Smart meters were expected to a big deal at the UBCM meeting in Vancouver.
The surprise was Solicitor General Shirley Bond’s bombshell revelation that the federal government had issued a take-it-or-leave-it final offer for new 20-year RCMP contract.
First, smart meters, and a controversy that suggests the government hasn’t learned anything from the HST debacle.
I’m not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters, which transmit data n power use in every home and business wirelessly.
For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health.
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure. I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them.
But it is troubling that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits.
In fact, the government passed legislation that prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
And the government’s claim that the meters won’t ultimately lead to time-of-use billing — that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times - is unconvincing. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility, and it’s the best cost-justification for the project. Only Energy Minister Rich Coleman claims it won’t happen.
Time-of-use billing, done right, is actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST failure.
Coleman told the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions - no chance to opt out, or options for a wired alternative to the meters. No review by the utilities commission.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. The cabinet knows best.
The government’s assumption seemed to be that the opposition was a small group of kooks.
But UBCM delegates from across the province voted 55 per cent in favour of a moratorium on installation of smart meters as the convention concluded. That’s a large group of elected officials for Christy Clark and company to dismiss as too dim to know what’s good for them.
Especially when that same attitude got the government in so much trouble over the HST.
The RCMP dispute rates another column, but UBCM delegates were unanimous on this issue.
Earlier in the week, Bond said the federal government had broken off negotiations on a new 20-year policing contract. The province had to accept the last offer by Nov. 30, or the RCMP would begin pulling out in 2014.
It’s a bluff. The RCMP is building a $1-billion headquarters in Surrey (original cost estimate, $300 million). And pulling out of B.C. would leave it with 6,000 surplus employees. That’s a heck of a severance bill.
Bond tried to counter the ploy, saying the province would look at a provincial police force if it couldn’t get needed accountability on costs and service levels in a new deal.
That’s the right position. And in fact, it might be time to move away from the problem-plagued RCMP.
But municipalities are worried about losing the federal subsidy — 10 per cent for larger centres, 30 per cent for smaller — that helps cover RCMP costs.
They voted unanimously to urge the parties back to the bargaining table.
Footnote: One problem in RCMP talks has been the turnover in the solicitor general’s job. Bond is the sixth minister to hold the post in the four years since negotiations began. Some, like Coleman, were keen on retaining the RCMP; others, like Kash Heed, wanted to look at change. The lack of consistency has meant B.C. is ill-prepared for the current deadlock.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
About those smart meters
I am not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters. For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, don't exercise enough and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health. (I shun cellphones, but only because I don't like to talk to people on any phone.)
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure.
But I am troubled that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits. In fact, the government passed legislation that specifically prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
I am unconvinced that the ultimate result won't be time-of-use billing - that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility; it's only the Liberal politicians who claim it won't happen. (It's actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.)
And I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them by government.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate at UBCM this week is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST debacle.
Energy Minister Rich Coleman said he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. Municipal councils that passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on installations, or opt-out provisions, were dismissed as equally dim.
There are undoubtedly times governments have to go ahead with unpopular measures.
But, in this case, why not let people opt out? Or provide an incentive - a $20 B.C. Hydro credit - for accepting a meter? Why not let the utilities commission asses the costs and benefits to customers?
The government is, effectively, saying the families concerned about the meters, and the municipal councils supporting them, are just too clueless to be taken seriously.
And that, as we've seen, ends unhappily for those in power.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan
Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell’s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan
Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell’s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
