Just before 5 p.m. today, the release below went out to reporters.
Premier Gordon Campbell has decided the economic outlook is bad enough that he needs to address British Columbians. He hopes the TV newscasts will carry him live in prime evening news time.
But if things are really so bad, shouldn't the legislature start its fall sitting, scheduled to run until the end of November? All MLAs - Liberal and New Democrat would have a chance to offer ideas and raise questions. There are a half a dozen bills that should be passed, including an emergency fix of the Lobbyist Act. The forest crisis, construction slowdowns, homelessness - the issues go on.
A TV show, with a script and no questions, is politically useful; the legislature is democratic.
It's also interesting that Colin Hansen is doing the heavy lifting. He has an excellent rep inside and outside government for competence and integrity.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oct. 21, 2008
Office of the Premier
ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell will make an address regarding British Columbia's economy in the face of global economic challenges.
Premier Campbell's address will be broadcast live on B.C.'s Legislative Hansard Television. To find out what channel carries Hansard in your community, go to http://www.leg.bc.ca/Hansard/8-10-1.htm.
It will also be web cast live from: www.gov.bc.ca.
Date: Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008
Time: 6:15-6:30 p.m. Address by Premier Campbell
(A technical briefing with Finance Minister Colin Hansen will be held at 6 p.m. for media only.)
Location:
Press Theatre
Parliament Buildings
Victoria
-30-
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Court brings action on homelessness
Coming soon to a park near you - homeless people in tents, under tarps and sheltered by cardboard boxes.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
More on the homeless camping judgment
A very good column from the Times Colonist on the homeless camping judgment. The comparison to refugees seems painfully apt.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Democratic dry rot
So when do we panic about the state of democracy in Canada?
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
More on the homeless court decision
The Sun's usually insightful Ian Mulgrew has a cranky column on the B.C. Supreme Court decision that found homeless people have a right to cover themselves with a tarp or a cardboard box if they have to sleep outside.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Homeless have a right to set up shelter in parks, court rules
Homeless people who sleep outdoors won a big victory in B.C. Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that a Victoria bylaw that made illegal to use a tent or tarp or cardboard for a shelter was unconstitutional.
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Dion and Harper both in trouble after election
Sure, it was a bad night for Stephane Dion.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Insider lobbying scandal and arrogance
The B.C Liberals reputation for arrogance isn't being helped by the latest lobbying scandal.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
More tools for strategic voting
Many people — of all political stripes — are interested in strategic voting to achieve or block an election outcome. One of the challenges is figuring out how to shift your vote to produce the desired result in your riding. Or, for that matter, whether the race is close enough that you need to bother. If it's not, then voting for the party you like best gets it $1.75 a year in federal funding.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
More warning signs from children and families ministry
It's looking like things are spinning out of control in the Ministry of Children and Families, based on a meltdown at a recent meeting of a legislature committee.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
Strategic voting - part one
It seems likely that strategic voting is going to be a big part of the election, especially in B.C. where up to 10 seats could be in play next week.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Monday, October 06, 2008
More insider troubles for BC Liberals
If you haven't, check out Sean Holman's exemplary work on B.C. Liberal co-campaign manager Patrick Kinsella's role in helping companies, from Alcan to payday loan clients, influence government policies. Given the government's various ethical and accountability stumbles, this looks like a major problem, especially if Kinsella continues to refuse to co-operate with an investigation. It's all here.
A Green miscue on the provincial scene
Stuart Herzog says Green leader Jane Sterk is making a big mistake in running in the Vancouver-Fairview byelection. The piece is here.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Life catches up with a lot of candidates
Has Google cost most Canadians their chance to run for Parliament?
One of the oddest aspects of this election campaign is the number of candidates who have been fired by their parties, dropped out or at least embarrassed by their pasts.
There are four possible explanations. This could be a flawed group of candidates, but it's hard to see why that would be true. We - the public - could have become more judgmental. But again, why would we?
The parties are likely more intent on digging dirt on their rivals. One of the most offensive aspects of elections today is the "war rooms." These are big budget operations set up mainly to snipe at the other side. The concept assumes both that politics is a game, and the object is annihilation. Surely we've gone beyond tribal warfare?
The biggest factor is the online world. Our pasts are much more with us than ever before.
On some level that's good when it comes to political candidates. They should be accountable for the lives they've led. But the peccadilloes being picked on vary wildly in significance.
And will any reasonable people run in future, knowing that they will be judged on such small aspects of the lives?
The New Democrats have lost three candidates here in B.C., One was linked to a business that sold coca seeds and had been broadcast on the Internet driving after smoking pot, as a demonstration that it wasn't risky. Another had been broadcast judging various strains of marijuana on a webcast. It was hardly a shock - both were long-time marijuana activists.
The Conservatives have lost a candidate to drugs too. A Saskatchewan MP said he wouldn't run because he had to deal with an addiction to prescription sedatives. (Though based on the number of Canadians reporting drug and alcohol dependencies, about 30 MPs should be representing their concerns.)
Nudity has come up a few times. Liberal candidate Briony Penn did a stylish Lady Godiva ride in 2001 in downtown Vancouver to protest logging. Conservative candidate Sharon Smith was briefly famous in 2003, after she had been elected mayor of Houston. Her husband had taken photos of her in the mayor's chair, wearing just the chain of office. Her kids had a party, someone peeked at the computer and Houston was on the map. Neither candidate has faced any real criticism.
But New Democrat candidate Julian West's candidacy came to an end this week over reports he was too keen on skinny dipping at a 1996 environmental conference attended by young teens. He also reportedly dropped his pants during a body painting session. He was 31 at the time. It sounded creepy, really.
What's weird is that this wasn't really a surprise. The allegations were covered at the time.
West's withdrawal came too late for the New Democrats to replace him and made things very interesting in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Gary Lunn, the Conservative natural resources minister, looked a good re-election bet, in part because Green Andrew Lewis, New Democrat West and Liberal Penn would split the vote. With the NDP out, Penn has a better chance.
