; by its assessment, that means a 12- to 20-per-cent wage increase. The BCTF also wants to be able to bargain workload issues like class sizes and the number of special needs students per class.
Bargaining always involves some posturing, positions taken just so they can be given up in a later show of purported good faith. But a bid for a 20 per cent pay increase in these economic times is just silly.
Especially because the only justification is that teachers somewhere else are getting more money.
There is no widespread teacher shortage in B.C. Would-be teachers continue to spend years as substitutes because the prospect of a full-time job is so alluring. University teaching programs are over-subscribed.
The union could argue that teaching is no longer attracting the best people, but it hasn't. (Pay ranges from about $42,000 for a beginning teacher with minimum qualifications to $80,000 for a teacher with years on the job and additional education. Holidays are very good; the work is important and challenging.)
Parents might as well begin thinking about how to occupy their children this fall during the ritual teachers' strike, followed by a back-to-work order and imposed settlement. Back-to-work legislation is inevitable in a strike. No government can allow long school closures; the NDP has legislated teachers back twice, the Liberals once.
This is all especially discouraging because the parties have been offered two different approaches that could avoid a pointless deadlock.
Vince Ready, asked to look into a 2006 dispute, recommended a new bargaining approach for this round.
Both parties should establish their objectives eight months before the contract expires, he wrote. That would have been last Sept. 30.
A facilitator/mediator - either agreed to by both parties, or appointed by the labour minister - should then immediately begin to meet with them in negotiating sessions, and where helpful make recommendations. A senior government representative should be at the table. And the parties should develop an agreed on statement of facts about the current situation - cost of compensation and benefits, recruitment issues and the rest.
Don Wright, who reviewed bargaining in 2004, recommended another approach. If negotiations failed, he said, a third party should conciliate. If that didn't work, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement.
Instead, the negotiations are heading down the same pointless path.
The union is far from alone in bearing responsibility. The Liberal government has been both thuggish and incompetent in dealing with the BCTF. It ripped up contracts, broke the law, failed to keep class sizes at reasonable levels and dumped its problems on school districts.
And despite a lot of talk about education, there has been no progress in improved results during the Liberal decade. Schools are good, but not improving.
It's not too late. The parties could adopt Ready's approach and start realistic talks. The government could stick with its no net pay increase mandate. The union could win a commitment to cut class sizes and provide more preparation time. They could bargain.
But in the meantime, if you have kids in school, plan for some down time next fall.
Footnote: Education Minister George Abbott was disarming at the recent BCTF convention and deserves full credit for showing up. And if real bargaining starts, he might wish to talk to Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whose leadership campaign promises included more money for exceptional teachers.

Budget shouldn't have provoked an election

OK, the federal budget wasn't a great effort - mediocre even.
But there was also nothing in it that justifies the apparent decision by all three opposition parties to force an election. Unless something changes, Canadians could be going to the polls - or staying home - as early as May 2.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget presentation Tuesday pretty much offered a status quo approach, one consistent with the Conservative's past practices and election platforms.
The government is on track to eliminate the deficits - ramped up after the 2008 economic meltdown - by 2015. It went ahead with planned corporate tax cuts.
And while spending will be tightly controlled, the budget numbers did not suggest draconian cuts lie ahead. Overall spending in the next three years is to rise by about 2.5 per cent a year. Given inflation and population growth, that means some curbs, but not deep cuts.
Uninspiring, perhaps, but hardly outrageous.
The opposition parties disagree. Liberal leader Michael Igantieff says the government's priorities are wrong, urging more spending on social initiatives and less on defence. (The jet fighter purchase will figure prominently in a Liberal campaign.)
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe wants, as always, more money for his Quebec.
And NDP Leader Jack Layton says the budget failed to deliver on the issues he had set out as critical for winning the party's support, including measures to help poor seniors, pension reform and the elimination of the GST on home heating.
The Conservatives could have made a better effort to find common ground with Layton and reduce the chance of an election.
The budget did offer a $50 a month increase in the old age supplement for the poorest seniors, a benefit that will help some 500,000 people. And it extends the EcoENERGY Retrofit program that subsidized home renovations to reduce energy use, another Layton demand.
But instead of addressing the other issues, the budget included measures that seem more aimed at providing photo ops in an election campaign.
The budget creates a Children's Art Tax Credit, which lets parents claim a tax deduction for the first $500 spent on art classes or music lessons. It should be politically popular, but it's foolish policy. Effectively all other taxpayers will be subsidizing people affluent enough to afford private lessons for their kids.
Volunteer firefighters will get a similar tax break.
And, more usefully, people who care for ill relatives will get a tax credit worth about $400 a year - small, but welcome, and a nice campaign plank.
It was tough to find any specific measures aimed at B.C. in the budget - so much so that a news service roundup of regional initiatives left the province out entirely.
There is $60 million in funding for forest-sector research across Canada.
But forest-dependent communities across B.C. face a looming crisis as pone-beetle-killed wood is harvested and future timber is decades away from being harvestable. They need support now, for economic diversification efforts and retraining.
There is still a chance an election could be avoided, by a measure as simple as having a few opposition MPs skip the coming non-confidence vote.
But it appears that within the next 10 days - and perhaps by the end of the week - the Harper government will have fallen and Canadians will be facing an election campaign.
That's likely to be a destructive effort. Not just because the campaigns will feature more of the attack ads that discredit all involved, but because polls suggest voters have no great enthusiasm for any of the parties or their leaders. Too many of us will hold our noses and vote for the least offensive party - or simply stay home.
And worse, the polls also suggest that the outcome will most likely be a return of the Conservatives with another minority government.
That's a lot of disruption just to maintain the status quo.
Footnote: A federal election hands Premier Christy Clark a challenge. The provincial Liberals are a coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. A hard-fought campaign risks leaving bruised feelings and divisions. The campaign could also limit Clark's flexibility in calling a provincial vote.

