The Liberals are in the process of making another big mistake on the HST, one that will rekindle public anger about their sneakiness.
The anti-HST initiative — supported by more than 700,000 British Columbians — was clear. The goal was to kill the new tax and go back to the provincial sales tax “with the same exemptions as were in effect as of June 30, 2010,” according to the petition and the official Elections B.C. summary.
The campaign succeeded. That didn’t necessarily mean the tax would go. Under initiative legislation, the government can ignore even successful efforts.
But then-premier Gordon Campbell was also clear. He promised a binding referendum to see if British Columbians supported the anti-HST initiative. The people had spoken, the question should go to the voters and their decision respected, Campbell said.
Bill Vander Zalm, the improbable leader of the anti-HST forces, feared a trick. Turns out he might have been right.
Because eight months later, the Liberals are weaseling.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says the Liberals will ignore the critical element of the anti-HST initiative — the restoration of the exemptions in place before the new tax was imposed.
That means that even if voters defeat the tax, the government could continue to collect more than $1 billion a year in increased taxes from individuals and families. (The province’s panel estimated the increased cost at $1.3 billion.)
It’s a transparently sneaky attempt to get around the initiative. It risks rekindling all the anger about the way the tax was sprung on British Columbians. And it makes the Christy Clark government look as bad or worse than the Campbell government.
The HST works in two ways. It’s a tax shift from businesses to families and individuals, because businesses had to pay the PST and don’t have to pay the new tax.
And it increases taxes on individuals and families, because a wide range of goods and services exempted from the former provincial sales tax are subject to the HST.
The successful initiative campaign called for the tax be eliminated and all those exemptions restored.
That’s the message Campbell promised to heed.
And now Falcon is breaking the promise, making a mockery of the anti-HST petition and Campbell’s commitment.
It’s a position certain to anger a lot of voters. The New Democrats have spent a lot of question period time asking Falcon about whether the government would restore the former sales tax exemptions.
The PST didn’t apply to restaurant meals, for example. The HST does. The industry — supported by StatsCan numbers — says the extra seven per cent tax on meals has hurt.
But Falcon says that even if voters reject HST is rejected, the government might extend the PST to restaurant meals. The provincial tax didn’t cover labour, or bicycles, or some health treatments. But Falcon says that if even the HST is axed, the provincial sales tax might be imposed on all those things.
The government will decide after the referendum, he says.
That would a giant tax grab and a fundamental betrayal of the commitments on the referendum
Maybe the Liberals know what they’re doing. They have a bunch of people being paid in the six figures — at your expense — to come up with clever strategies and messaging to save the tax. And they are spending $6 million-plus to sell it.
But Falcon’s approach seems weirdly wrong.
The HST initiative called for a return to the provincial sales tax, with the exemptions. Campbell promised a binding vote on that question.
But Falcon is it doesn’t matter what voters say in the referendum, the government is free to leave the tax hike in place. The government knows best.
Which is the attitude and approach that cost Campbell his job.
Clark’s narrow byelection victory should be a warning. She has not yet won over voters and hopes for a fresh start can fade fast.
A betrayal on the fundamental HST issue would be disastrous.
Footnote: The government is also running a risk with its heavy spending to try and secure a yes vote for the HST. Falcon announced a $5-million ad campaign this week, on top of $700,000 already committed for a pro-HST flyer to go to every household and undisclosed costs of telephone town halls and the HST information office. There’s a chance the ad effort will backfire, angering taxpayers.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Carbon offsets hurt schools, help Encana
School districts across B.C. are chopping budgets because they don't have enough money.
At the same time, they're being forced to fork over millions for global-warming carbon offsets - and some of the money is handed over as subsidies to profitable corporations.
It might be clever policy if you're sitting in the premier's office.
Not so much if you're a sitting in a elementary school in Big Lake, in the Cariboo.
Independent MLA Bob Simpson told the legislature that students from eight grades are in one classroom, including kindergarten and special needs students. The school district doesn't have enough money to provide another teacher.