The Conservatives have had their own creepy episode. Toronto Conservative candidate Chris Reid quit the race, suddenly too busy to run, once his blog postings became public. He had written that gays and women should be carrying handguns to protect themselves. Canadian gun laws, he said, had created "a castrated effeminate population."
A Conservative candidate in Burnaby-New Westminster is hanging in, despite reports he's been disciplined three time for incompetence and misconduct by real estate regulators. And two Quebec Conservatives were dumped over anti-aboriginal comments.
This kind of candidate attrition is new. And worrying.
Worrying because some quite bad candidates seem to make it through the nomination process, which is mostly a sign of a lack of involvement in candidate selection.
And worrying some good candidates are being hassled over long-ago, minor stumbles.
Footnote: This should be a useful lesson, especially for young people. The YouTube video from a party that seems so funny today, or the blog that sets out to provoke with outrageous comments, is permanent. In 20 years, it might be awkward to explain why it seemed such a good idea.
One of the oddest aspects of this election campaign is the number of candidates who have been fired by their parties, dropped out or at least embarrassed by their pasts.
There are four possible explanations. This could be a flawed group of candidates, but it's hard to see why that would be true. We - the public - could have become more judgmental. But again, why would we?
The parties are likely more intent on digging dirt on their rivals. One of the most offensive aspects of elections today is the "war rooms." These are big budget operations set up mainly to snipe at the other side. The concept assumes both that politics is a game, and the object is annihilation. Surely we've gone beyond tribal warfare?
The biggest factor is the online world. Our pasts are much more with us than ever before.
On some level that's good when it comes to political candidates. They should be accountable for the lives they've led. But the peccadilloes being picked on vary wildly in significance.
And will any reasonable people run in future, knowing that they will be judged on such small aspects of the lives?
The New Democrats have lost three candidates here in B.C., One was linked to a business that sold coca seeds and had been broadcast on the Internet driving after smoking pot, as a demonstration that it wasn't risky. Another had been broadcast judging various strains of marijuana on a webcast. It was hardly a shock - both were long-time marijuana activists.
The Conservatives have lost a candidate to drugs too. A Saskatchewan MP said he wouldn't run because he had to deal with an addiction to prescription sedatives. (Though based on the number of Canadians reporting drug and alcohol dependencies, about 30 MPs should be representing their concerns.)
Nudity has come up a few times. Liberal candidate Briony Penn did a stylish Lady Godiva ride in 2001 in downtown Vancouver to protest logging. Conservative candidate Sharon Smith was briefly famous in 2003, after she had been elected mayor of Houston. Her husband had taken photos of her in the mayor's chair, wearing just the chain of office. Her kids had a party, someone peeked at the computer and Houston was on the map. Neither candidate has faced any real criticism.
But New Democrat candidate Julian West's candidacy came to an end this week over reports he was too keen on skinny dipping at a 1996 environmental conference attended by young teens. He also reportedly dropped his pants during a body painting session. He was 31 at the time. It sounded creepy, really.
What's weird is that this wasn't really a surprise. The allegations were covered at the time.
West's withdrawal came too late for the New Democrats to replace him and made things very interesting in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Gary Lunn, the Conservative natural resources minister, looked a good re-election bet, in part because Green Andrew Lewis, New Democrat West and Liberal Penn would split the vote. With the NDP out, Penn has a better chance.
The Conservatives have had their own creepy episode. Toronto Conservative candidate Chris Reid quit the race, suddenly too busy to run, once his blog postings became public. He had written that gays and women should be carrying handguns to protect themselves. Canadian gun laws, he said, had created "a castrated effeminate population."
A Conservative candidate in Burnaby-New Westminster is hanging in, despite reports he's been disciplined three time for incompetence and misconduct by real estate regulators. And two Quebec Conservatives were dumped over anti-aboriginal comments.
This kind of candidate attrition is new. And worrying.
Worrying because some quite bad candidates seem to make it through the nomination process, which is mostly a sign of a lack of involvement in candidate selection.
And worrying some good candidates are being hassled over long-ago, minor stumbles.
Footnote: This should be a useful lesson, especially for young people. The YouTube video from a party that seems so funny today, or the blog that sets out to provoke with outrageous comments, is permanent. In 20 years, it might be awkward to explain why it seemed such a good idea.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A federal election campaign about nothing
What an odd federal election campaign. We've had naked pictures of a Conservative candidate, a couple of New Democrats and another Tory dumped for drug use, jokes about wishing for an opponent's death.
Stephen Harper is wandering around the country in baby blue sweaters, talking like Mr. Rogers. It's jarring - like he's on some new drug that mixes Valium and ecstasy.
Stephane Dion is leaving baffled audiences in most of Canada. He might be able to speak English on a basic level, but he's not able to communicate passion or complex ideas easily. (Especially why the Green Shift isn't really all that central to the Liberals' platform after all.)
Elizabeth May is on a train across the country. I've done that a few times. It's going tough campaigning when you're stuck on a siding somewhere outside Kenora waiting for a freight to pass. (And tough to sleep when guys get on with their duffle bag full of alcohol in Chapleau.)
Jack Layton is working hard, I guess.
As for the media, we're probably doing one of our worst jobs ever in communicating information to voters in a way that allows them to make an informed decision. Polls and gaffes, we've got covered. Strategies in responding to polls and gaffes, we've also got. Party spokesmen - the Conservatives, bizarrely, demand a secret identity - are asked to say how the last week went. (Usually pretty well their guys, apparently, and badly for the other side.)
My impression that most people are not only paying little attention, but wishing this wasn't happening to them right now. The Conservative minority was OK.
But you still should vote Oct. 14 - a little over three weeks away. Here are some things worth considering.
First, Harper promised that Canadian Forces would withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. That's a big policy change for him, if he's to be believed. The war will not be won by then, and Afghan police and military won't be ready to be on their own.
But Harper says Canadians will have done enough.
I agree. But it's a big change from Harper's position that deadlines are impossible and that Canada would stay until the job was done. And it raises a question about the value of Canadian deaths between now and then, particularly if conditions continue to deteriorate.