Minimum wage increase good policy and politics

Christy Clark’s quick action on the minimum wage is both good public policy and politically smart.
Clark made increasing the minimum wage one of her first acts. The wage - stuck at $8 since 2001 - will go to $8.75 May 1, $9.50 on Nov. 1 and $10.25 the following May.
That will more than make up for lost ground over the last decade.
Practically, the change makes sense. About 40,000 employees in the province are paid minimum wage. Some work for minimum wage briefly, or are part-time workers supplementing family income.
But some are living and even raising families on the wage. Leaving them without an increase for a decade, mired in worsening poverty, is simply wrong and exploitive.
Most of the business community have accepted the need for an increase for some time, even as Gordon Campbell refused to act.
The increase still rankled with some. The restaurant industry warned about job losses.
But B.C. went from having the highest minimum wage in Canada in 2001 to the lowest today. Even after first increase to $8.75 in May, B.C. will still have the lowest.
If restaurants in every other province can operate successfully with higher minimum wages, surely managers and owners in B.C. can.
Some businesses warn that raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect - that all low-income workers will be affected.
But again, businesses in other provinces deal with that. B.C. businesses were able to pay higher real wages in 2001, based on the minimum wage then. Why not now?
And businesses worried about the size of the increase can reflect on their failure over the last decade to support small, regular incremental increases.
There’s an underlying philosophical issue at play.
A free market is generally a good way to determine pay. Employees offer their services; employers bid for them. Those with skills and a track record command more; if they contribute to a company’s success they are rewarded out of fear they might leave. (In real life, it’s not quite so tidy.)
But we’ve agreed people without bargaining clout, who do a fair day’s work, shouldn’t be protected from the effects of market forces. Just because some can only command $10 a day doesn’t mean an employer should be able to pay that little.
Or most of us have. The Campbell government’s long refusal to increase the minimum wage began to leave the impression it didn’t really believe in the concept.
Clark’s quick and significant action signalled a different approach, emphasized when she said the increase was “long overdue.” By phasing in the increase, she gave companies time to plan. And she linked it all to the “family first” theme.
The move was also quite a contrast to Campbell’s first act in government, a reckless 25-per-cent income tax cut that hadn’t been mentioned in the 2001 campaign and plunged the province into a deep deficit.
Clark didn’t take the next logical steps. The minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living or the average wage in the province — like MLAs’ salaries - so big catch-up jumps wouldn’t be needed.
And she could have announced action to help another group of dirt-poor British Columbians who have seen their real incomes eroded over the last decade - people living on income and disability assistance.
You can’t really have a family first agenda when children are being raised in dire poverty. But income assistance for a single parent with two children, deemed employable, is less than $300 a week (and less than a minimum wage job). Those children are in trouble.
Still, changes to rates or to give people on income assistance the chance to earn a few dollars without being penalized - a move that would cost the government nothing - might be just ahead.
Meanwhile, give Clark credit for “long overdue” and equitable action on the minimum wage.
Footnote: Clark also eliminated the $6 "training wage" employers were allowed to pay new hires.
But she announced a $9 minimum wage for servers in establishments with liquor licences. Their income generally includes tips which take them above the minimum wage level.

