The big business attempt to derail the anti-HST initiative was an amazing bungle.
The six business associations made things worse for the Liberals by launching the last-minute legal challenge to the petition signed by some 705,000 British Columbians.
And B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman quickly dismissed their arguments Friday, ruling that the anti-HST effort "complies with the spirit and the letter" of the initiative legislation.
Bauman noted Premier Gordon Campbell had even described the initiative petition as "a victory for democracy." (Which, naturally, raises questions about what the business groups were attempting to achieve.)
It was a thorough slapdown for the legal challenge.
Lawyers for the business groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - argued the Chief Electoral Officer should never have approved the initiative.
Initiatives can only be launched on issues within provincial jurisdiction. The HST was imposed by the federal government and isn't a provincial tax at all, the business groups argued. The draft bill extinguishing the tax, part of the initiative process, was therefore fatally flawed.
Leave aside the legal issues for a second and just consider the argument based on common sense. The federal government says it didn't bring the HST. The business groups are arguing the provincial government didn't bring it in either. A new tax, apparently, just happened - maybe the tax fairy brought it.
Bauman rejected the argument on legal grounds. There might be constitutional problems in repealing the tax, he agreed.
But the standard set out in the initiative act is simply that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the province. Bauman noted the draft bill calls for the cancellation of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
That's the agreement to introduce the tax and, he noted, it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
The business groups also argued the draft bill that would end the HST wasn't clear enough. Bauman said that just wasn't true.
It was a rout. All the business groups succeeded in doing was angering many members of the public, who objected to an attempt to subvert a successful grassroots democratic effort. (One lauded by the premier, remember.) And they reminded people that businesses are paying $1.9 billion less in taxes under the HST, while individuals and families are paying $1.9 billion more.
None of this means the tax will be repealed.
The anti-HST effort now goes to the legislative initiatives committee, which has six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats. The committee has 90 days to choose one of two courses.
It can pass the draft bill to repeal the tax on to the legislature. The government is free to ignore it, amend it or use its majority to vote it down.
Or it can send the measure to a province-wide referendum in September 2011.
That might be appealing in some ways. The standards for success in a referendum are daunting. To pass, the anti-HST side would need the support of more than 50 per cent of registered voters across the province and in at least two-thirds of riding.
The key words there are "registered voters." It's not a question of getting a majority of the people who turn out to vote; it has to be a more than 50 per cent of those on the voters' list. Those who don't show up - about 45 per cent in the 2009 election - would be counted as supporting the HST.
And even if the anti-HST side is successful, the result isn't binding.
There are no good choices for the Liberals.
Assuming they won't retreat on the tax, public anger will continue and recall campaigns will soon be launched against vulnerable MLAs.
The Campbell government has dug a very deep hole for itself.
Footnote: The initiatives committee is chaired by Terry Lake, a first-term Liberal MLA from Kamloops. The other Liberals are Eric Foster and John Slater from the Okanagan, Pat Pimm of Peace River North and Richard Lee and Dave Hayer from the Lower Mainland.
The New Democrats are Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth from the Lower Mainland, Katrine Conroy from Kootenay West and Rob Fleming from Victoria.
The Liberals should start worrying about how the committee process is going to go.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Liberals set scene for Elections B.C. controversy
The controversy over interim Chief Electoral Officer Craig James’s decision on the anti-HST initiative is another self-inflicted wound for the Liberals.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
Liberals set scene for Elections B.C. controversy
The controversy over interim Chief Electoral Officer Craig James’s decision on the anti-HST initiative is another self-inflicted wound for the Liberals.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I’m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have “enormous respect” for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries – think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush’s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn’t even allowed to vote – the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer’s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren’t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn’t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn’t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent’s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn’t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It’s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee’s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn’t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
HST mess gets worse for the Liberals
Big business groups in B.C. are the NDP's best allies right now.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Friday, July 30, 2010
You lose, they keep the money; you win, they keep the money
I can see why Mike Lee is unhappy.
Back in 2007, the Vancouver Island man knew he had a gambling problem. He was losing too much money and couldn't stop.
So he signed up for B.C. Lotteries' voluntary self-exclusion program. That's supposed to bar you from bingo halls and casinos and online betting. Staff will be on the alert to keep you out, the corporation says, and you can be fined up to $5,000 for breaking the agreement.
And, the current rules say, you can't keep your winnings if you go back into a casino and beat the odds.
But Lee says he was able to keep on gambling, winning sometimes but mostly losing. B.C. Lotteries didn't keep up its end of the bargain when it came to preventing him from gambling.
Until January, when he won $42,500 in a VLT at Duncan's mini-casino.
Sorry, the casino said. You're on the self-exclusion list and you don't get the money. It will subsidize B.C. Lotteries' harm-reduction programs.
Lee's lawyer is fighting the decision. Partly, it's a technical question of whether Lee ever agreed to forfeit any winnings.
But on a more basic level, the issue is fairness.
Despite all the talk about helping gamblers save themselves, B.C. Lotteries didn't enforce Lee's exclusion when he was losing money and increasing its profits. Only when he won did the Crown corporation and its agents leap into action.
You could write this off as an aberration, a one-off.
Except the self-exclusion program has been around for 11 years. And so far, not one fine has been levied against a gambler for sneaking into casinos.
Another gambler is suing over the self-exclusion program. Joyce May Ross. She too registered to be barred from betting in 2007. Since then, she has lost $331,000. There was no serious effort to stop her from gambling, she alleges. Casino staff knew she was a participant in the self-exclusion program, but didn't stop her from gambling, she claims.
It does suggest a double standard. The program isn't great at catching gamblers, until they win.
The notion of giving protecting addicted people from their illness is appealing. (This has to be an illness. Imagine someone who can think of no way to stop gambling and losing except by making a public declaration and being barred.)
But the reality, in B.C., is flimsy.
Casino employees are supposed to memorize 6,600 pictures of British Columbians who have asked to be kept out of casinos and then confront them. They're filed in big binders. (Ontario is considering cameras and facial recognition technology to help. It is facing a proposed $3.5-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of addicted gamblers who claim they asked to be barred, but were allowed to keep losing.)
And they do. B.C. gambling establishments turned away people on the list about 8,200 times last year, according to a Vancouver Province review of the issue. They kept 102 people on the exclusion list from claiming a jackpot.
But is that good? When people put themselves on the list, they are acknowledging they no longer can control their gambling addictions. They need someone to stand at the door of the bingo hall or casino and say you can't come in.
If there are 6,600 of them, and they each test the safeguards every couple of weeks, then the program is catching about five per cent of people who have asked to be barred.
Rich Coleman, responsible for increasing gambling, reducing harm and limiting gambling-related crime, acknowledges the program has problems. But the addicted gamblers have to take responsibility too, he says.
Except that's why it's called an addiction - they can't stop. And that's why they sign up for the self-exclusion program.
It's depressing. The government knows that for every 1,000 new gamblers, some 40 will have problems. Their lives will be worse - often a lot worse.
But it still is setting out to recruit about 240,000 new gamblers per year.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government's online gambling site remains closed until further notice after the botched launch, privacy violations and less-than-honest communication. The shutdown is costing the B.C.Lottery Corp. about $800,000 a week. But it's saving gamblers money.
Back in 2007, the Vancouver Island man knew he had a gambling problem. He was losing too much money and couldn't stop.
So he signed up for B.C. Lotteries' voluntary self-exclusion program. That's supposed to bar you from bingo halls and casinos and online betting. Staff will be on the alert to keep you out, the corporation says, and you can be fined up to $5,000 for breaking the agreement.
And, the current rules say, you can't keep your winnings if you go back into a casino and beat the odds.
But Lee says he was able to keep on gambling, winning sometimes but mostly losing. B.C. Lotteries didn't keep up its end of the bargain when it came to preventing him from gambling.
Until January, when he won $42,500 in a VLT at Duncan's mini-casino.
Sorry, the casino said. You're on the self-exclusion list and you don't get the money. It will subsidize B.C. Lotteries' harm-reduction programs.
Lee's lawyer is fighting the decision. Partly, it's a technical question of whether Lee ever agreed to forfeit any winnings.