Dion has backed away, but the major Liberal policy remains a carbon tax on most fuels - not gasoline - and offsetting cuts to other taxes. It makes perfect sense economically, but people don't like it. Certainly beats the two other main parties' positions on climate change.
After that, it gets blurry. I bounced through all the major media websites looking for a basic summary of the platform pledges so far.
No luck, though about everything else, from comedian Rick Mercer's take to nude shots of a Conservative candidate, were covered (or uncovered).
There are policy differences. Dion has promised money for the auto industry, farmers and post-secondary students and to boost arts spending. He's also pledged to honour the Kelowna accord and introduce a child care plan and spend more on social housing.
Harper offers about $750 to help first-time homebuyers and a tax break for seniors. He'll let the self-employed claim maternity benefits. And he'll cut the tax on diesel fuel, reducing transportation costs.
Neither leader of the main parties says he will increase taxes.
There's more to come. But so far, this has become a campaign about itself.
The two main parties are mostly trying to create a sense that the other guys are risky - note those Conservative ads suggesting electing Dion would be like pumping money into a slot machine - and that they are at least OK.
Voters are already trying to figure out how to vote strategically, in our outmoded system, to get the least bad outcome.
Good luck choosing.
Footnote: OK, this column might be considered part of the problem. As the campaign continues, I'll try to write once a week on the issues and where the parties stand.
But this is a campaign - again - that will likely be based on who voters don't want to see in power and on which party can do the best job of persuading its supporters to vote on Oct. 14.
Stephen Harper is wandering around the country in baby blue sweaters, talking like Mr. Rogers. It's jarring - like he's on some new drug that mixes Valium and ecstasy.
Stephane Dion is leaving baffled audiences in most of Canada. He might be able to speak English on a basic level, but he's not able to communicate passion or complex ideas easily. (Especially why the Green Shift isn't really all that central to the Liberals' platform after all.)
Elizabeth May is on a train across the country. I've done that a few times. It's going tough campaigning when you're stuck on a siding somewhere outside Kenora waiting for a freight to pass. (And tough to sleep when guys get on with their duffle bag full of alcohol in Chapleau.)
Jack Layton is working hard, I guess.
As for the media, we're probably doing one of our worst jobs ever in communicating information to voters in a way that allows them to make an informed decision. Polls and gaffes, we've got covered. Strategies in responding to polls and gaffes, we've also got. Party spokesmen - the Conservatives, bizarrely, demand a secret identity - are asked to say how the last week went. (Usually pretty well their guys, apparently, and badly for the other side.)
My impression that most people are not only paying little attention, but wishing this wasn't happening to them right now. The Conservative minority was OK.
But you still should vote Oct. 14 - a little over three weeks away. Here are some things worth considering.
First, Harper promised that Canadian Forces would withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. That's a big policy change for him, if he's to be believed. The war will not be won by then, and Afghan police and military won't be ready to be on their own.
But Harper says Canadians will have done enough.
I agree. But it's a big change from Harper's position that deadlines are impossible and that Canada would stay until the job was done. And it raises a question about the value of Canadian deaths between now and then, particularly if conditions continue to deteriorate.
Dion has backed away, but the major Liberal policy remains a carbon tax on most fuels - not gasoline - and offsetting cuts to other taxes. It makes perfect sense economically, but people don't like it. Certainly beats the two other main parties' positions on climate change.
After that, it gets blurry. I bounced through all the major media websites looking for a basic summary of the platform pledges so far.
No luck, though about everything else, from comedian Rick Mercer's take to nude shots of a Conservative candidate, were covered (or uncovered).
There are policy differences. Dion has promised money for the auto industry, farmers and post-secondary students and to boost arts spending. He's also pledged to honour the Kelowna accord and introduce a child care plan and spend more on social housing.
Harper offers about $750 to help first-time homebuyers and a tax break for seniors. He'll let the self-employed claim maternity benefits. And he'll cut the tax on diesel fuel, reducing transportation costs.
Neither leader of the main parties says he will increase taxes.
There's more to come. But so far, this has become a campaign about itself.
The two main parties are mostly trying to create a sense that the other guys are risky - note those Conservative ads suggesting electing Dion would be like pumping money into a slot machine - and that they are at least OK.
Voters are already trying to figure out how to vote strategically, in our outmoded system, to get the least bad outcome.
Good luck choosing.
Footnote: OK, this column might be considered part of the problem. As the campaign continues, I'll try to write once a week on the issues and where the parties stand.
But this is a campaign - again - that will likely be based on who voters don't want to see in power and on which party can do the best job of persuading its supporters to vote on Oct. 14.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Premier picks school in his riding for big benefit
The scent of old-style pork barrel politics is hanging over the premier's office.
The government has decided it would be a good idea to see schools threatened with closure used as community centres.
The five lucky schools selected for the pilot project would not only be spared the risk of closure, but get big money for upgrades and new facilities.
Typically, for Premier Gordon Campbell, the first step was a snappy name - Neighbourhoods of Learning. (Community schools by another name.)
Next, a $30-million budget.
But then, the obvious questions. Where should these pilot projects be located? Where students and communities need them? In the places school trustees decide are priorities? Nope.
Two of the three schools announced as pilot projects are in Gordon Campbell's riding. Two rural schools that will participate are still to be chosen.
One of the schools in the premier's riding, General Gordon Elementary, only made the list because Campbell said that's where he wanted the money to go.
It wasn't purely a move to steer money to a school in his constituency. Campbell said the parents there had pitched the idea for the community schools and deserved a reward for their initiative.
But the government's had already signalled its nervousness about the premier's intervention.
Education Minister Shirley Bond - always a loyal trooper - tried to maintain Campbell hadn't been involved at all in the decision to award the big money to two schools in his riding.
Vancouver school district trustees had raised the need for upgrades to General Gordon, she said.
But the school district contradicted Bond.
The superintendent said the district had raised concerns about a number of older schools in Vancouver that were threatened by the need for seismic upgrades.