Harry Bloy and the problem with politicians

New cabinet minister Harry Bloy's performance after the swearing in Tuesday was described as "fatuous" by Vaughn Palmer.
And it was. Bloy was taking his turn answering reporters' questions about his appointment and his new job as social development minister.
But instead of answering, he just kept repeating meaningless talking points that seemed to come from some pre-event briefing by communications staff. He looked dim, evasive and insincere.
It's wrong to single out Bloy. Politicians routinely let themselves be turned into the equivalent of Chatty Cathy dolls. No matter what the question, it's as if someone pulled a string in the back of their neck and they repeat irrelevant prerecorded messages.
I have no reason to think Bloy couldn't have answered the relatively straightforward questions. His resume is vague, even by political standards, but he's been elected three times. He should be able to deal with questions effectively.
But he didn't.
Sean Holman has the event on video here. You can decide if talking points really work politically. Or, more importantly, serve the public interest.

Clark puts together a reasonable first cabinet

Christy Clark's first cabinet seems pretty astute. That's not surprising; Clark is good at this kind of stuff.
She made Kevin Falcon, the close runner-up in the leadership race, finance minister and deputy premier. Falcon was the business choice for premier. He's tight with federal Conservatives. (Clark is a federal Liberal.)
So by giving him good jobs, Clark reduces the chance of Liberal supporters defecting to a provincial Conservative party and strengthens the province's hand in negotiations with Ottawa if the HST is rejected in a referendum. (There is still that $1.6 billion in federal incentives to discuss if the tax is dumped.)
Other leadership contenders also got decent posts. George Abbott is education minister; Mike de Jong is health minister. It will be interesting to see whether they bring energy and ideas to the ministries. Both have been in cabinet for a decade; it's easy to become jaded about the prospects for real change. De Jong, particularly, doesn't have a track record of achievements in past ministerial posts.
Clark also wanted to show a fresh start - that this isn't the Gordon Campbell government version two.
Which, perhaps, explains Colin Hansen's dumping. Hansen was remarkably competent over the last decade, but the HST taint seemed to seal his fate, probably unfairly.
The other striking exclusion was Dr. Moira Stilwell. She's a doctor and radiologist and nuclear medicine expert. She ran a good outsider campaign for the leadership before withdrawing and supporting Abbott.
But she didn't get a cabinet job, while some lesser lights - at least on paper - did.
Clark did elevate other outsiders while dumping Campbell ministers. The biggest jump came for Mary McNeil, the Vancouver MLA who is now the children and families minister, replacing Mary Polak, who is moved to aboriginal affairs.
It's a good sign for the troubled ministry. Polak seemed trapped as a defender of the sad status quo and failed to deal effectively with the oversight of the Representative for Children and Youth.
Clark also replaced Lesley du Toit, Gordon Campbell's handpicked choice to manage the ministry. That change was overdue; the ministry has been mired in a never-ending "transformation" project that has had little apparent effect in improving frontline services.
Overall, Clark shrank the cabinet. It's down to 18 ministers, including the premier, from 24. That's a welcome change; some of the Gordon Campbell cabinet jobs - like a junior minister for building code renewal - were bizarre. It was, however, bad news for Kevin Krueger, Murray Coell, Stilwell and others who were squeezed out.
But the apparent shrinkage is misleading. Clark also appointed 10 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to help with the workload (and ease hurt feelings). (Ministers get $51,000 on top of the base pay of $102,000; parliamentary secretaries get $15,000.)
Clark also attempted to sort out the confusion Campbell created with a poorly executed re-org of ministries involved in land-decisions.
Energy and mines are also once again under one minister - Rich Coleman, who keeps responsibility for housing as well.
And forests, lands and natural resource operations are all one ministry under Steve Thomson of the Okanagan.
The only new ministry is jobs, tourism and innovation, under Pat Bell of Prince George. Clark has promised action to improve the province's disappointing job situation; it remains to be seen if the ministry has the tools to make a difference.
Clark maintained that emphasis with a new cabinet committee on jobs and economic growth and another on open government and engagement, each with Liberal ministers and MLAs on board.
Their effectiveness - and the chance for cabinet ministers to make a difference - will depend on Clark. Campbell started out as an enthusiastic supporter of strong caucus committees, but a penchant for centralized control saw them dwindle in usefulness.
On balance, Clark and the transition team deserve credit for a well-constructed cabinet.
Footnote: The cabinet changes stripped Coleman of his longstanding responsibility for gambling and liquor sales. But, sadly, it failed to address the conflict in having one minister - now Solicitor General Shirley Bond - responsible for both promoting increased gambling and bigger average losses by British Columbians and dealing with the resulting crime and addictions.