But it still has to send $87,000 to the Pacific Carbon Trust, a Crown corporation, to buy credits to offset the greenhouse gases it produces busing students and heating schools.
Across the province, school districts have been forced to buy some $6 million worth of carbon credits this year from the Crown corporation under the Liberal plan to cut greenhouse gases.
The theory is sound. Organizations - businesses, municipalities, school districts - would be issued permits allowing a specific level of emissions. If an organization could cut its greenhouse emissions to a level under that limit, it could sell the unused capacity to some other organization that couldn't meet its cap.
That would encourage investment in new equipment and innovation in areas like increasing the number of people working from home.
But there are problems.
The market can be gamed, for example. If I owned a failing greenhouse business, I could shut down and sell my carbon credits to a company that wants to keep on pouring out greenhouse gases. I make money and emissions aren't really reduced.
And huge windfalls are possible for some companies or sectors, depending on how the original emissions quotas are set.
That's where things have gone wrong in B.C.
When Gordon Campbell decided climate change was a threat to life on Earth in 2007, he promised a coherent plan, including the carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system to create a market for emissions.
Government, including school districts and health authorities and municipalities, would be carbon neutral, he said. They would cut emissions as much as they could and buy offsets to cover the rest.
The carbon tax is in place. The public sector has been required to buy offsets. Pacific Carbon Trust, the Crown corporation, is collecting those payments and providing money to companies for projects that reduce their emissions - the offsets. The Four Seasons Hotel, for example, got money from the trust to put in a new, more efficient heating system. It calculated the emission reduction - 1,963 tonnes over three years - and the trust paid an undisclosed amount per tonne.
But the government hasn't introduced the cap and trade system for business and industrial users (although a few companies have voluntarily bought credits).
Three years after the planned implementation in 2008, there are no caps for business or industry.
Companies can get money from the Pacific Carbon Trust -at this point, mostly taxpayers' money - if they promise to do something to reduce emissions. Effectively, a subsidy for their emission-reduction plans.
But they don't have to buy any credits if they make changes that increase their emissions. It's a sweet deal.
So Encana, a big player in the province's natural gas sector, can increase its emissions without penalty.
But if it can convince the Pacific Carbon Trust that it has a valid plan to reduce them, it can claim a subsidy. And it did, telling the trust that a new way of drilling gas wells would reduce emissions. The trust won't say what it paid the corporation, but figure more than $2 million.
It benefits from the credits cash-pressed school districts have been forced to buy.
A transparent, well-managed and widely applied cap-and-trade system is an excellent way to put a value on emissions, making it worthwhile to find ways to reduce them. Without it, B.C. has little chance of meeting its greenhouse-gas reduction targets.
But until such a plan is in place, it's wrong to expect schools, hospitals and municipalities to cut services to cover the costs of carbon credits that are only mandatory for taxpayer-funded entities.
At the same time, they're being forced to fork over millions for global-warming carbon offsets - and some of the money is handed over as subsidies to profitable corporations.
It might be clever policy if you're sitting in the premier's office.
Not so much if you're a sitting in a elementary school in Big Lake, in the Cariboo.
Independent MLA Bob Simpson told the legislature that students from eight grades are in one classroom, including kindergarten and special needs students. The school district doesn't have enough money to provide another teacher.
But it still has to send $87,000 to the Pacific Carbon Trust, a Crown corporation, to buy credits to offset the greenhouse gases it produces busing students and heating schools.
Across the province, school districts have been forced to buy some $6 million worth of carbon credits this year from the Crown corporation under the Liberal plan to cut greenhouse gases.
The theory is sound. Organizations - businesses, municipalities, school districts - would be issued permits allowing a specific level of emissions. If an organization could cut its greenhouse emissions to a level under that limit, it could sell the unused capacity to some other organization that couldn't meet its cap.
That would encourage investment in new equipment and innovation in areas like increasing the number of people working from home.
But there are problems.