The premier, not the school district, said General Gordon should jump to the front of the queue as part of the Neighbourhoods for Learning pilot. He had been lobbied by the parents, who had also noted their in with the top guy in pushing the Education Ministry to see things their way.
There are a lot of schools in the Lower Mainland and on the Island that need upgrading to keep children safe in the event of an earthquake. Some of them might close because of the problem. The government has leaned toward building smaller, cheaper schools.
Should the fact that parents' advisory council can get a meeting with the premier decide where the money goes?
Rural communities that have faced closures, long bus rides for kids and lost schools might have liked the chance to make their case for a larger share of the money. Though that could still come when the remaining pilot projects are announced - especially if the parents can get a meeting with an influential cabinet minister.
Too cynical? Maybe.
But it does look much look who you know matters more than what you need to give kids and communities a boost. Campbell's riding - Vancouver Point Grey - is among the most affluent in the province.
Meanwhile, out in Langley, a 5,000-seat arena and community centre is being built at a cost of $56 million. Great news for the community.
Especially because almost one-third of the money is coming from the provincial government. When he was forests minister, Rich Coleman decided to spend $15 million of forestry money on the arena. It would use wood laminate beams and be a great marketing tool, he said.
But the industry could likely suggest better uses for $15 million than an arena in the minister's riding. Unemployed forest workers - some 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last year - certainly could.
What should worry supporters is that neither of these were missteps Campbell would have allowed a few years ago. The Liberals risk becoming the government they once ran against.
And it's not hard to remember what happened to that government.
Footnote: The whole school closure issue is a problem for the government. It had been pushing school districts to be aggressive in closing and selling schools to pay for new facilities for the last six years. Now, after about 170 schools have been closed, a policy flip-flop calls for new uses and a moratorium on closures. It's sensible, but erratic.
The government has decided it would be a good idea to see schools threatened with closure used as community centres.
The five lucky schools selected for the pilot project would not only be spared the risk of closure, but get big money for upgrades and new facilities.
Typically, for Premier Gordon Campbell, the first step was a snappy name - Neighbourhoods of Learning. (Community schools by another name.)
Next, a $30-million budget.
But then, the obvious questions. Where should these pilot projects be located? Where students and communities need them? In the places school trustees decide are priorities? Nope.
Two of the three schools announced as pilot projects are in Gordon Campbell's riding. Two rural schools that will participate are still to be chosen.
One of the schools in the premier's riding, General Gordon Elementary, only made the list because Campbell said that's where he wanted the money to go.
It wasn't purely a move to steer money to a school in his constituency. Campbell said the parents there had pitched the idea for the community schools and deserved a reward for their initiative.
But the government's had already signalled its nervousness about the premier's intervention.
Education Minister Shirley Bond - always a loyal trooper - tried to maintain Campbell hadn't been involved at all in the decision to award the big money to two schools in his riding.
Vancouver school district trustees had raised the need for upgrades to General Gordon, she said.
But the school district contradicted Bond.
The superintendent said the district had raised concerns about a number of older schools in Vancouver that were threatened by the need for seismic upgrades.
The premier, not the school district, said General Gordon should jump to the front of the queue as part of the Neighbourhoods for Learning pilot. He had been lobbied by the parents, who had also noted their in with the top guy in pushing the Education Ministry to see things their way.
There are a lot of schools in the Lower Mainland and on the Island that need upgrading to keep children safe in the event of an earthquake. Some of them might close because of the problem. The government has leaned toward building smaller, cheaper schools.
Should the fact that parents' advisory council can get a meeting with the premier decide where the money goes?
Rural communities that have faced closures, long bus rides for kids and lost schools might have liked the chance to make their case for a larger share of the money. Though that could still come when the remaining pilot projects are announced - especially if the parents can get a meeting with an influential cabinet minister.
Too cynical? Maybe.
But it does look much look who you know matters more than what you need to give kids and communities a boost. Campbell's riding - Vancouver Point Grey - is among the most affluent in the province.
Meanwhile, out in Langley, a 5,000-seat arena and community centre is being built at a cost of $56 million. Great news for the community.
Especially because almost one-third of the money is coming from the provincial government. When he was forests minister, Rich Coleman decided to spend $15 million of forestry money on the arena. It would use wood laminate beams and be a great marketing tool, he said.
But the industry could likely suggest better uses for $15 million than an arena in the minister's riding. Unemployed forest workers - some 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last year - certainly could.
What should worry supporters is that neither of these were missteps Campbell would have allowed a few years ago. The Liberals risk becoming the government they once ran against.
And it's not hard to remember what happened to that government.
Footnote: The whole school closure issue is a problem for the government. It had been pushing school districts to be aggressive in closing and selling schools to pay for new facilities for the last six years. Now, after about 170 schools have been closed, a policy flip-flop calls for new uses and a moratorium on closures. It's sensible, but erratic.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
'Surprise' surplus sign of bad budgeting
Surprise. Three months into the fiscal year and the provincial government has discovered that it underestimated revenues by about $1.2 billion.
Well, not really a surprise. More the norm by now.
The Liberals have made it standard operating procedure to introduce and have the legislature vote on budgets that project modest surpluses.
Then, like an exotic dancer, the finance minister slowly reveals the real numbers over the course of the year.
The modest surplus turns into several billion dollars, which the government can do with as it pleases.
Generally, that means paying down the debt. But with an election coming next May, expect some goodies out of this year's slush fund - maybe even another carbon rebate next spring.
This can all seem a little abstract, I know. But the bad budgeting has consequences.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that as a result the government is collecting more money from you than it actually needs. Last year's surplus of $2.1 billion - after about $1 billion in last-minute spending - would have let the government cut income taxes by 15 per cent for a year or chop a point off the provincial sales tax.
Or, alternately, the surplus means the government has money it could have allocated for services that people need. The B.C. Association for Community Living asked this week why so many children with disabilities are on waiting lists for services if the government has more than $1 billion extra.
And anyone waiting for surgery will wonder why more of that money isn't addressing health-care issues.