Early looks at Clark's cabinet

The Times Colonist has an editorial online here.
One of the most interesting developments is the sacking of Lesley du Toit as deputy minister in the children and families ministry. The ministry floundered under her five-year tenure; Clark is signalling a new approach. The replacement - Stephen Brown - has been working in the health ministry and has an encouraging bio here.
The ministry also gets a new political leader in Mary McNeil. It's a needed fresh start.

Clark success uncertain in coming tough job

Christy Clark was excellent when th e Liberals were in opposition. Likable, quick, with a finely honed sense of how to score points when the NDP government stumbled. She had all the skills needed.
In government, not so much. And that raises doubts about her chances to be an effective Liberal leader and premier.
Clark’s leadership victory certainly confirms an impressive organization. But the fact that it took three ballots to win the support of 50 per cent of party members who voted shows she is hardly the first choice of most Liberals.
That’s emphasized by her lack of support among those politicians who know here best – her caucus colleagues from the old days.
The lack of support has been attributed to Clark’s absence for the last six years, since she decided not to run in 2005.
But it also reflects a lacklustre performance during her tenure in cabinet after the 2001 election. Clark struggled in education. Conflict with the B.C. Teachers Federation was inevitable, given the Liberal agenda. But Clark clashed with school trustees and did not build stong relationships with parent groups. It is difficult to point to any substantial achievements.
Her time as children and families minister was also unproductive.
Clark went from star status in opposition to underperformer in cabinet.
Now she has the top job at a time when the Liberals need to rebuild. The HST was certainly the flashpoint for public disaffection, but it was a symptom for a broader sense that the Liberal government had lost touch with the concerns of British Columbians and – worse - was not particulary worried about it.
Any leader, in any organization, has a matter of months to bring real change.
Clark starts with some advantages. The Liberals have been drifting since the last election – it is hard to think of any clear policy direction or initiatives on health, education or economic development.
That gives her a blank slate to set a new course, to offer programs that address the concerns of British Columbia’s families.
And this month’s placeholder budget gives her fiscal room to put her stamp on government with a mini-budget sometime in the next few months. She has about $1 billion available, for tax cuts or anti-poverty measures or economic development or deficit reduction. She can move beyond talk about families first or other themes to actions.
But Clark also has some problems. Her policy pronouncements during the leadership campaign were neither detailed nor coherent. Shaping them into budgetable progams will not be easy.
And she has to walk a fine line in naming a new cabinet and setting up her own senior staff. Clark doesn’t have a cadre of supportive cabinet ministers and MLAs to draw on. She has to risk putting former rivals in key roles, or perhaps more dangerousoly excluding them. And she has to balance the need to send a message of a new start for the party with the ambitions of the old guard.
Then there is the HST. The Liberals still want the tax approved in the referendum. But pushing that message places Clark back in the Campbell fold, a politically damaging place to be; renouncing it makes her colleagues who have defended the tax look foolish.
The timing of the next election is also an issue. Clark can get into the legislature quickly, assuming Gordon Campbell gives up his safe seat.
But she has also talked about the need for a new mandate from the voters. Clark ruled out a snap vote before the NDP selects a new leader in April, but could consider a vote this fall or next spring.
Underlying all this, there is the B.C. Rail scandal, which will not – and should not - go away.
It was an impressive win for Christy Clark. But the work ahead is difficult and risky and it is not at all clear that she has the required skills and support to get the job done.
Footonote: There has been talk of the challenge facing Clark, a federal Liberal, in holding together the provincial party’s coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. But the risks to the coalition are much broader. Anytime a long-time powerful leader like Campbell leaves, pent-up stresses within the organization can lead to fractures.