The market can be gamed, for example. If I owned a failing greenhouse business, I could shut down and sell my carbon credits to a company that wants to keep on pouring out greenhouse gases. I make money and emissions aren't really reduced.
And huge windfalls are possible for some companies or sectors, depending on how the original emissions quotas are set.
That's where things have gone wrong in B.C.
When Gordon Campbell decided climate change was a threat to life on Earth in 2007, he promised a coherent plan, including the carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system to create a market for emissions.
Government, including school districts and health authorities and municipalities, would be carbon neutral, he said. They would cut emissions as much as they could and buy offsets to cover the rest.
The carbon tax is in place. The public sector has been required to buy offsets. Pacific Carbon Trust, the Crown corporation, is collecting those payments and providing money to companies for projects that reduce their emissions - the offsets. The Four Seasons Hotel, for example, got money from the trust to put in a new, more efficient heating system. It calculated the emission reduction - 1,963 tonnes over three years - and the trust paid an undisclosed amount per tonne.
But the government hasn't introduced the cap and trade system for business and industrial users (although a few companies have voluntarily bought credits).
Three years after the planned implementation in 2008, there are no caps for business or industry.
Companies can get money from the Pacific Carbon Trust -at this point, mostly taxpayers' money - if they promise to do something to reduce emissions. Effectively, a subsidy for their emission-reduction plans.
But they don't have to buy any credits if they make changes that increase their emissions. It's a sweet deal.
So Encana, a big player in the province's natural gas sector, can increase its emissions without penalty.
But if it can convince the Pacific Carbon Trust that it has a valid plan to reduce them, it can claim a subsidy. And it did, telling the trust that a new way of drilling gas wells would reduce emissions. The trust won't say what it paid the corporation, but figure more than $2 million.
It benefits from the credits cash-pressed school districts have been forced to buy.
A transparent, well-managed and widely applied cap-and-trade system is an excellent way to put a value on emissions, making it worthwhile to find ways to reduce them. Without it, B.C. has little chance of meeting its greenhouse-gas reduction targets.
But until such a plan is in place, it's wrong to expect schools, hospitals and municipalities to cut services to cover the costs of carbon credits that are only mandatory for taxpayer-funded entities.
Friday, May 06, 2011
From owning bars to provide group homes for children
Jody Paterson takes an interesting look at the for-profit group home in Prince George where an 11-year-old was tasered.
Paterson writes:
"The owner of the group home, Taborview Programs, is a home-grown Prince George entrepreneur, Jordy Hoover. He’s better known in the region for the many bars and liquor stores he owns.
Hoover also owns 30 greenhouses, a nursery growing three million seedlings for the forest industry, and a gravel operation. A 2009 story in the Prince George Citizen described him as having 'a diversified portfolio of business in the city.'
That portfolio includes 26 beds for youth with profound behavioural problems, disabilities or other special needs. Hoover received almost $3 million from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in 2009-10 to provide those services. (That same year, he and his companies donated more than $32,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.)"
You can read the piece here.
Paterson writes:
"The owner of the group home, Taborview Programs, is a home-grown Prince George entrepreneur, Jordy Hoover. He’s better known in the region for the many bars and liquor stores he owns.
Hoover also owns 30 greenhouses, a nursery growing three million seedlings for the forest industry, and a gravel operation. A 2009 story in the Prince George Citizen described him as having 'a diversified portfolio of business in the city.'
That portfolio includes 26 beds for youth with profound behavioural problems, disabilities or other special needs. Hoover received almost $3 million from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in 2009-10 to provide those services. (That same year, he and his companies donated more than $32,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.)"
You can read the piece here.
Crossed the 300,000 visit mark today
To the site, that is. I can't remember when I added Sitemeter, and so don't know how long it took.
But anyway, thanks for stopping by.
But anyway, thanks for stopping by.
HST report makes the tax a much tougher sell
The Liberals’ hope of saving the HST took a big blow this week.
The government asked an impressive expert panel to do an independent report on the tax, hoping to build support.
Instead, the report trashed the government’s claims.
The panel did find the tax would help the economy and result in more jobs.