Some of it will. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's first quarter update included the $120 million the government has already committed to address health authority underfunding. More is likely on the way. (Again, welcome, but why not do it right the first time so health authorities can plan properly?)
It's certainly better to err on the side of caution. But this goes beyond prudence. The surplus for this year, budgeted at $800 million in the budget, is already forecast to be more than $2 billion.
The "surprise" surplus comes even though Hansen also warned that economic growth will be slower than the government expected this year and next.
The ministry's panel of outside economists had forecast growth at 2.8 per cent in 2008 when the budget was being prepared; they've knocked that back to 2.1 per cent; they pared the estimate for next year from 3.0 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
That's still healthy growth. But not for everyone. The quarterly update includes bad news for hard hit forest communities. The expected harvest from Crown land has been cut by 12 per cent since the budget was prepared. Those communities too will be wondering why some of that surplus isn't coming their way to help deal with the crisis.
The Liberals mostly used the surpluses as a way to reduce the debt. Collect more than you really need, spend less than you have and then end the year with no option but paying down debt. That's not a bad thing, but B.C.'s debt is manageable and the public - according to the annual budget consultations - wants the priority to be better services, not tax cuts or debt reduction.
The government has also used of the money for year-end spending - setting up a housing fund, sending the $100 carbon dividend cheques to every British Columbian (and about 18,000 people who are no longer living in the province).
That's probably what lies ahead, with the election coming in May. Hansen said the surplus gives the government "flexibility" to cut taxes, or spend more on programs people want.
Or even to send out rebate cheques again. They'll decide, but because the fall sitting of the legislature has been cancelled, the decision will be rubber stamped next spring.
It's really not a good way to run a government, or a business, or a family's finances. If you work with bad forecasts, you make decisions based on faulty information.
In the private sector, that can land you in trouble.
Footnote: A budget consultation flyer - that will look much like a Liberal campaign brochure - is being mailed to every home in the province, allegedly to allow you to comment on the budget options. Based on past practice, the comments stand a good chance of being ignored; one year, the government only looked at 10 per cent of the forms.
Well, not really a surprise. More the norm by now.
The Liberals have made it standard operating procedure to introduce and have the legislature vote on budgets that project modest surpluses.
Then, like an exotic dancer, the finance minister slowly reveals the real numbers over the course of the year.
The modest surplus turns into several billion dollars, which the government can do with as it pleases.
Generally, that means paying down the debt. But with an election coming next May, expect some goodies out of this year's slush fund - maybe even another carbon rebate next spring.
This can all seem a little abstract, I know. But the bad budgeting has consequences.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that as a result the government is collecting more money from you than it actually needs. Last year's surplus of $2.1 billion - after about $1 billion in last-minute spending - would have let the government cut income taxes by 15 per cent for a year or chop a point off the provincial sales tax.
Or, alternately, the surplus means the government has money it could have allocated for services that people need. The B.C. Association for Community Living asked this week why so many children with disabilities are on waiting lists for services if the government has more than $1 billion extra.
And anyone waiting for surgery will wonder why more of that money isn't addressing health-care issues.
Some of it will. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's first quarter update included the $120 million the government has already committed to address health authority underfunding. More is likely on the way. (Again, welcome, but why not do it right the first time so health authorities can plan properly?)
It's certainly better to err on the side of caution. But this goes beyond prudence. The surplus for this year, budgeted at $800 million in the budget, is already forecast to be more than $2 billion.
The "surprise" surplus comes even though Hansen also warned that economic growth will be slower than the government expected this year and next.
The ministry's panel of outside economists had forecast growth at 2.8 per cent in 2008 when the budget was being prepared; they've knocked that back to 2.1 per cent; they pared the estimate for next year from 3.0 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
That's still healthy growth. But not for everyone. The quarterly update includes bad news for hard hit forest communities. The expected harvest from Crown land has been cut by 12 per cent since the budget was prepared. Those communities too will be wondering why some of that surplus isn't coming their way to help deal with the crisis.
The Liberals mostly used the surpluses as a way to reduce the debt. Collect more than you really need, spend less than you have and then end the year with no option but paying down debt. That's not a bad thing, but B.C.'s debt is manageable and the public - according to the annual budget consultations - wants the priority to be better services, not tax cuts or debt reduction.
The government has also used of the money for year-end spending - setting up a housing fund, sending the $100 carbon dividend cheques to every British Columbian (and about 18,000 people who are no longer living in the province).
That's probably what lies ahead, with the election coming in May. Hansen said the surplus gives the government "flexibility" to cut taxes, or spend more on programs people want.
Or even to send out rebate cheques again. They'll decide, but because the fall sitting of the legislature has been cancelled, the decision will be rubber stamped next spring.
It's really not a good way to run a government, or a business, or a family's finances. If you work with bad forecasts, you make decisions based on faulty information.
In the private sector, that can land you in trouble.
Footnote: A budget consultation flyer - that will look much like a Liberal campaign brochure - is being mailed to every home in the province, allegedly to allow you to comment on the budget options. Based on past practice, the comments stand a good chance of being ignored; one year, the government only looked at 10 per cent of the forms.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Liberals cheat voters by cancelling fall sitting
You can see why Gordon Campbell decided to cancel the fall sitting of the legislature. His government would spend six weeks getting batted around on bunch of contentious issues.
Cancel the session and everything changes. Instead of facing daily questions from the opposition and journalists, the premier can make one or two carefully planned appearances a week. Cut a ribbon here, speak to a friendly group there, make good news announcements in time for the evening news and dump the bad ones when you're on a private jet bound for another country.
It's an easier life. That's the problem with democracy, even a flawed version like our own. It's inconvenient to face all those questions and criticisms when you just want to wield power.
The Liberals cancelled the scheduled fall sitting this week. They had no legislation to present, so why bother, said house leader Mike de Jong.
That's not exactly true. The Liberals have three bills - on resource roads, improved insurance industry regulation and wills and estates - that they wanted to pass in the spring, but dropped because of lack of time. (They also could have delayed some of the half-dozen bills that were pushed through with no debate on the last day of the spring session.)
