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.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, May 02, 2011
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.
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.
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 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."
Friday, April 29, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
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.
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.
Read it here.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 15, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 08, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 01, 2011
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 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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