But it would also increase taxes for 85 per cent of families and reduce taxes for business. The costs to families were greater than the government had claimed. The economic benefits were much smaller. The government’s credibility on the HST was further shredded.
Three issues are likely to come into play in the referendum — the actual impact of the harmonized sales tax, the incompetence or dishonesty of the government in introducing it and the costs of getting rid of the HST.
They all matter. And the report offers the most credible assessment so far of all three.
The report found the harmonized sales tax will cost families and individuals an extra $1.33 billion a year, after accounting for the rebates and tax changes introduced to ease its impact.
That’s $295 for every person — adults and children — in the province.
In practice, the impact isn’t the same for everyone. Broadly, the more you spend the more you pay. Only the poorest people, with incomes under $10,000, will come out ahead thanks to tax rebates, the panel found.
Everyone else is paying more as a result of the HST. For a family with a household income of $70,000, the HST adds $527 a year in taxes on basic living expenses, the report says. That doesn’t include the HST on less frequent items, like new home purchases or big repairs.
That’s far more than the government claimed when it introduced the tax. In fact, its website set up to sell the tax continues to claim a family at that income level is only paying about $107 more in tax — one-fifth the amount the panelt says is the real cost.
The panel found the government has provided — and continues to provide — wildly inflated estimates of the economic benefits.
The government has been claiming, based on a $12,000 study it commissioned after the tax was introduced, that the HST would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020. (The government did no studies or analysis before introducing the tax.)
But the panel says benefits are hard to assess, but the most likely estimate is an extra $2.5 billion in economic activity and 24,400 more jobs by 2020 — less than one-quarter the job growth the government has claimed.
Any new jobs are welcome. But the report is projecting just 3,000 additional jobs a year; B.C. added three times that number last month, by way of perspective.
The panel also found the government has presented inaccurate information on two other important aspects. The tax is not revenue neutral — while individuals and families are paying $1.33 billion a year more, companies are paying $730 million less. That means the HST is, in fact, a tax increase. It also means claims that consumers would also see price decreases because of the reduced tax on businesses were exaggerated.
The report radically changes the cost-benefit assessment from the glowing picture presented by the government. The extra tax on consumers will add up to more than $10 billion by 2020. The economic benefits will be much smaller.
And it will fuel the anger of those determined to vote against the tax because of the way it was introduced. The clash between the panel’s assessment and the information provided by the government will be seen as evidence of incompetence or dishonesty.
The report did find that returning to the provincial sales tax would be costly and difficult. The government would lose the extra tax revenue and likely have to repay the $1.6 billion Ottawa provided as an inducement to harmonize the provincial sales tax and the GST.
But its overall findings are bad news for the government.
Footnote: The government appears to be considering changes to the HST to make it more palatable, including promises of a lower rate. The problem is that it has insisted in the past that changes — such as exemptions for restaurant meals or for bicycles — are impossible under the agreement with the federal government.
The government asked an impressive expert panel to do an independent report on the tax, hoping to build support.
Instead, the report trashed the government’s claims.
The panel did find the tax would help the economy and result in more jobs.
But it would also increase taxes for 85 per cent of families and reduce taxes for business. The costs to families were greater than the government had claimed. The economic benefits were much smaller. The government’s credibility on the HST was further shredded.
Three issues are likely to come into play in the referendum — the actual impact of the harmonized sales tax, the incompetence or dishonesty of the government in introducing it and the costs of getting rid of the HST.
They all matter. And the report offers the most credible assessment so far of all three.
The report found the harmonized sales tax will cost families and individuals an extra $1.33 billion a year, after accounting for the rebates and tax changes introduced to ease its impact.
That’s $295 for every person — adults and children — in the province.
In practice, the impact isn’t the same for everyone. Broadly, the more you spend the more you pay. Only the poorest people, with incomes under $10,000, will come out ahead thanks to tax rebates, the panel found.
Everyone else is paying more as a result of the HST. For a family with a household income of $70,000, the HST adds $527 a year in taxes on basic living expenses, the report says. That doesn’t include the HST on less frequent items, like new home purchases or big repairs.