But on a more basic level, the issue is fairness.
Despite all the talk about helping gamblers save themselves, B.C. Lotteries didn't enforce Lee's exclusion when he was losing money and increasing its profits. Only when he won did the Crown corporation and its agents leap into action.
You could write this off as an aberration, a one-off.
Except the self-exclusion program has been around for 11 years. And so far, not one fine has been levied against a gambler for sneaking into casinos.
Another gambler is suing over the self-exclusion program. Joyce May Ross. She too registered to be barred from betting in 2007. Since then, she has lost $331,000. There was no serious effort to stop her from gambling, she alleges. Casino staff knew she was a participant in the self-exclusion program, but didn't stop her from gambling, she claims.
It does suggest a double standard. The program isn't great at catching gamblers, until they win.
The notion of giving protecting addicted people from their illness is appealing. (This has to be an illness. Imagine someone who can think of no way to stop gambling and losing except by making a public declaration and being barred.)
But the reality, in B.C., is flimsy.
Casino employees are supposed to memorize 6,600 pictures of British Columbians who have asked to be kept out of casinos and then confront them. They're filed in big binders. (Ontario is considering cameras and facial recognition technology to help. It is facing a proposed $3.5-billion class action lawsuit on behalf of addicted gamblers who claim they asked to be barred, but were allowed to keep losing.)
And they do. B.C. gambling establishments turned away people on the list about 8,200 times last year, according to a Vancouver Province review of the issue. They kept 102 people on the exclusion list from claiming a jackpot.
But is that good? When people put themselves on the list, they are acknowledging they no longer can control their gambling addictions. They need someone to stand at the door of the bingo hall or casino and say you can't come in.
If there are 6,600 of them, and they each test the safeguards every couple of weeks, then the program is catching about five per cent of people who have asked to be barred.
Rich Coleman, responsible for increasing gambling, reducing harm and limiting gambling-related crime, acknowledges the program has problems. But the addicted gamblers have to take responsibility too, he says.
Except that's why it's called an addiction - they can't stop. And that's why they sign up for the self-exclusion program.
It's depressing. The government knows that for every 1,000 new gamblers, some 40 will have problems. Their lives will be worse - often a lot worse.
But it still is setting out to recruit about 240,000 new gamblers per year.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government's online gambling site remains closed until further notice after the botched launch, privacy violations and less-than-honest communication. The shutdown is costing the B.C.Lottery Corp. about $800,000 a week. But it's saving gamblers money.
Harper’s self-destructive census bungle
Maybe Stephen Harper, in his heart, has mixed feelings about being in power.
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That’s one explanation for the Conservative government’s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn’t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it’s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it’s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That’s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren’t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn’t likely to attract attention and didn’t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it’s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn’t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people’s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency’s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives’ arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. “Ideologues don’t just ignore research,” the editorial argued. “They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs… This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.”
Perhaps he fears it means he has sold out.
That’s one explanation for the Conservative government’s bizarre decision to turn the census into some sort of do-or-die issue.
The census hasn’t been top of mind for most Canadians. Or even bottom of mind, really.
But it’s a big deal for researchers and governments and businesses and policy advocates. Every five years, Canadians fill out census forms. The data is rolled up into a portrait of the country and how it’s changing.
Provincial governments and municipalities use it to assess programs and future needs; business groups monitor the state of the economy and the challenges ahead; school boards plan for future needs; researchers try to figure out what is changing - and why - in the lives of Canadians.
The Conservatives, for no compelling reason, want to make the data less reliable, the census less useful and comparisons with previous years difficult.
Most Canadians fill out a short census form every five years. Twenty per cent of us get the mandatory long census form, which asks more questions. That sample, randomly selected, provides Statistics Canada with reliable date.
The Conservatives, with no consultation or warning, are making the long form voluntary.
That’s a mistake, according to virtually every statistician, researcher and census user.
The decision means the census sample is no longer random. Single moms working two jobs might not fill out the forms; retired people might be happy to take the time. Natives living in remote reserves and hard-charging business executives might not get around to the census.
The portrait of a nation is skewed. Which means decisions made on the basis of the information is also unreliable.
So why would the Conservatives risk wrecking the census with a decision that is being denounced as wrongheaded by almost everyone involved?
Three answers make sense.
Harper could genuinely believe that the benefits of an accurate census aren’t enough to make it mandatory for Canadians to fill out the long form.
Or the Conservatives could be trying to please the portion of their base that sees government as the enemy and the requirement to fill out the census form as Big Brother run wild.
Or they figured the census wasn’t likely to attract attention and didn’t anticipate just how widespread and credible the opposition would be.
Whatever happened, it’s turned into a big problem.
I expect the Conservative strategists were right about the census as an issue.
But this isn’t about the census anymore.
The government stands accused - by everyone from the Conference Board of Canada to the province of Ontario to big unions - of making a bad decision.
The National Statistics Council - appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada - wants the mandatory forum used in 2011 and proposes an overall review of the census before the next survey in five yhears. (The council includes former TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond, born and raised in Victoria. He found it shocking that the decision was made without consulting the council.)
And it has been dishonest. Cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office have claimed that Canadians were up in arms about the census. But Statistics Canada said it sent out 12 million forms in 2006 and had only 166 complaints about all aspects of the census.
They talked about the threat of jail and bureaucrats knocking on people’s doors in the night to demand answers.
But no one has ever been jailed for not completing the census form. And no one has faced a late-night call from the man.
Most seriously, Industry Minister Tony Clement said StatsCan supported the change. The agency’s head, Munir Sheikh, said that was not true and resigned as a matter of integrity. Who should you believe - the career government employee who resigned in protest, or the glib minister?
The changes to the census were a mistake. The Conservatives’ arrogance and dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that are doing much more damage.
Footnote: An Ottawa Citizen editorial suggested another motive. “Ideologues don’t just ignore research,” the editorial argued. “They actually abhor it, because it gets in their way. If you approach the problem of drug addiction from an ideological point of view, then you have nothing but contempt for medical researchers who can show that safe injection sites reduce the harm of illegal drugs… This contempt for empirical research is not the Canadian way, but it has become the Conservative way.”
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Who should you believe on children's safety?
About six weeks ago, I wrote a column about a Representative for Children and Youth audit of a child support program. It found children were being put at risk and called for an effort to make sure they were safe.
Children's Minister Mary Polak said no. I wondered what she was thinking, as the audit found more than 1,000 children could be at risk.
Polak, or the Public Affairs Bureau, wrote a letter to newspapers that ran the column.
"Based on an audit of the program, Mr. Willcocks feels it is appropriate that the ministry now knock on the door of every CIHR recipient and suggest that while we may not have a specific concern about the care you as an uncle, aunt or grandparent provide - we are going to examine your individual care-giving situation," she wrote. "That audit which involved more than 1,200 CIHR cases, turned up concerns in four instances which the Representative for Children and Youth reported to MCFD."
That's not actually what the column said, but it's a response.
But not an accurate one, according to a letter to the same newspapers from the Children's Representative.
"The minister's letter incorrectly states that my audit 'turned up concerns in four instances...' This statement misrepresents my audit findings, and seriously misinforms the public.
"In reality we found that in 28 per cent of files audited, serious issues of safety and evidence of risk were identified, including relating to either a prior ministry child welfare contact or a criminal record of concern. Based on 4,500 children, this could equate to more than 1,000 cases with evidence of risk. Conclusions in this rigorous audit are reliable at a 95 per cent confidence level, giving us a precise overview of the risk this group of children face.
"Most of the children in this program are safely supported by relatives, to whom we owe a deep debt of gratitude for their commitment and dedication to supporting a child in need, a child who might otherwise come into foster care."
But, the representative concluded, there is an "urgent need to go back and do the screening right" to ensure children are safe.
Children's Minister Mary Polak said no. I wondered what she was thinking, as the audit found more than 1,000 children could be at risk.
Polak, or the Public Affairs Bureau, wrote a letter to newspapers that ran the column.
"Based on an audit of the program, Mr. Willcocks feels it is appropriate that the ministry now knock on the door of every CIHR recipient and suggest that while we may not have a specific concern about the care you as an uncle, aunt or grandparent provide - we are going to examine your individual care-giving situation," she wrote. "That audit which involved more than 1,200 CIHR cases, turned up concerns in four instances which the Representative for Children and Youth reported to MCFD."