They were ready, and considered important then.
And there are other areas where they have acknowledged change is needed - like improving the police complaints process - and have had lots of time to draft the bills.
Even leaving aside the excuse, the Liberals know that the legislature isn't just a place to pass bills. When MLAs - government and opposition - gather in that red-carpeted chamber, it's their chance to speak on behalf of their constituents.
They can raise the issues and concerns that matter to people back home. They can ask cabinet ministers what's being done about issues, from seniors care to forestry to potholed roads.
By cancelling the session, Campbell is denying them and the public that right.
The decision carries some political risk. A recent poll found British Columbians believed Campbell is out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Shutting down the legislature reinforces that impression.
And the timing, right after Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were pilloried for trying to avoid debating Green leader Elizabeth May, was a problem. It looks like Campbell is afraid of debating Carole James.
But the Liberals figure the risks of a session are greater. There is a lot of anger over the carbon tax, and it's being ramped up by Harper's attacks. Campbell still hasn't provided any justification for the massive hike in pay scales for senior government managers.
There are potential questions on a range of issues that could make the government look bad, from seniors care to forestry problems to the efforts to deny help to the disabled based on an arbitrary IQ level.
And there are smaller embarrassments, like Campbell's decision to fly to the Beijing Games on a private jet with a developer and party supporter.
Campbell says people have told him cabinet ministers and MLAs should be out in the ridings, talking with them.
But the legislature will have sat for only 47 days this year, among the fewest in a non-election year in more than two decades. If the fall session had lasted the full six weeks, MLAs would still have 180 working days free this year. That seems plenty of time to keep up with local concerns.
De Jong was right to say there's no point passing laws just to keep the legislature busy. But he can't really be saying that the government no longer cares about the bills it introduced in the spring and sees no need to update or improve any other legislation.
Still, that's that. MLAs lose their chance to speak for their constituents. The legislature will sit for about 19 days in the spring and then break for the election.
Not democratic, but it suits Campbell's political purposes.
Footnote: There's probably not a big political price for the decision to abandon the sitting. Most people aren't all that aware of where MLAs are or what they're doing. But the decision does reinforce the impression that Campbell doesn't really accept the idea of accountability and raises the perception of arrogance.
Cancel the session and everything changes. Instead of facing daily questions from the opposition and journalists, the premier can make one or two carefully planned appearances a week. Cut a ribbon here, speak to a friendly group there, make good news announcements in time for the evening news and dump the bad ones when you're on a private jet bound for another country.
It's an easier life. That's the problem with democracy, even a flawed version like our own. It's inconvenient to face all those questions and criticisms when you just want to wield power.
The Liberals cancelled the scheduled fall sitting this week. They had no legislation to present, so why bother, said house leader Mike de Jong.
That's not exactly true. The Liberals have three bills - on resource roads, improved insurance industry regulation and wills and estates - that they wanted to pass in the spring, but dropped because of lack of time. (They also could have delayed some of the half-dozen bills that were pushed through with no debate on the last day of the spring session.)
They were ready, and considered important then.
And there are other areas where they have acknowledged change is needed - like improving the police complaints process - and have had lots of time to draft the bills.
Even leaving aside the excuse, the Liberals know that the legislature isn't just a place to pass bills. When MLAs - government and opposition - gather in that red-carpeted chamber, it's their chance to speak on behalf of their constituents.
They can raise the issues and concerns that matter to people back home. They can ask cabinet ministers what's being done about issues, from seniors care to forestry to potholed roads.
By cancelling the session, Campbell is denying them and the public that right.
The decision carries some political risk. A recent poll found British Columbians believed Campbell is out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Shutting down the legislature reinforces that impression.
And the timing, right after Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were pilloried for trying to avoid debating Green leader Elizabeth May, was a problem. It looks like Campbell is afraid of debating Carole James.
But the Liberals figure the risks of a session are greater. There is a lot of anger over the carbon tax, and it's being ramped up by Harper's attacks. Campbell still hasn't provided any justification for the massive hike in pay scales for senior government managers.
There are potential questions on a range of issues that could make the government look bad, from seniors care to forestry problems to the efforts to deny help to the disabled based on an arbitrary IQ level.
And there are smaller embarrassments, like Campbell's decision to fly to the Beijing Games on a private jet with a developer and party supporter.
Campbell says people have told him cabinet ministers and MLAs should be out in the ridings, talking with them.
But the legislature will have sat for only 47 days this year, among the fewest in a non-election year in more than two decades. If the fall session had lasted the full six weeks, MLAs would still have 180 working days free this year. That seems plenty of time to keep up with local concerns.
De Jong was right to say there's no point passing laws just to keep the legislature busy. But he can't really be saying that the government no longer cares about the bills it introduced in the spring and sees no need to update or improve any other legislation.
Still, that's that. MLAs lose their chance to speak for their constituents. The legislature will sit for about 19 days in the spring and then break for the election.
Not democratic, but it suits Campbell's political purposes.
Footnote: There's probably not a big political price for the decision to abandon the sitting. Most people aren't all that aware of where MLAs are or what they're doing. But the decision does reinforce the impression that Campbell doesn't really accept the idea of accountability and raises the perception of arrogance.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Harper carbon attacks bad news for Campbell
Among all the people who didn't want a federal election, Gordon Campbell has to be one of the unhappiest.
For the next five weeks, the Harper Conservatives are going to be attacking Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
And Campbell is going to be caught in the crossfire, unable to take cover or fire back as his supposed allies deliver wounding blows.
One of the Conservatives' big targets is going to be Dion's Green Shift, and especially the proposed carbon tax.
The "tax on everything" that would "screw everyone across the country," Harper has already called it.
And that's before things got rough.
And Dion's proposal is pretty much identical to the carbon tax that Campbell promised in the throne speech and brought in July 1. Use fuels that produce greenhouse gases, and you pay - 2.8 cents a litre on gasoline, for example, rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, and more after that.