Taseko's new plan shows B.C. too easy on mine approval

The Liberal government is looking a little inept in the Taseko Mines affair.
They certainly wouldn’t be a first choice if you needed someone astute to negotiate a good deal on a used car. They’ve proven to be too quick to believe the story about the former owner who only drove it to church on Sundays and too willing to pay the list price without asking any questions.
Since 1995, Taseko has been seeking approval for the open-pit Prosperity Mine 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake. The mine would make the company a lot of money and boost the economy, but there would be major environmental damage and conflict with First Nations’ interests.
The provincial government approved the project a year ago. The environmental damage would be significant, the provincial assessment process determined. A lake would be turned into a big tailings dump, for example.
But the provincial review process balances the damage against the economic benefits. Blair Lekstrom and Barry Penner — then the mines and environment ministers — decided the jobs from the gold and copper mine were worth the destruction.
But the project was big enough, at $800 million, that there also had to be a federal environmental review.
It was found the mine would 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.” Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk. 
The Harper government considered the review, decided the damage was too great and said no.
Gordon Campbell was unhappy. So were many people in the region. The mine would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. The north faces several decades of tough times while the forests recover from the pine beetle disaster; it hurts to give up opportunities.
The two governments took different approaches. The federal government focused on the damage done; the province on balancing the costs against the benefits.
They’re both legitimate. Any major resource project — or new road or trail — brings some environmental damage. But the provincial government’s approach calls for competence in reaching the best balance and making sure the company is doing all it can to address concerns.
The government, as it turns out, didn’t do that.
Because this week, Taseko announced a new plan. Copper prices are high, the company said. We can afford to build a tailings pond to hold the mine waste. We don’t need to destroy the lake after all.
But companies rarely make major investment decisions based on fluctuations in commodity prices over the course of a year.
It seems more likely Taseko thought governments would accept the cheaper, more environmentally destructive option of using the lake as a waste dump. That would save it $300 million — good news for shareholders.
The provincial government did accept the lake’s destruction; the federal government didn’t.
And as a result Taseko came up with a better plan.
That’s not too surprising. Taseko forecasts it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40 per cent pre-tax return. It can afford a significant capital investment. (The public, which owns the minerals, will get about $400 million.) 
It’s reasonable to trade off the benefits and costs of development in assessing projects. But you need a competent government able to get the best deal for the public.
And in this case, at least, the B.C. government failed to ensure environmental protection which, it turns out, the company was able and willing to provide if pressed.
Enter Christy Clark. She made the mine an issue in her leadership campaign before Taseko unveiled its new approach. She called the federal decision “dumb” and promised to go to Ottawa and fight for a reversal. She backed the plan that would have — needlessly — destroyed the lake. The environmental damage was acceptable given the benefits, Clark said. (Stephen Harper said the project’s rejection was based on the facts and wouldn’t be reversed based on political lobbying. The government will review the new proposal.)
The Prosperity Mine case shows the provincial government — not the federal government — was a poor bargainer, too quick to buy the line that the lake had to go to make the mine viable. Taseko has now acknowledged that’s not true.
Which, of course, raises questions about the government’s skill in handling other projects and industry demands for subsidies and tax and royalty breaks.

Predicting a Kevin Falcon third-count win

Not me. I have no idea how the Liberal leadership vote will go.
But Bernard Von Schulmann makes a good case for a Falcon-Clark final count, with a Falcon victory here.