That's not actually what the column said, but it's a response.
But not an accurate one, according to a letter to the same newspapers from the Children's Representative.
"The minister's letter incorrectly states that my audit 'turned up concerns in four instances...' This statement misrepresents my audit findings, and seriously misinforms the public.
"In reality we found that in 28 per cent of files audited, serious issues of safety and evidence of risk were identified, including relating to either a prior ministry child welfare contact or a criminal record of concern. Based on 4,500 children, this could equate to more than 1,000 cases with evidence of risk. Conclusions in this rigorous audit are reliable at a 95 per cent confidence level, giving us a precise overview of the risk this group of children face.
"Most of the children in this program are safely supported by relatives, to whom we owe a deep debt of gratitude for their commitment and dedication to supporting a child in need, a child who might otherwise come into foster care."
But, the representative concluded, there is an "urgent need to go back and do the screening right" to ensure children are safe.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Court costs no worry when taxpayers pick up tab
It's time to rethink the idea that governments should automatically pick up the tab when politicians or managers get into legal disputes.
Taxpayers in North Saanich, a Victoria-area community, are on the hook for $170,000 in extra costs after Coun. Peter Chandler was found to have made false statements that damaged the reputation of Donald Hunter, who lives in the community.
The award was only $15,000. The Municipal Insurance Association paid it, along with the district's legal fees above a $25,000 deductible.
But the municipality's insurance rates will now rise $144,000 over the next eight years as the insurer gets its money back. Add the $25,000 deductible and taxpayers are out about $170,000.
That didn't have to happen. When Hunter felt Chandler had attacked his integrity in a damaging way, he didn't immediately sue.
"There followed an exchange of letters between counsel in which an apology was requested and refused," the B.C. Supreme Court judgment noted. "Litigation was then commenced. Mr. Chandler has neither retracted nor apologized."
The taxpayers might have been spared any costs with an apology. A negotiated settlement could easily have been reached, cutting the costs by at least $120,000.
Instead taxpayers funded a losing legal battle and will be paying for it over the next eight years.
Chandler likely believed he was doing the right thing in refusing to apologize or settle.
But would he have committed $170,000 of his own money to pursuing the principles involved?
Even if he would have, that doesn't mean residents share his enthusiasm.
Most disputes are settled outside the court system because people look at the costs, rewards and risks of full-scale legal battles and settle.
It's not just a municipal issue. The B.C. government has funded expensive legal battles when settlement would have made sense. And taxpayers paid something like $2 million to the six lawyers representing Brian Mulroney's at the inquiry into his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber.
And it's also not just a question of the cost to taxpayers.
For starters, there is a big fairness issue. Individuals or small companies, paying their own legal bills, find themselves facing governments with unlimited resources and the ability to wage a legal war of attrition.
Willow Kinloch sued the Victoria police after she was tethered in cells and pinned against a door for four hours. She had been picked up as a drunk 15-year-old.
Months before trial, her lawyer offered to settle for the lawsuit $40,000.
Instead of making a counter offer, lawyers for the police and city didn't respond.
The case went to trial. Kinloch was awarded $60,000 and the city spent something over $100,000 on its legal costs.
And the court ordered the city to pay her legal bills because it had been "unco-operative and difficult" during the litigation. Lawyers for the city and police had needlessly engaged in activities that increased for both sides, the Supreme Court judgment noted.
Which leads to conclusions of either gouging or a strategic attempt to make it too expensive for a 15-year-old to get access to the justice system. (The city appealed the award, then dropped the challenge and reached a confidential settlement.)
And then there are the messages sent when governments are so quick to turn to the courts.
Victoria's response to the Kinloch suit indicated to police officers and the public that it violating prisoners rights - the jury's conclusion -- was acceptable.
It's right to pay the legal bills of politicians and employees - government or private - who end up in court as a result of doing their jobs in good faith. Without that protection, they might shy away from issues for fear of legal action.
But when protection is automatic and the legal bills the taxpayers' problem, there is a risk governments will become bullies and waste taxpayers' money on unnecessary court battles.
It's time for governments to acknowledge the risk and turn decisions on legal case management - including negotiated settlements - over to an independent expert panel.
Taxpayers in North Saanich, a Victoria-area community, are on the hook for $170,000 in extra costs after Coun. Peter Chandler was found to have made false statements that damaged the reputation of Donald Hunter, who lives in the community.
The award was only $15,000. The Municipal Insurance Association paid it, along with the district's legal fees above a $25,000 deductible.
But the municipality's insurance rates will now rise $144,000 over the next eight years as the insurer gets its money back. Add the $25,000 deductible and taxpayers are out about $170,000.
That didn't have to happen. When Hunter felt Chandler had attacked his integrity in a damaging way, he didn't immediately sue.
"There followed an exchange of letters between counsel in which an apology was requested and refused," the B.C. Supreme Court judgment noted. "Litigation was then commenced. Mr. Chandler has neither retracted nor apologized."
The taxpayers might have been spared any costs with an apology. A negotiated settlement could easily have been reached, cutting the costs by at least $120,000.
Instead taxpayers funded a losing legal battle and will be paying for it over the next eight years.
Chandler likely believed he was doing the right thing in refusing to apologize or settle.
But would he have committed $170,000 of his own money to pursuing the principles involved?
Even if he would have, that doesn't mean residents share his enthusiasm.
Most disputes are settled outside the court system because people look at the costs, rewards and risks of full-scale legal battles and settle.
It's not just a municipal issue. The B.C. government has funded expensive legal battles when settlement would have made sense. And taxpayers paid something like $2 million to the six lawyers representing Brian Mulroney's at the inquiry into his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber.
And it's also not just a question of the cost to taxpayers.
For starters, there is a big fairness issue. Individuals or small companies, paying their own legal bills, find themselves facing governments with unlimited resources and the ability to wage a legal war of attrition.
Willow Kinloch sued the Victoria police after she was tethered in cells and pinned against a door for four hours. She had been picked up as a drunk 15-year-old.
Months before trial, her lawyer offered to settle for the lawsuit $40,000.
Instead of making a counter offer, lawyers for the police and city didn't respond.
The case went to trial. Kinloch was awarded $60,000 and the city spent something over $100,000 on its legal costs.
And the court ordered the city to pay her legal bills because it had been "unco-operative and difficult" during the litigation. Lawyers for the city and police had needlessly engaged in activities that increased for both sides, the Supreme Court judgment noted.
Which leads to conclusions of either gouging or a strategic attempt to make it too expensive for a 15-year-old to get access to the justice system. (The city appealed the award, then dropped the challenge and reached a confidential settlement.)
And then there are the messages sent when governments are so quick to turn to the courts.
Victoria's response to the Kinloch suit indicated to police officers and the public that it violating prisoners rights - the jury's conclusion -- was acceptable.
It's right to pay the legal bills of politicians and employees - government or private - who end up in court as a result of doing their jobs in good faith. Without that protection, they might shy away from issues for fear of legal action.
But when protection is automatic and the legal bills the taxpayers' problem, there is a risk governments will become bullies and waste taxpayers' money on unnecessary court battles.
It's time for governments to acknowledge the risk and turn decisions on legal case management - including negotiated settlements - over to an independent expert panel.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Liberals, lotteries need to face hide gambling and crime links
Sometimes you have to call people on the rubbish they speak. The B.C. Lottery Corp. scandal is one of those times.
Start with Michael Graydon, the $300,000-a-year CEO. After the news broke that the Crown corporation had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing, Graydon denied any real problem.
Nothing to see here, he said on Global TV. The fines were levied because B.C. Lottery filed reports late because of computer problems and others had minor technical errors.
That wasn't true. B.C. Lottery was fined for 1,020 infractions. About 40 per cent were for late filing - but 366 reports had errors and 227 lacked accurate information to detect criminal activity.
In eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000. They were asked to come back with the information, a trusting approach by those charged with preventing money laundering.
B.C. Lottery was also fined for failing to introduce a program to help identify signs of money laundering.