The unpopular carbon tax has already given B.C. New Democrats a big boost, without Harper's help. They support a carbon tax in principle. But not the Campbell version, in what seems a rather contrived distinction.
The tax actually makes sense. If you accept that global warming is real, greenhouse gases are a factor and that market forces matter, then a tax on fossil fuels is an incentive to reduce consumption.
But the public isn't buying it, according to the polls. They think it won't work. And they consider it a tax grab, even though the provincial government has introduced offsetting tax cuts equal to the money it will take in from the carbon tax.
Campbell is now in a weirdly vulnerable position, with Stephen Harper and Carole James ganging up on him over a critical policy.
The provincial Liberals have worked hard at getting along with Ottawa - no matter who is in power -with reasonable results.
Partly, that's pragmatic. One of Campbell's real accomplishments is getting people who are passionate Conservatives and Liberals federally to work together in one provincial party. It's no mean feat; federal elections are hard fought and the scars are lasting. Campbell inspires people to check their baggage at the door.
That might be harder this time, especially with the carbon tax as a big issue and the federal stakes so high. Things could get nasty between the Harper and Dion troops in B.C.
It looked that way in the first days of the campaign this week as Harper came to the province. The federal Conservatives had tried to avoid criticizing the Campbell carbon tax directly since he announced it.
But no more. Harper's attacks might have been directed at Dion's tax, but they drew blood from Campbell too.
It was brutal and direct. Harper effectively challenged Campbell's honesty, rejecting the claim that revenue from the B.C carbon tax is balanced by offsetting tax cuts.
"Every politician in history who wants to impose a new tax claims that it's either revenue neutral or it's temporary. It's not true," Harper said. "Everybody knows - especially in British Columbia - that that kind of a carbon tax is not revenue neutral on the average working family."
Ouch. It's rhetoric straight from a Carole James' speech. But because the accusations are coming from Harper, the claims that Campbell is not to be trusted are getting a lot more attention.
The B.C. carbon tax was already a tough sell, especially given rising energy costs this summer.
Now the Conservatives - with bags of money and a good organization - are going to spend the next five weeks trashing the idea as an irresponsible tax grab.
Which will leave Campbell with just six months to try and undo that message before the provincial campaign starts.
And, of course, just six months to encourage federal Conservative members of his coalition to swallow a tax they have been attacking with vigour.
Footnote: The campaign also quickly got stupid. On Tuesday, a controversy over a cartoon on the Conservatives' website that showed a puffin pooping on Dion threatened to overshadow policy announcements and the NDP and Conservative efforts to bar Green leader Elizabeth May from the televised debates.
For the next five weeks, the Harper Conservatives are going to be attacking Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
And Campbell is going to be caught in the crossfire, unable to take cover or fire back as his supposed allies deliver wounding blows.
One of the Conservatives' big targets is going to be Dion's Green Shift, and especially the proposed carbon tax.
The "tax on everything" that would "screw everyone across the country," Harper has already called it.
And that's before things got rough.
And Dion's proposal is pretty much identical to the carbon tax that Campbell promised in the throne speech and brought in July 1. Use fuels that produce greenhouse gases, and you pay - 2.8 cents a litre on gasoline, for example, rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, and more after that.
The unpopular carbon tax has already given B.C. New Democrats a big boost, without Harper's help. They support a carbon tax in principle. But not the Campbell version, in what seems a rather contrived distinction.
The tax actually makes sense. If you accept that global warming is real, greenhouse gases are a factor and that market forces matter, then a tax on fossil fuels is an incentive to reduce consumption.
But the public isn't buying it, according to the polls. They think it won't work. And they consider it a tax grab, even though the provincial government has introduced offsetting tax cuts equal to the money it will take in from the carbon tax.
Campbell is now in a weirdly vulnerable position, with Stephen Harper and Carole James ganging up on him over a critical policy.
The provincial Liberals have worked hard at getting along with Ottawa - no matter who is in power -with reasonable results.
Partly, that's pragmatic. One of Campbell's real accomplishments is getting people who are passionate Conservatives and Liberals federally to work together in one provincial party. It's no mean feat; federal elections are hard fought and the scars are lasting. Campbell inspires people to check their baggage at the door.
That might be harder this time, especially with the carbon tax as a big issue and the federal stakes so high. Things could get nasty between the Harper and Dion troops in B.C.
It looked that way in the first days of the campaign this week as Harper came to the province. The federal Conservatives had tried to avoid criticizing the Campbell carbon tax directly since he announced it.
But no more. Harper's attacks might have been directed at Dion's tax, but they drew blood from Campbell too.
It was brutal and direct. Harper effectively challenged Campbell's honesty, rejecting the claim that revenue from the B.C carbon tax is balanced by offsetting tax cuts.
"Every politician in history who wants to impose a new tax claims that it's either revenue neutral or it's temporary. It's not true," Harper said. "Everybody knows - especially in British Columbia - that that kind of a carbon tax is not revenue neutral on the average working family."
Ouch. It's rhetoric straight from a Carole James' speech. But because the accusations are coming from Harper, the claims that Campbell is not to be trusted are getting a lot more attention.
The B.C. carbon tax was already a tough sell, especially given rising energy costs this summer.
Now the Conservatives - with bags of money and a good organization - are going to spend the next five weeks trashing the idea as an irresponsible tax grab.
Which will leave Campbell with just six months to try and undo that message before the provincial campaign starts.
And, of course, just six months to encourage federal Conservative members of his coalition to swallow a tax they have been attacking with vigour.
Footnote: The campaign also quickly got stupid. On Tuesday, a controversy over a cartoon on the Conservatives' website that showed a puffin pooping on Dion threatened to overshadow policy announcements and the NDP and Conservative efforts to bar Green leader Elizabeth May from the televised debates.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Let’s make lost opportunity an election issue
I took a break from working on a look at big issues in the federal election campaign and flipped through some old newspapers sitting on a chair in the office.
They were from 1961. And they raised a question for all the political parties – how come we aren’t happier or better off than we were then?
Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion will go back and forth about crime and climate change and leadership. Those are all important. They will slag each other in quite nasty and unfair ways. That’s not so important.