Winners and losers in years of tax changes

The Liberals have been cast as big tax cutters. But not everyone comes out ahead, based on the budget.
Poor individuals are the big winners; middle-class two-income families are the losers in terms of provincial and municipal tax bites.
Since 2005, the budget documents have included a chart showing the impact of taxes and fees on people in different income brackets and family situations. It’s a limited sample, but useful.
The latest budget shows of the two of the six selected examples are paying more to the province than they did six years ago.
A two-income family with two children and a household income of $90,000 — about average now for that demographic cohort — will pay 10 per cent more than they did six years go. Their “total provincial taxes” will be $9,427 — or $16 more a week than they paid in 2006.
The same family with a $60,000 household income will pay about four per cent more to the province, or about $5 a week.
Income tax is only part of the equation. The $60,000-income household will pay $690 less in income taxes, but more in MSP premiums, the HST, property taxes and the carbon tax, all included in the budget document report.
That’s why talking about income tax cuts in isolation isn’t useful; other fees and taxes are significant. For the $60,000 family, provincial income taxes are about 20 per cent of the total taxes paid to provincial and municipal governments.
The biggest reduction — at least in percentage terms — went to a single person with $25,000 in income. In 2006, someone in that unpleasant situation paid $1,520 in taxes and fees. This year, according to the budget, the provincial and municipal take will be $1,130, a 25-per-cent reduction.
Sounds good. But at $2,100 a month — figure a $13-an-hour full-time job — you’re struggling. And an extra $7.50 a week because of tax and fee changes isn’t life-changing.
An individual with an $80,000 income is paying about four per cent less in provincial and local taxes — about the same cut, in dollars, as the person getting by on $25,000.
The one senior example, a couple with equal pensions that provide $30,000 in income, basically break even. They’re paying the same amount in 2011 they did in 2006.
The real losers, in practical terms, are poor families. The budget looks at a family of four with two working parents and a total income of $30,000.
Those are people on the edge; their children growing up poor. But they paid $2,450 in provincial taxes and fees in 2006 and they will pay $2,100 this year. The reduction is about $7 a week, a dollar a day. That’s not going to change their children’s lives for the better.
The big tax cuts over the past six years have been in federal income taxes. The $90,000 family is paying $8,000 in federal income taxes, $2,500 less than in 2006.
When we spend money on most things, we’re concerned with value for money. We’ll spend more to get a reliable car.
But somehow lower taxes have become an unquestioned “good thing,” without considering the value of paying a little more.
Look at the middle-income family of four. They paid $2,000 in provincial income taxes in 2006, and will pay $1,300 in 2011. But what’s the benefit of $700 in tax cuts if one result is underfunding for public schools that means parents opt for private schools? The $700 in tax savings would be replaced by at least $15,000 in school fees for the two children.
Two observations leap out. The Liberals’ tax-cutting reputation is overblown.
And none of the leadership candidates, for either party, have been brave enough to suggest that government can — and does — provide services that people should be happy to pay for.

Progress Board reports show Liberal record barely average

By the numbers, the Liberal decade is looking distinctly average.
Not my numbers, but the report card from the B.C. Progress Board, established by Premier Gordon Campbell in 2002 to report independently on the government’s performance using quantifiable measurements.
Based on 21 key indicators set up by that board — initially chaired by David Emerson — it’s been a disappointing decade.
The board compares B.C. with other provinces. The goal, it said in the first report, was to see this province first or second in Canada in key measurements.
It hasn’t happened. In fact, the province has slid backward in more categories than it has improved.
B.C. ranks fourth in economic output for capita, the same spot it was in the board’s first report in 2002. It’s second in real average hourly wage, also unchanged from the NDP years. (The data was generally two years old.)
Employment has improved — up from fifth to fourth in the percentage of adults with jobs.
But in personal income, B.C. has fallen from third to fourth. In productivity — a key measure — it has fallen from fifth to seventh among provinces. Exports per capita have fallen from seventh to ninth.
For a government that touted its commitment to a stronger economy, it’s a shoddy performance.
On balance, the economic measurements show a slight decline from the final NDP years.
The record is equally bleak on management of the government’s finances, according to the Progress Board. The 2002 report, using the most recent numbers available, found B.C. had the second lowest level of taxpayer-supported debt in the country. The 2010 report found it has slipped one place, to third lowest — and that’s before the latest budget. (That’s not necessarily bad, if the debt is prudently undertaken and will pay future dividends.)
B.C. had the second-lowest tax rate for big earners back then; now it has the third lowest.
The province has moved from seventh to fifth in per-capita tax burden, a positive from the board’s perspective. But the 2002 report found B.C. had the third-lowest deficit, in relation to GDP, among provinces. The 2010 report says B.C. has fallen to fifth.
The province is doing better in terms of graduating people from high school and research and development spending. B.C. ranked sixth for that kind of investment in the 2002 report; now it’s third. Investment in fixed assets has increased, and the province has jumped from eighth to third among provinces for in-migration. People are moving here.
But university completion is unchanged from a decade ago and the province has gone backward in terms of developing science, engineering and tech workforces.
Sorry about all the numbers. Two things should stand out. First, on the board’s economy, innovation and education indicators, the province improved in six measures, went backward on seven and stayed the same on three.
It is a middling performance. A little worse than other provinces, but basically simply average.
Second, that’s not what the Progress Board wanted. The first report said that by 2010 B.C. should be first or second in expanding GDP per capita, personal income and jobs. It’s fourth, as it was when the Liberals took office.
The Progress Board looked at social and health measurements too. B.C. improved by two measures — cancer mortality and crime. We’re best in the country for cancer survival rates; the crime improvement is a less impressive move, from tenth to eighth.
But B.C. went backward on three other social and health measures. It has fallen from the sixth-worst province for poverty to last. Infant health, as measured by low birth weight, has gone from second to fifth place.
And in greenhouse gas emissions per person, supposedly a priority, B.C. has gone from third best to fourth best.
Overall, it’s a profoundly average record. For all the brave promises and enthusiastic spin, the Campbell government did no better — maybe slightly worse — than other provinces, based on its own independent peformance review.
There’s no disgrace in being average. But there’s not much to celebrate, either.
And it’s interesting that none of the Liberal leadership candidates have said they are aiming higher.