Solicitor General Mike de Jong said he's worried about organized crime, casinos and online betting. "If some of these early reports are true, yes, it is troubling," he said.
But it's not de Jong's file. Housing Minister Rich Coleman is responsible both for increasing gambling revenue and enforcing the laws. That conflict should be ended immediately.
And if de Jong is only troubled now, he hasn't been paying attention to a string of warnings about criminal activity. The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, revealed a crime explosion at casinos and mini-casinos. Investigations into offences such as money laundering and loan sharking more than doubled in a year.
Criminals like casinos. They are good places to move counterfeit money and launder the proceeds of crime. Buy $9,000 worth of chips with cash from a drug deal, make a few safe bets and leave with a casino cheque that legitimizes the money.
And desperate gamblers are good customers for loan sharks.
In 2008-9, the gaming enforcement branch launched 877 investigations into suspected counterfeiting, money laundering and loan sharking. Not a single charge was laid.
Despite the crime surge, the government last year shut down the specialized police unit created in 2004 to help fight gambling-related crime.
Coleman was next to weigh in, with a response much like Graydon's. Technical errors, minor problems, old news, the province will appeal, de Jong and everyone else who has concerns are wrong.
But the agency that levied the fines - the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC - said that was untrue.
Fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law" and when, despite intensive work with the offender, "they just don't get it." The agency had warned B.C. Lottery about problems with its anti-crime efforts in 2008.
These are serious failures. About one-fifth of the money laundering and terrorism financing cases discovered in 2008-9 took place in casinos, FINTRAC reports. Drug dealers and organized crime are the main groups using casinos to launder money.
Yet Coleman and Graydon persist in denying a real problem that almost everyone else - including the solicitor general - acknowledges.
Again, that's because they are in a conflict. Both are charged with increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the amount each one loses and the total take.
Making the effort to track transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers, who, for whatever reason, want to keep a low profile.
Critics have warned the Liberals have lost their way on gambling. Denying a serious problem in fighting money laundering by big-time criminals shows how far they have fallen.
Footnote: Coleman also insisted it is just a coincidence that the weekly loss limit for online gambling was increased from $120 last year to $9,999 - just $1 below the level that would require reporting transactions to FINTRAC to help prevent money laundering or activities aimed at funding terrorism. The claim is not credible.
Start with Michael Graydon, the $300,000-a-year CEO. After the news broke that the Crown corporation had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing, Graydon denied any real problem.
Nothing to see here, he said on Global TV. The fines were levied because B.C. Lottery filed reports late because of computer problems and others had minor technical errors.
That wasn't true. B.C. Lottery was fined for 1,020 infractions. About 40 per cent were for late filing - but 366 reports had errors and 227 lacked accurate information to detect criminal activity.
In eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000. They were asked to come back with the information, a trusting approach by those charged with preventing money laundering.
B.C. Lottery was also fined for failing to introduce a program to help identify signs of money laundering.
Solicitor General Mike de Jong said he's worried about organized crime, casinos and online betting. "If some of these early reports are true, yes, it is troubling," he said.
But it's not de Jong's file. Housing Minister Rich Coleman is responsible both for increasing gambling revenue and enforcing the laws. That conflict should be ended immediately.
And if de Jong is only troubled now, he hasn't been paying attention to a string of warnings about criminal activity. The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, revealed a crime explosion at casinos and mini-casinos. Investigations into offences such as money laundering and loan sharking more than doubled in a year.
Criminals like casinos. They are good places to move counterfeit money and launder the proceeds of crime. Buy $9,000 worth of chips with cash from a drug deal, make a few safe bets and leave with a casino cheque that legitimizes the money.
And desperate gamblers are good customers for loan sharks.
In 2008-9, the gaming enforcement branch launched 877 investigations into suspected counterfeiting, money laundering and loan sharking. Not a single charge was laid.
Despite the crime surge, the government last year shut down the specialized police unit created in 2004 to help fight gambling-related crime.
Coleman was next to weigh in, with a response much like Graydon's. Technical errors, minor problems, old news, the province will appeal, de Jong and everyone else who has concerns are wrong.
But the agency that levied the fines - the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC - said that was untrue.
Fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law" and when, despite intensive work with the offender, "they just don't get it." The agency had warned B.C. Lottery about problems with its anti-crime efforts in 2008.
These are serious failures. About one-fifth of the money laundering and terrorism financing cases discovered in 2008-9 took place in casinos, FINTRAC reports. Drug dealers and organized crime are the main groups using casinos to launder money.
Yet Coleman and Graydon persist in denying a real problem that almost everyone else - including the solicitor general - acknowledges.
Again, that's because they are in a conflict. Both are charged with increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the amount each one loses and the total take.
Making the effort to track transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers, who, for whatever reason, want to keep a low profile.
Critics have warned the Liberals have lost their way on gambling. Denying a serious problem in fighting money laundering by big-time criminals shows how far they have fallen.
Footnote: Coleman also insisted it is just a coincidence that the weekly loss limit for online gambling was increased from $120 last year to $9,999 - just $1 below the level that would require reporting transactions to FINTRAC to help prevent money laundering or activities aimed at funding terrorism. The claim is not credible.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Failing the test on gambling
The Times Colonist has a good editorial on the wretched performance of B.C. Lotteries and the government this week.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A really good idea
The Canadian Forces Pacific base is in Esquimalt and the capital region. It owns about 41 square kilometres, worth some $3 billion.
"Why not move the Pacific Fleet Base to Prince Rupert," asks Bernard von Schulmann.
The federal government could sell most of the land around Victoria, reducing the deficit and easing housing prices. Prince Rupert needs the jobs.
So why not?
"Why not move the Pacific Fleet Base to Prince Rupert," asks Bernard von Schulmann.
The federal government could sell most of the land around Victoria, reducing the deficit and easing housing prices. Prince Rupert needs the jobs.
So why not?
Online gambling expansion off to shaky start
Another milestone. B.C. is now the best place on Earth, or at least in North America, to lose serious money gambling in your own home.
Drunk, desperate, addicted, the B.C. government is giving every citizen the chance to lose more than $500,000 a year.
The government launched full-scale Internet gambling last week, becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to decide that letting people bet from home was a good idea.
It's a good idea for government revenues, to be sure. Gambling losses - lottery tickets, slots and the rest - are a big cash source for governments.
Since 2001, when the Liberals were elected on a promise to halt gambling expansion because it was destroying lives, government gambling revenues - and British Columbians' losses - have doubled.
Adults in B.C. lose an average $590 a year betting against the government. (Organized crime gave bettors a better deal when it ran Vegas.)
But about one-third of us don't gamble or just spend a small amount in scratch-and-lose tickets. The average loss for B.C. Lotteries core customers is more like $890,
The prize customers are the gamblers that casinos describe as "whales," the people who will keep on betting as they lose huge amounts.
It's a great business model. Set yourself up as a monopoly supplier of an addictive product - drugs, alcohol, gambling.
And then wait for your most lucrative customers - affluent, out-of-control addicts.
The Globe and Mail did a fine series last year on gambling. The newspaper filed freedom of information requests about the B.C. Lotteries "Gold Players Card." That's a customer loyalty program designed to keep big losers coming back to lose more. The card lets casinos and the Crown corporation know where the whales bet, how much they lose and the snacks they like.
The FOI request revealed 10 B.C. gamblers lost a combined $11.7 million in the previous year. Eight people gambled away more than $1 million each.
The 100 biggest losers lost an average $270,000 in the previous year.
Some of them might have been able to afford to lose $5,000 a week.
But some are suffering because of their gambling. So are their families.
Like any addict, the government can't get enough gambling revenue. New casinos, mini-casinos in smaller communities, small-time online betting - they all introduced to take more money from British Columbians.
The first online casino in North America offers the chance for another big leap in the amount of money we lose.
The government thinks so. Online B.C. Lotteries losses were limited to $120 a week up until last year. The goal was help keep people from falling into addiction and disaster.
But then the cabinet decided to raise the limit so gamblers could lose $9,999 a week. (At $10,000, the transaction would have to be reported to the federal government because of concerns about criminal money laundering. B.C. Lotteries revealed this week it has been fined $500,000 this week for violating federal anti-money laundering laws.)