But no one is going to talk about the sense that a lot of Canadians feel like things have got worse for them over the years.
The 1961 paper had a front-page story about a new contract for teachers. The top wage was to be $8,360. Today, the top teacher wage here is about $78,000.
Then I flipped to the classifieds. There was an ad for a four-bedroom house on a quiet street in Oak Bay for $10,000. I checked; it’s assessed today at $575,000. (Both prices are typical for the time.)
So an established teacher could figure on buying that home for 14 months’ salary. Mortgage payments would be one-sixth of his income.
Today, the same house, at $575,000, would cost the equivalent of more than seven year’s gross pay. The mortgage payments would consume more than 40 per cent of the income.
It’s not just teachers, of course. Forest workers, office staff, people on an assembly line or fixing cars, even journalists – they all faced a different, cheerier future in 1961. They could afford a house and new car and if not a cabin, at least a couple of weeks at one. Moms could stay home (or were forced to). Families expected things would be even better for their children. Things like the introduction of medicare were on the horizon.
Today, a lot of people see their kids facing a much tougher time than they did, or perhaps their parents did.
John Diefenbaker was prime minister in 1961; Lester Pearson led the Liberal opposition; Tommy Douglas was the leader of the truly New Democratic Party, formed that year. Not pantheonic, necessarily, but have we had three leaders who commanded similar respect in the last 20 years. Paul Martin? Brian Mulroney?
Maybe that’s what this election — and the provincial election next May, and the municipal elections in November — should be about. Which politicians understand the concerns of the average Canadian? Who among them thins things could be better, and has some ideas? Who, in Parliament or cabinet, wouldn’t disillusion or embarrass the people who voted for, and against, them?
Who would make the priority creating happier, more prosperous average Canadians?
It’s hard at this point to see which leader is going to step into that role. Stephen Harper comes off as kind of cranky and doesn’t seem to see government as responsible for bringing a better life to Canadians. There’s a sense that the Conservatives are too infatuated with the failed polices of American Republicans, from militarism to simplistic lock-em-up crime responses.
Stephane Dion seems barely in control of his own party, fuzzy on the direction his government would go and a little shell-shocked. Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe — none are likely to captivate voters with vision and plans.
Some voters, of course, would disagree. They are passionate in their belief that one party or another has the answers.
Most voters, I’d suggest, aren’t looking really forward to casting their ballots. Many have resigned themselves to voting against someone, rather than for a politician or platform they truly support.
Maybe we should keep that in mind over this election campaign. We can assess the issues and look at hard at the local candidates.
But it would be nice to hear a candidate or a leader acknowledge that for a lot of people, things seem harder than they did a few decades ago.
And that making them better was one of their concerns.
Footnote: B.C. should be a critical battleground in a close election. Some five Conservative seats and four seats each for the Liberals and the New Democrats, are likely in play. The Island and Lower Mainland should see most of the focus from the parties.
They were from 1961. And they raised a question for all the political parties – how come we aren’t happier or better off than we were then?
Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion will go back and forth about crime and climate change and leadership. Those are all important. They will slag each other in quite nasty and unfair ways. That’s not so important.
But no one is going to talk about the sense that a lot of Canadians feel like things have got worse for them over the years.
The 1961 paper had a front-page story about a new contract for teachers. The top wage was to be $8,360. Today, the top teacher wage here is about $78,000.
Then I flipped to the classifieds. There was an ad for a four-bedroom house on a quiet street in Oak Bay for $10,000. I checked; it’s assessed today at $575,000. (Both prices are typical for the time.)
So an established teacher could figure on buying that home for 14 months’ salary. Mortgage payments would be one-sixth of his income.
Today, the same house, at $575,000, would cost the equivalent of more than seven year’s gross pay. The mortgage payments would consume more than 40 per cent of the income.
It’s not just teachers, of course. Forest workers, office staff, people on an assembly line or fixing cars, even journalists – they all faced a different, cheerier future in 1961. They could afford a house and new car and if not a cabin, at least a couple of weeks at one. Moms could stay home (or were forced to). Families expected things would be even better for their children. Things like the introduction of medicare were on the horizon.
Today, a lot of people see their kids facing a much tougher time than they did, or perhaps their parents did.
John Diefenbaker was prime minister in 1961; Lester Pearson led the Liberal opposition; Tommy Douglas was the leader of the truly New Democratic Party, formed that year. Not pantheonic, necessarily, but have we had three leaders who commanded similar respect in the last 20 years. Paul Martin? Brian Mulroney?
Maybe that’s what this election — and the provincial election next May, and the municipal elections in November — should be about. Which politicians understand the concerns of the average Canadian? Who among them thins things could be better, and has some ideas? Who, in Parliament or cabinet, wouldn’t disillusion or embarrass the people who voted for, and against, them?
Who would make the priority creating happier, more prosperous average Canadians?
It’s hard at this point to see which leader is going to step into that role. Stephen Harper comes off as kind of cranky and doesn’t seem to see government as responsible for bringing a better life to Canadians. There’s a sense that the Conservatives are too infatuated with the failed polices of American Republicans, from militarism to simplistic lock-em-up crime responses.
Stephane Dion seems barely in control of his own party, fuzzy on the direction his government would go and a little shell-shocked. Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe — none are likely to captivate voters with vision and plans.
Some voters, of course, would disagree. They are passionate in their belief that one party or another has the answers.
Most voters, I’d suggest, aren’t looking really forward to casting their ballots. Many have resigned themselves to voting against someone, rather than for a politician or platform they truly support.
Maybe we should keep that in mind over this election campaign. We can assess the issues and look at hard at the local candidates.
But it would be nice to hear a candidate or a leader acknowledge that for a lot of people, things seem harder than they did a few decades ago.
And that making them better was one of their concerns.
Footnote: B.C. should be a critical battleground in a close election. Some five Conservative seats and four seats each for the Liberals and the New Democrats, are likely in play. The Island and Lower Mainland should see most of the focus from the parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