Budget shows a drifting government

The weirdest moment in this year's budget lockup came when Finance Minister Colin Hansen was asked about the 15-per-cent income tax cut Premier Gordon Campbell proposed - and then withdrew - in the fall.
Didn't it now seem reckless to have proposed knocking $800 million off revenues when the province's debt will hit $60 billion by 2013, he was asked?
No, Hansen said. There were lots of savings the government could have made in ministry budgets - cutting things like travel - to offset the tax reduction.
So, why didn't it? Why wouldn't a cost-cutting government grab those savings anyway?
Basically, the budget is like one of those fake streets they build to shoot cowboy movies. Look around the back, and there is not much there.
The deficit is projected at $1.3 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, and is to shrink in the next two years before a return to balanced budgets in 2013.
Spending will increase for health - up 6.2 per cent in the coming year and about three per cent in each of the next two.
But most ministries will see their budgets cut in the coming year and frozen for the two following years.
Revenues are forecast to increase, with the HST and personal income tax leading the way.
But none of the numbers can be relied on too heavily.
The main aim in drafting the budget was to create a lot of room for the new premier.
So there is $950 million - about the same as the budget for law enforcement, jails and the courts - in various contingency funds in next year's budget. That's money the new premier can use to expand programs, cut taxes or bring in a balanced budget right away.
There are the easy cuts, according to Hansen, in ministry budgets that could deliver a lot more swag for the new leader to spend.
And it's likely revenues have been underestimated, as they were in the past year, given still more spending.
But while there was a lot of emphasis on creating political room for the new premier, there wasn't much on addressing the needs of British Columbians today.
The ministry of children and families, despite all its problems, faces a three-year funding freeze. The income assistance budget, despite rates that leave thousands of people with disabilities living in poverty, is also frozen.
There's no additional investment in universities or science, even though the government has made much of the need for innovation and a skilled workforce.
There was a lot of focus on debt in the budget lockup. The string of deficits, big B.C. Hydro capital spending plans and a huge infrastructure spending spree in the Lower Mainland - transit and roads and a new stadium roof and convention centre - are adding billions to the province's debt.
That's not necessarily bad. The infrastructure spending created jobs and the alternative to running deficits would have been deep spending cuts during the recession.
But the province's total debt will climb from $38 billion in 2008 to $60 billion in 2013. That's almost $13,000 per person. Interest payments will reach $2.9 billion a year by 2013; more if interest rates spike.
Debt is still at reasonable levels compared to the province's total economy. But the growth is extraordinary and while all British Columbians will share the obligation, it's unclear whether all will benefit from the spending.
The most striking thing about the budget was what was missing. Even with a leadership change, you would expect a mature government to have some policy goals and priorities that it would continue to fund over the next three years.
That was simply absent from a budget that looked more like a speadsheet exercise than an actual plan.
And so far, none of the Liberal leadership candidates have offered a vision or policy program that would fill the vacuum.
Footnote: The budget also faces a rewrite if voters reject the HST in the coming referendum. Hansen was vague about plans or costs, but hinted that unravelling the HST and returning to the PST could take longer than many people anticipate.