The new online casino crashed when it was launched last Friday. B.C. Lotteries had been offering cash incentives to get more people to bet; at first the corporation blamed the problems on high demand.
On Tuesday, it revealed that the site's security had broken down. Some 130 gamblers' accounts - some with sensitive information - could be accessed by others. B.C. Lotteries is hiring a security firm to see if hackers were at work.
Gambling Minister Rich Coleman justified the expansion into online gambling by noting some British Columbians were already betting on the Internet using unregulated site. Better to provide them with a controlled gambling opportunity and keep the money in the province, he said.
But that's not really what the government is doing. It's promoting online gambling heavily and hopes to triple the take, to $100 million, in three years.
Online gambling is just another way for government to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount each person loses - both approved goals for the lottery corporation each year.
Footnote: Online gambling poses greater risks of addiction and big losses, according to the government's responsible gambling website. A study released last year found online gamblers "play"
more frequently and bet more aggressively than people who go to casinos.
Their gambling was easier to hide from friends and family.
About 35,000 British Columbians already have a severe gambling problem, according the B.C. Medical Association.
Drunk, desperate, addicted, the B.C. government is giving every citizen the chance to lose more than $500,000 a year.
The government launched full-scale Internet gambling last week, becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to decide that letting people bet from home was a good idea.
It's a good idea for government revenues, to be sure. Gambling losses - lottery tickets, slots and the rest - are a big cash source for governments.
Since 2001, when the Liberals were elected on a promise to halt gambling expansion because it was destroying lives, government gambling revenues - and British Columbians' losses - have doubled.
Adults in B.C. lose an average $590 a year betting against the government. (Organized crime gave bettors a better deal when it ran Vegas.)
But about one-third of us don't gamble or just spend a small amount in scratch-and-lose tickets. The average loss for B.C. Lotteries core customers is more like $890,
The prize customers are the gamblers that casinos describe as "whales," the people who will keep on betting as they lose huge amounts.
It's a great business model. Set yourself up as a monopoly supplier of an addictive product - drugs, alcohol, gambling.
And then wait for your most lucrative customers - affluent, out-of-control addicts.
The Globe and Mail did a fine series last year on gambling. The newspaper filed freedom of information requests about the B.C. Lotteries "Gold Players Card." That's a customer loyalty program designed to keep big losers coming back to lose more. The card lets casinos and the Crown corporation know where the whales bet, how much they lose and the snacks they like.
The FOI request revealed 10 B.C. gamblers lost a combined $11.7 million in the previous year. Eight people gambled away more than $1 million each.
The 100 biggest losers lost an average $270,000 in the previous year.
Some of them might have been able to afford to lose $5,000 a week.
But some are suffering because of their gambling. So are their families.
Like any addict, the government can't get enough gambling revenue. New casinos, mini-casinos in smaller communities, small-time online betting - they all introduced to take more money from British Columbians.
The first online casino in North America offers the chance for another big leap in the amount of money we lose.
The government thinks so. Online B.C. Lotteries losses were limited to $120 a week up until last year. The goal was help keep people from falling into addiction and disaster.
But then the cabinet decided to raise the limit so gamblers could lose $9,999 a week. (At $10,000, the transaction would have to be reported to the federal government because of concerns about criminal money laundering. B.C. Lotteries revealed this week it has been fined $500,000 this week for violating federal anti-money laundering laws.)
The new online casino crashed when it was launched last Friday. B.C. Lotteries had been offering cash incentives to get more people to bet; at first the corporation blamed the problems on high demand.
On Tuesday, it revealed that the site's security had broken down. Some 130 gamblers' accounts - some with sensitive information - could be accessed by others. B.C. Lotteries is hiring a security firm to see if hackers were at work.
Gambling Minister Rich Coleman justified the expansion into online gambling by noting some British Columbians were already betting on the Internet using unregulated site. Better to provide them with a controlled gambling opportunity and keep the money in the province, he said.
But that's not really what the government is doing. It's promoting online gambling heavily and hopes to triple the take, to $100 million, in three years.
Online gambling is just another way for government to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount each person loses - both approved goals for the lottery corporation each year.
Footnote: Online gambling poses greater risks of addiction and big losses, according to the government's responsible gambling website. A study released last year found online gamblers "play"
more frequently and bet more aggressively than people who go to casinos.
Their gambling was easier to hide from friends and family.
About 35,000 British Columbians already have a severe gambling problem, according the B.C. Medical Association.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The new $17-million protected area (or $7 billion)
Back in February, the throne speech announced a ban on mining and oil and gas exploration in the East Kootenay Flathead Valley.
That was a big deal for people living across the border in Montana. The Flathead flows into the state and is an important river. The prospect of mining or gas development alarmed the Americans. Barack Obama even got involved.
It also meant some companies would get the boot after spending money to develop claims in the valley.
Then mines minister Blair Lekstrom said then that he didn't know if the provincial government would owe the companies compensation.
But Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was much clearer. The B.C. government was on the hook for a big compensation expense, he said, and the U.S. government should help.
Gordon Campbell has now made things clearer. The two companies most affected should get something like $17 million, the premier told the Flathead Beacon, a good Montana weekly.
Schweitzer praised Campbell as the key play in the agreement, "walking away from $7 billion" worth of economic activity in order to protect the Flathead.
That was a big deal for people living across the border in Montana. The Flathead flows into the state and is an important river. The prospect of mining or gas development alarmed the Americans. Barack Obama even got involved.
It also meant some companies would get the boot after spending money to develop claims in the valley.
Then mines minister Blair Lekstrom said then that he didn't know if the provincial government would owe the companies compensation.
But Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was much clearer. The B.C. government was on the hook for a big compensation expense, he said, and the U.S. government should help.
Gordon Campbell has now made things clearer. The two companies most affected should get something like $17 million, the premier told the Flathead Beacon, a good Montana weekly.
Schweitzer praised Campbell as the key play in the agreement, "walking away from $7 billion" worth of economic activity in order to protect the Flathead.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Chong’s big meal claim and MLAs’ sense of entitlement
It’s not really Ida Chong’s fault. She’s a cultural victim.
The minister for health living and sport ran into a storm of criticism when the Times Colonist reported she claimed almost $6,000 in meal allowances last year – while living a few miles from the legislature.
All MLAs can claim a $61 a day for meals when the legislature is sitting or they are in Victoria or Vancouver on government business. (If they live outside the capital, they can also claim up to $19,000 a year to rent or buy a place in the capital.) The capital city allowance, it’s called.
Chong, the public accounts revealed, claimed $5,921 in meal expenses — about 98 days worth. Even though she lives about 10 kilometres from the legislature. And the legislature only sat for 60 days out of the year,
Pack a lunch like the rest of us, angry voters said, especially when your government is cutting programs and telling people belt-tightening is needed.
Chong argued all MLAs collected similar amounts. (Unfortunately for her, Murray Coell, her neighbour and fellow cabinet minister, undermined that defence by claimed $1,321.)
And she said, correctly, that the meal claims were within the rules.
Which raises two underlying issues.
First, the rules are remarkably generous. Most employers reimburse reasonable expenses when people travel on business. But they don’t usually give you $61 for food if you have a long day at the office. MLAs don’t have to provide receipts. If they buy a $6 sandwich for lunch and a $10 pizza for supper, they can still claim the full $61.
It’s not just the expense claims. MLAs have increased their base pay by 34 per cent in the last five years to $99,000. Most get extra money for various roles. Cabinet ministers, like Chong, are paid $152,000.
But the average wage in B.C. rose about 12 per cent in the same period.
MLAs also voted to give themselves a generous pension plan, with taxpayers picking up a large part of the cost.
But only 25 per cent of British Columbians have any workplace pension plan. The majority of taxpayers are paying for a good pension plan for MLAs while they have no plan of their own.
The gap between the rulers and the ruled has widened.
The examples are striking. MLAs think they need up to $19,000 for a part-time home in Victoria. But the government expects a disabled person income assistance to find accommodation for less than $4,500 a year. Perhaps MLAs need nicer places than someone with a disability — but four times as nice?
