Blair Lekstrom's resignation Friday capped a lousy week for the Liberals.
Lekstrom gave up his post as energy minister and left the party to sit as an independent because he can't support going ahead with the HST.
He's been wrestling with his obligations, Lekstrom said.
"I believe that my first priority as an elected official is to the people that elect me and then to the political party I represent," he concluded.
And the people were telling, him overwhelmingly and strenuously, that they didn't like the tax or the way the Liberals had introduced it. About 5,000 people have signed the anti-HST petitions in Peace River South; that's more than the 4,805 people who voted for Lekstrom in the last election.
Earlier in the week, Lekstrom had suggested putting the HST on hold for six months or a year to his cabinet colleagues and involving the public in a full discussion of tax options.
But Premier Gordon Campbell nixed the idea. He still maintains the problem is that people don't understand how positive the tax will be. (That seems to make people angrier, since it can be taken as an insult. And it raises the question - if the tax is such a no-brainer, why did the Liberals reject it for years - including through the election campaign?)
Cynics might grumble that Lekstrom left it awfully late. But it remains a principled move, one that will cost him about $50,000 a year.
The biggest impact will be on other Liberal MLAs. They too know their constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax, the secretive introduction, or both.
Lekstrom's example leaves other Liberals to explain why they are willing to ignore the will of the people they represent.
And while one resignation won't shift the premier, two or three might. At the least, they would kick start the race to replace him.
The resignation came in the same week as an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll that should give Liberal MLAs serious concern.
The party's support has dropped to 26 per cent, with the NDP at 46 per cent. That's still above the amazing lows of the former NDP government in its last days, but not a whole lot.
It gets worse for the Liberals. The poll found three-quarters of respondents opposed the HST.
And it found that in Liberal ridings across the province, 45 per cent of those surveyed said they would definitely sign a recall petition against their MLA given a chance; another 17 per cent they would probably sign.
And they might get a chance.
The anti-HST petition looks to be successful. The government would then have several options in responding to it.
But some of the campaigners have said that unless the HST is axed, they will launch recall campaigns in November. Successful campaigns would mean the seats would be declared vacant and byelections held.
It's difficult to stage a successful recall campaign. Proponents would need signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - not just of the number who actually cast ballots.
But there is a lot of anger and a well-organized cadre of volunteers in place.
Liberal MLAs in ridings where the HST opposition is fiercest and margins of victory were small should be looking over their shoulders.
Some will likely be wondering how much they should suffer for decisions they had no real part in making.
It's unlikely the public will be much cheerier in November. Campbell has been dismal in defending the tax and the way it was sprung on British Columbians without analysis or discussion.
And a planned advertising blitz - at taxpayer expense - is likely to make people angrier.
With the legislature shut down, likely until next spring, MLAs are going to be spending a lot of time in their ridings.
They better be able to defend both the tax - and the damaging way their leader has handled it.
Footnote: Lekstrom has acted independently in the past. He voted against the legislation gutting the contracts of public sector unions and opposed the Tsawwassen First Nations treaty. No other obvious potential defectors among the Liberal MLAs come to mind.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
If health authority boards ran the schools
If you like the way your regional health authority board is working, the government's review of the Vancouver school district will please you.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
Double standard on drunk driving?
A National Post editorial today takes a tough stand on drunk driving and particularly charges against a Liberal MP.
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Want open and transparent? Try Washington
After the B.C. cabinet met with the Washington State counterparts, the New Democrats submitted FOI requests here and in Washington to find out what had been talked about.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Conservatives chip away at offshore moratoriums
It certainly looks like the federal government is making it a lot easier for offshore oil and gas drilling and tanker traffic in B.C.'s coastal waters.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chrétien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chrétien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Vote for the Best party
A dandy political video. (No, not the U.S. one with the guy and his horse.)
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem
Do big campaign contributions influence politicians' decisions?
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Lifestyles of the rich and famous changes our brains
Thanks to Cathy Woods, for noting this interest/disturbing article.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Poverty meeting leaves premier looking bad
Liberal MLA Joan McIntyre didn't likely intend to take a shot at Premier Gordon Campbell.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Things get very complicated if HST petition passes
Even if the anti-HST initiative gets the required number of signatures, there is no guarantee the tax is dead.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why did Liberal MLAs march into HST debacle?
What if just one or two Liberal MLAs had decided it was a mistake to bring in the HST without seeking the public's views?
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Following the BC Rail corruption trial
As well as the usual sources, I suggest anyone interested in the trial check out pacificgazette.blogspot.com.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Liberals stumble, again, on children and families
Monday was a bad day for the Liberals.
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn’t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Province's role in capital marina dispute
A proposal for a marina in the Inner Harbour across from the legislature has created a great divide in the community. The marina is to target really large yachts. Opponents fear a wall of big boats blocking the water and problems for kayakers and other waterfront users.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Gulf oil spill burying B.C. offshore dreams
All that oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and washing up on U.S. shorelines is going to have an impact in B.C.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada’s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Children lose as government fights to keep secrets
Something has gone badly wrong when the person charged with looking after the interests of vulnerable children in B.C. ends up suing the government to get information.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, åsomething that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Kash Heed affair gets worse and worse
With the Kash Heed mess, the Liberal government has stumbled closer to the abyss that swallowed the NDP regime in 2001.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Victoria police face questions in woman's death
This is a case worth watching.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
HST turning into a political disaster
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's uncharacteristically snarky reaction to an Elections BC ban on a government campaign to sell the HST is a sign the Liberals are worried.
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
Friday, March 19, 2010
Taking a break
Time for a little change of pace. Blogging will be highly intermittent to non-existent for a while until we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