Chong’s $6,000 in meal claims is twice the income assistance provided to a single person for all living expenses, except rent, for an entire year. It’s five times the monthly income of someone working at minimum wage.
The disparities suggest MLAs have a high opinion of their value and importance — and a low opinion of their constituents’ worth.
Second, MLAs’ sense of entitlement is showing. Just because the rules allow a $61-a-day claim doesn’t mean they have to grab the money. MLAs could submit expenses that reflect what they actually paid for food. At incomes of $100,000 and up, they could opt to pay for their own lunches.
Chong is not an exception. Her claims were revealed because cabinet ministers’ expenses are reported as part of the public accounts.
The five New Democrat MLAs from the capital region have rallied around Chong and — appallingly — refused to say how much they claimed for expenses. Taxpayers are paying the bills, but according to the New Democrats, it’s none of their business what the cost is.
Which suggests that the claims are high and raises real concerns about the kind of accountability and openness an NDP government would provide.
No one should begrudge MLAs an adequate income. But many people are rightly angry at this casual excess.
Footnote: The latest pay and benefit increases followed the recommendations of a three-person review panel appointed by the premier. But the trio included a senior labour relations lawyer, a former B.C. Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of B.C. business professor. Their average income was likely north of $250,000, shaping their perspectives.
For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. A member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members — one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each.
The minister for health living and sport ran into a storm of criticism when the Times Colonist reported she claimed almost $6,000 in meal allowances last year – while living a few miles from the legislature.
All MLAs can claim a $61 a day for meals when the legislature is sitting or they are in Victoria or Vancouver on government business. (If they live outside the capital, they can also claim up to $19,000 a year to rent or buy a place in the capital.) The capital city allowance, it’s called.
Chong, the public accounts revealed, claimed $5,921 in meal expenses — about 98 days worth. Even though she lives about 10 kilometres from the legislature. And the legislature only sat for 60 days out of the year,
Pack a lunch like the rest of us, angry voters said, especially when your government is cutting programs and telling people belt-tightening is needed.
Chong argued all MLAs collected similar amounts. (Unfortunately for her, Murray Coell, her neighbour and fellow cabinet minister, undermined that defence by claimed $1,321.)
And she said, correctly, that the meal claims were within the rules.
Which raises two underlying issues.
First, the rules are remarkably generous. Most employers reimburse reasonable expenses when people travel on business. But they don’t usually give you $61 for food if you have a long day at the office. MLAs don’t have to provide receipts. If they buy a $6 sandwich for lunch and a $10 pizza for supper, they can still claim the full $61.
It’s not just the expense claims. MLAs have increased their base pay by 34 per cent in the last five years to $99,000. Most get extra money for various roles. Cabinet ministers, like Chong, are paid $152,000.
But the average wage in B.C. rose about 12 per cent in the same period.
MLAs also voted to give themselves a generous pension plan, with taxpayers picking up a large part of the cost.
But only 25 per cent of British Columbians have any workplace pension plan. The majority of taxpayers are paying for a good pension plan for MLAs while they have no plan of their own.
The gap between the rulers and the ruled has widened.
The examples are striking. MLAs think they need up to $19,000 for a part-time home in Victoria. But the government expects a disabled person income assistance to find accommodation for less than $4,500 a year. Perhaps MLAs need nicer places than someone with a disability — but four times as nice?
Chong’s $6,000 in meal claims is twice the income assistance provided to a single person for all living expenses, except rent, for an entire year. It’s five times the monthly income of someone working at minimum wage.
The disparities suggest MLAs have a high opinion of their value and importance — and a low opinion of their constituents’ worth.
Second, MLAs’ sense of entitlement is showing. Just because the rules allow a $61-a-day claim doesn’t mean they have to grab the money. MLAs could submit expenses that reflect what they actually paid for food. At incomes of $100,000 and up, they could opt to pay for their own lunches.
Chong is not an exception. Her claims were revealed because cabinet ministers’ expenses are reported as part of the public accounts.
The five New Democrat MLAs from the capital region have rallied around Chong and — appallingly — refused to say how much they claimed for expenses. Taxpayers are paying the bills, but according to the New Democrats, it’s none of their business what the cost is.
Which suggests that the claims are high and raises real concerns about the kind of accountability and openness an NDP government would provide.
No one should begrudge MLAs an adequate income. But many people are rightly angry at this casual excess.
Footnote: The latest pay and benefit increases followed the recommendations of a three-person review panel appointed by the premier. But the trio included a senior labour relations lawyer, a former B.C. Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of B.C. business professor. Their average income was likely north of $250,000, shaping their perspectives.
For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. A member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members — one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
When MLAs behave badly
A good editorial in the Times Colonist today on Ida Chong's big meal-expense claims, the NDP's refusal even to reveal how much its MLAs claim under the capital city allowance and Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett's substitution of abuse for discussion.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Assault with a deadly bubble
I have been genuinely impressed with the way police in the capital region have handled protests at the legislature. The emphasis always seem to be on avoiding needless confrontations, while ensuring a quick response is available if required.
And it has worked like a darn.
Perhaps they could offer consulting services to other forces to avoid ridiculous confrontations and arrests, like the one shown on this video from the G20 summit.
Which of course is made more ridiculous by the failure to take action against the small number of vandals who smashed things at the summit.
And it has worked like a darn.
Perhaps they could offer consulting services to other forces to avoid ridiculous confrontations and arrests, like the one shown on this video from the G20 summit.
Which of course is made more ridiculous by the failure to take action against the small number of vandals who smashed things at the summit.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Hitting peak support, New Democrats talk leadership change
There's something weird in the fact that some New Democrats are musing about a leadership change while Liberals maintain a discrete silence about their meltdown.
Gordon Campbell's party is reviled over the HST and its performance has been stumbling.
An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll released this week found Liberal support has been halved since the May 2009 election. The party has the support of 23 per cent of decided voters. That's heading down to the levels of NDP support before voters elected just two New Democrats in the 2001 election.
Meanwhile, the NDP support stands at 46 per cent, up from 42 per cent in the election last year. The Greens are at 14 per cent and the B.C. Conservatives at eight per cent - not bad for a party that doesn't really exist yet.
But an online straw poll on the Georgia Straight website found 87 per cent support for dumping James and getting a new NDP leader before the next election.
The theory is apparently that the party could have more support and a bigger lead in the polls with a different leader.
It's an oddly self-destructive approach for the party.
If the New Democrats can hold this level of the support until the next election, they will have matched their best ever performance at the polls. (The NDP under Dave Barrett took 46 per cent of the support in 1979.)
And an election today would result in an NDP government with a comfortable majority.
That's not to give rave reviews to the party's performance under James. The HST debacle has been a gift to the New Democrats. And given the extent of the public anger, it's hard to raise other issues.
But the party hasn't effectively raised concerns about other issues, from school closures to cuts to people with disabilities to struggling rural economies.
Still, Campbell's approval rating plummeted to 28 per cent in a May Mustel Group poll, with 61 per cent of those polled saying he was doing a bad job. James had 40 per cent approval and 28-per-cent disapproval.
And an Angus Reid poll in April found Campbell brought to my mind arrogance (72 per cent); secretiveness (56 per cent); dishonest (55 per cent); uncaring (51 per cent); and out of touch (49 per cent).
James ranked highest for compassion (45 per cent); down to earth (40 per cent); weak (38 per cent); inefficient (35 per cent); and openness (33 per cent).
Not stellar, to be sure.
And it's a given, unless the Liberals have lost all touch with reality, that the NDP will face a new leader in 2013.
Assuming that everyone in the current Liberal ranks - certainly in cabinet - is disqualified because of the HST taint, that opens the door to a fresh start for the party. (The names of Carole Taylor, Surrey Mayor Diane Watts and ex-Liberal cabinet minister Christy Clark are most frequently mentioned.)
But still, the NDP is doing awfully well in the polls. Dumping the leader would be disruptive and divisive.
And there is no guarantee that a successor would have any greater appeal and the risk that whoever was selected would be less attractive to voters.
B.C. New Democrats always seem to like a good internal fight; it's one of the party's least useful, most destructive qualities.
And the NDP's ideological purists often appear determined to keep the party far enough to the traditional ''left' positions that a noble defeat is the almost certain election outcome.
A leadership challenge now would likely convince a lot of voters that the New Democrats just don't want to govern.
James and the New Democrat MLAs can do a better job. They need, among other things, to build confidence in their ability to govern and bring economic growth rather than just criticize.
But the notion that this is a good time for a leadership change - when the party's support matches its highest-ever popular vote in an election - is odd.
Footnote: The Angus Reid poll found 75 per cent of British Columbians would vote to abolish the HST in a referendum if one is held. Almost 50 per cent would definitely sign a recall petition and 18 per cent would probably sign.
Gordon Campbell's party is reviled over the HST and its performance has been stumbling.
An Angus Reid Public Opinion poll released this week found Liberal support has been halved since the May 2009 election. The party has the support of 23 per cent of decided voters. That's heading down to the levels of NDP support before voters elected just two New Democrats in the 2001 election.
Meanwhile, the NDP support stands at 46 per cent, up from 42 per cent in the election last year. The Greens are at 14 per cent and the B.C. Conservatives at eight per cent - not bad for a party that doesn't really exist yet.
But an online straw poll on the Georgia Straight website found 87 per cent support for dumping James and getting a new NDP leader before the next election.
The theory is apparently that the party could have more support and a bigger lead in the polls with a different leader.
It's an oddly self-destructive approach for the party.
If the New Democrats can hold this level of the support until the next election, they will have matched their best ever performance at the polls. (The NDP under Dave Barrett took 46 per cent of the support in 1979.)
And an election today would result in an NDP government with a comfortable majority.
That's not to give rave reviews to the party's performance under James. The HST debacle has been a gift to the New Democrats. And given the extent of the public anger, it's hard to raise other issues.
But the party hasn't effectively raised concerns about other issues, from school closures to cuts to people with disabilities to struggling rural economies.
Still, Campbell's approval rating plummeted to 28 per cent in a May Mustel Group poll, with 61 per cent of those polled saying he was doing a bad job. James had 40 per cent approval and 28-per-cent disapproval.
And an Angus Reid poll in April found Campbell brought to my mind arrogance (72 per cent); secretiveness (56 per cent); dishonest (55 per cent); uncaring (51 per cent); and out of touch (49 per cent).
James ranked highest for compassion (45 per cent); down to earth (40 per cent); weak (38 per cent); inefficient (35 per cent); and openness (33 per cent).
Not stellar, to be sure.
And it's a given, unless the Liberals have lost all touch with reality, that the NDP will face a new leader in 2013.
Assuming that everyone in the current Liberal ranks - certainly in cabinet - is disqualified because of the HST taint, that opens the door to a fresh start for the party. (The names of Carole Taylor, Surrey Mayor Diane Watts and ex-Liberal cabinet minister Christy Clark are most frequently mentioned.)
But still, the NDP is doing awfully well in the polls. Dumping the leader would be disruptive and divisive.
And there is no guarantee that a successor would have any greater appeal and the risk that whoever was selected would be less attractive to voters.
B.C. New Democrats always seem to like a good internal fight; it's one of the party's least useful, most destructive qualities.
And the NDP's ideological purists often appear determined to keep the party far enough to the traditional ''left' positions that a noble defeat is the almost certain election outcome.
A leadership challenge now would likely convince a lot of voters that the New Democrats just don't want to govern.
James and the New Democrat MLAs can do a better job. They need, among other things, to build confidence in their ability to govern and bring economic growth rather than just criticize.
But the notion that this is a good time for a leadership change - when the party's support matches its highest-ever popular vote in an election - is odd.
Footnote: The Angus Reid poll found 75 per cent of British Columbians would vote to abolish the HST in a referendum if one is held. Almost 50 per cent would definitely sign a recall petition and 18 per cent would probably sign.
Friday, July 09, 2010
HST ad-cost secrecy a Liberal self-inflicted wound
Poor Colin Hansen. Being the front man for the harmonized sales tax is a wretched job that seems to get worse every day.
Now that the anti-HST petition signatures are being counted, the government is launching its ad campaign to try and sell the tax. It's running radio ads around the province over the next three weeks and plans to mail flyers to every one of B.C.'s 1.7 million households.
But as the campaign lurched out of the starting gate, Hansen was back on the defensive.
What will the radio ads cost, reporters asked. I don't know, he said.
What about the flyer? I don't know that either, Hansen responded.
He was involved in planning the strategy and the messaging, Hansen acknowledged. But he doesn't know what it is costing taxpayers.
Which leaves the public to consider two options. Hansen doesn't pay much attention to how their money is spent. Or he's determined to keep it a secret in case people get angry about the expense.
The second is the correct answer, I'd say. As health minister, Hansen was amazingly well-informed on all aspects of the ministry, including the financial ones.
If he doesn't know what these campaigns cost, it's because the Public Affairs Bureau, finance ministry staff and Hansen decided it was best that he didn't. That way, he could avoid questions about the costs.
So as they met to develop the marketing plans, Hansen was careful never to say, "hey, what's this going to cost, anyway?" And the staff took care not to volunteer the information.
It's a dumb strategy. The Globe and Mail headline was "Liberals refuse to disclose costs of HST ads." A National Post online column was headlined "B.C. Liberals' HST amateur hour routine." Critics were quick to suggest Hansen was either not being honest or irresponsible in approving campaigns costing millions of dollars without knowing the price tag.
The Liberals have, despite all the open and transparent talk, always refused to reveal the cost of ad campaigns. The information would be available in the annual financial reports, they said.
So a year from now, taxpayers might be able to figure out how much they paid for the ads and the flyers about the HST.
It's hard to see how refusing to provide the information helps the Liberals. If they came clean, some people might be angry at the cost. But this approach means people can be angry about the cost and the secrecy.
This is also about what's right. You would expect a government, spending taxpayers' money, would be open.
That's what Gordon Campbell demanded in opposition. Ads promoting the NDP governments and their policies were "disgusting," he said.
When the government was slow to say what the campaigns cost, Campbell was furious. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution," he said.
But that was then. Now secrecy is OK. (It is worth noting that the NDP lost, spectacularly, the next election.)
Hansen said he wasn't interested in the cost, as long as the Public Affairs Bureau stayed within its budget for the year.
But two days later, he announced a lower-than-forecast deficit for the last fiscal year because the government, thanks to "unprecedented" spending scrutiny, had spent $833 million less than projected.
But the scrutiny apparently doesn't extend to PR campaign costs.
Meanwhile, the anti-HST battle is also moving to the courts with a legal challenge to the tax.
The government passed a bill eliminating the provincial sales tax. But, unlike other provinces, there was no debate or vote on the new tax.
I might have been inclined to dismiss the challenge. But the lawyer is Joe Arvay, former general counsel for the attorney general's ministry. Arvay is recognized as a top constitutional lawyer.
Footnote: The public accounts this week revealed the government spent $37 million on the "You gotta be there" Olympic ads. Bob Mackin of 24 Hours obtained government documents that said "voting age" British Columbians were a key target audience and the campaigns were to include "special Premier-focused promotions." Which sounds much like Liberal party advertising, paid for by taxpayers.
Now that the anti-HST petition signatures are being counted, the government is launching its ad campaign to try and sell the tax. It's running radio ads around the province over the next three weeks and plans to mail flyers to every one of B.C.'s 1.7 million households.
But as the campaign lurched out of the starting gate, Hansen was back on the defensive.
What will the radio ads cost, reporters asked. I don't know, he said.
What about the flyer? I don't know that either, Hansen responded.
He was involved in planning the strategy and the messaging, Hansen acknowledged. But he doesn't know what it is costing taxpayers.
Which leaves the public to consider two options. Hansen doesn't pay much attention to how their money is spent. Or he's determined to keep it a secret in case people get angry about the expense.
The second is the correct answer, I'd say. As health minister, Hansen was amazingly well-informed on all aspects of the ministry, including the financial ones.
If he doesn't know what these campaigns cost, it's because the Public Affairs Bureau, finance ministry staff and Hansen decided it was best that he didn't. That way, he could avoid questions about the costs.
So as they met to develop the marketing plans, Hansen was careful never to say, "hey, what's this going to cost, anyway?" And the staff took care not to volunteer the information.
It's a dumb strategy. The Globe and Mail headline was "Liberals refuse to disclose costs of HST ads." A National Post online column was headlined "B.C. Liberals' HST amateur hour routine." Critics were quick to suggest Hansen was either not being honest or irresponsible in approving campaigns costing millions of dollars without knowing the price tag.
The Liberals have, despite all the open and transparent talk, always refused to reveal the cost of ad campaigns. The information would be available in the annual financial reports, they said.
So a year from now, taxpayers might be able to figure out how much they paid for the ads and the flyers about the HST.
It's hard to see how refusing to provide the information helps the Liberals. If they came clean, some people might be angry at the cost. But this approach means people can be angry about the cost and the secrecy.
This is also about what's right. You would expect a government, spending taxpayers' money, would be open.
That's what Gordon Campbell demanded in opposition. Ads promoting the NDP governments and their policies were "disgusting," he said.
When the government was slow to say what the campaigns cost, Campbell was furious. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution," he said.
But that was then. Now secrecy is OK. (It is worth noting that the NDP lost, spectacularly, the next election.)
Hansen said he wasn't interested in the cost, as long as the Public Affairs Bureau stayed within its budget for the year.
But two days later, he announced a lower-than-forecast deficit for the last fiscal year because the government, thanks to "unprecedented" spending scrutiny, had spent $833 million less than projected.
But the scrutiny apparently doesn't extend to PR campaign costs.
Meanwhile, the anti-HST battle is also moving to the courts with a legal challenge to the tax.
The government passed a bill eliminating the provincial sales tax. But, unlike other provinces, there was no debate or vote on the new tax.
I might have been inclined to dismiss the challenge. But the lawyer is Joe Arvay, former general counsel for the attorney general's ministry. Arvay is recognized as a top constitutional lawyer.
Footnote: The public accounts this week revealed the government spent $37 million on the "You gotta be there" Olympic ads. Bob Mackin of 24 Hours obtained government documents that said "voting age" British Columbians were a key target audience and the campaigns were to include "special Premier-focused promotions." Which sounds much like Liberal party advertising, paid for by taxpayers.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Canada's invisible quote
You have seen it hundreds, thousands, of times, but never taken notice.
"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
- Gabrielle Roy
Where? See here.
"Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
- Gabrielle Roy
Where? See here.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
How much damage is a mine worth? (Not a rhetorical question)
How much environmental damage is justified as a trade-off for the jobs and revenue from a big new open-pit mine?
The proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. Good news.
And it would require turning a lake into a tailings dump and have "significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations," according to a federal environmental review. Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk. Bad news.
So what's your decision - approve the mine, or reject it?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the federal cabinet will face that question in the next few months.
It's a pivotal moment for B.C. And the Prosperity file is an illustration of how poorly the current approval process serves the public interest.
There's a bit of irony in all this. The mining industry has worked hard to improve its image. Too hard, perhaps. It's painted a soft-focus picture of deer grazing amidst the pines on a former mine site. That's what people now expect.
Really, mines almost always mean environmental damage. (So do the communities we live in and airplanes.)
Unless you're prepared to say B.C. is off limits to new mines, the issue should be balance. What's the public benefit - jobs, government revenue, opportunities for new businesses - and what are the costs?
Taseko Mines has been in the approval process since 1995 and has spent about $100 million to get this far. It wants to dig a big open-pit mine over 20 years, then let it fill up with water. A trout lake would be turned into a tailings dump, to be replaced ultimately by a new man-made lake. There would be a mill, roads and a 125-kilometre power line cut through the forest.
Taseko figures it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40-per-cent pretax return. The public, which owns the minerals, gets $400 million. (That's one of the places where the process breaks down.)
The B.C. government's environmental assessment process was completed late last year; in January, Environment Minister Barry Penner and then-mines minister Blair Lekstrom said the project should go ahead.
But he federal review rejected some of the key conclusions of the provincial assessment, especially around First Nations' rights. (The governments have been talking about creating a single process; this project raises questions about what standards would be in place - Ottawa's, or the apparently more relaxed provincial rules.)
One missing element is a chance to adjust the deal to get the best deal for the public.
Taseko could build a tailings pond instead of destroying the lakes, for example, though that would add to the $800-million project cost.
Or the company could attempt to address First Nations' concerns through economic measures.
Taseko maintains the federal cabinet will approve the project.
But the company's shareholders appear less confident. The stock plummeted after the federal panel report; it's still down about 20 per. The value of the company has dropped by about $165 million.
The concern doesn't just reflect the uncertainty around federal government approval. First Nations have promised to fight the mine in the courts. The federal environmental assessment report gives them useful ammunition.
There is no easy response to this kind of proposal. The region is facing tough economic times for decades, in part because of the pine beetle disaster. The jobs would be welcome.
And the mining industry will likely say B.C. is a bad place to invest if approval isn't granted.
Two elements are missing from this process: Greater transparency in the way politicians make the final decisions and more opportunities for negotiated steps to balance the costs and benefits.
Footnote: Here's an indication of the uncertainty around the assessment. The CBC report was headlined "Panel sees BC mine as environmental threat." The Vancouver Sun said "Federal panel remains neutral on proposed Prosperity mine." And the Globe and Mail headline was "Environmental review puts future of BC copper-gold mine in doubt."
The proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. Good news.
And it would require turning a lake into a tailings dump and have "significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations," according to a federal environmental review. Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk. Bad news.
So what's your decision - approve the mine, or reject it?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the federal cabinet will face that question in the next few months.
It's a pivotal moment for B.C. And the Prosperity file is an illustration of how poorly the current approval process serves the public interest.
There's a bit of irony in all this. The mining industry has worked hard to improve its image. Too hard, perhaps. It's painted a soft-focus picture of deer grazing amidst the pines on a former mine site. That's what people now expect.
Really, mines almost always mean environmental damage. (So do the communities we live in and airplanes.)
Unless you're prepared to say B.C. is off limits to new mines, the issue should be balance. What's the public benefit - jobs, government revenue, opportunities for new businesses - and what are the costs?
Taseko Mines has been in the approval process since 1995 and has spent about $100 million to get this far. It wants to dig a big open-pit mine over 20 years, then let it fill up with water. A trout lake would be turned into a tailings dump, to be replaced ultimately by a new man-made lake. There would be a mill, roads and a 125-kilometre power line cut through the forest.
Taseko figures it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40-per-cent pretax return. The public, which owns the minerals, gets $400 million. (That's one of the places where the process breaks down.)
The B.C. government's environmental assessment process was completed late last year; in January, Environment Minister Barry Penner and then-mines minister Blair Lekstrom said the project should go ahead.
But he federal review rejected some of the key conclusions of the provincial assessment, especially around First Nations' rights. (The governments have been talking about creating a single process; this project raises questions about what standards would be in place - Ottawa's, or the apparently more relaxed provincial rules.)
One missing element is a chance to adjust the deal to get the best deal for the public.
Taseko could build a tailings pond instead of destroying the lakes, for example, though that would add to the $800-million project cost.
Or the company could attempt to address First Nations' concerns through economic measures.
Taseko maintains the federal cabinet will approve the project.
But the company's shareholders appear less confident. The stock plummeted after the federal panel report; it's still down about 20 per. The value of the company has dropped by about $165 million.
The concern doesn't just reflect the uncertainty around federal government approval. First Nations have promised to fight the mine in the courts. The federal environmental assessment report gives them useful ammunition.
There is no easy response to this kind of proposal. The region is facing tough economic times for decades, in part because of the pine beetle disaster. The jobs would be welcome.
And the mining industry will likely say B.C. is a bad place to invest if approval isn't granted.
Two elements are missing from this process: Greater transparency in the way politicians make the final decisions and more opportunities for negotiated steps to balance the costs and benefits.
Footnote: Here's an indication of the uncertainty around the assessment. The CBC report was headlined "Panel sees BC mine as environmental threat." The Vancouver Sun said "Federal panel remains neutral on proposed Prosperity mine." And the Globe and Mail headline was "Environmental review puts future of BC copper-gold mine in doubt."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