That’s far more than the government claimed when it introduced the tax. In fact, its website set up to sell the tax continues to claim a family at that income level is only paying about $107 more in tax — one-fifth the amount the panelt says is the real cost.
The panel found the government has provided — and continues to provide — wildly inflated estimates of the economic benefits.
The government has been claiming, based on a $12,000 study it commissioned after the tax was introduced, that the HST would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020. (The government did no studies or analysis before introducing the tax.)
But the panel says benefits are hard to assess, but the most likely estimate is an extra $2.5 billion in economic activity and 24,400 more jobs by 2020 — less than one-quarter the job growth the government has claimed.
Any new jobs are welcome. But the report is projecting just 3,000 additional jobs a year; B.C. added three times that number last month, by way of perspective.
The panel also found the government has presented inaccurate information on two other important aspects. The tax is not revenue neutral — while individuals and families are paying $1.33 billion a year more, companies are paying $730 million less. That means the HST is, in fact, a tax increase. It also means claims that consumers would also see price decreases because of the reduced tax on businesses were exaggerated.
The report radically changes the cost-benefit assessment from the glowing picture presented by the government. The extra tax on consumers will add up to more than $10 billion by 2020. The economic benefits will be much smaller.
And it will fuel the anger of those determined to vote against the tax because of the way it was introduced. The clash between the panel’s assessment and the information provided by the government will be seen as evidence of incompetence or dishonesty.
The report did find that returning to the provincial sales tax would be costly and difficult. The government would lose the extra tax revenue and likely have to repay the $1.6 billion Ottawa provided as an inducement to harmonize the provincial sales tax and the GST.
But its overall findings are bad news for the government.
Footnote: The government appears to be considering changes to the HST to make it more palatable, including promises of a lower rate. The problem is that it has insisted in the past that changes — such as exemptions for restaurant meals or for bicycles — are impossible under the agreement with the federal government.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Opposition choices: Co-operate, or be crushed
The federal election results have sparked a lot of discussion about the need for a party that could unite centre-left voters - people not inclined to vote for Harper’s Conservatives.
That rates a separate column.
But there are incentives for the opposition parties to co-operate now. If they don’t, they risk being rolled over by the Conservatives.
Jack Layton is the opposition leader. But his caucus includes many MPs who never thought they would be elected; they ran as placeholders. Some will likely be effective. Others will hate the job, or be dismal at it.
Unexpected political success is risky. I was living in Peterborough when Bob Rae’s NDP won a surprise Ontario election victory in 1990. Our MPP, who ran as a New Democrat candidate expecting to be defeated by a popular Liberal incumbent, ended up as energy minister. Six disastrous months later, she was dropped from cabinet. It was not a happy experience for anyone. The Rae government was a one-term flop.
The Liberals are shattered. Leaderless, adrift, rejected, demoralized and broke.
And while Green leader Elizabeth May is buoyant now, rightly, the challenges in Ottawa will be tough.
All parties face the end of public funding, one of the changes Stephen Harper promised if he won a majority. The funding - roughly $2 each year per vote received in the previous election - was an overly generous replacement when corporate and union donations were banned.
The change is huge.
The Green party raises about $1.1 million in donations from supporters, and received $1.9 million in public funding. Spending will have to be slashed.
The New Democrats got about $4 million in donations and $6 million in public funding. About 60 per cent of their spending is going to have to stop.
The Liberals got $7.3 million in public funding and $9 million in donations. They too face cuts.
The Conservatives will be affected. As the top vote-getters, they received $10.4 million in public funding.
But they also pulled in $17.7 million in donations. The other three parties combined received $15.1 million.
The opposition parties also face a skillful Conservative government, with - based on the finding of contempt of Parliament - a willingness to do whatever it takes to reach political goals.
The questions around long-term alliances, or new parties, are complex.
But if the NDP, Liberal and Green MPs don’t co-operate now, at least in the short term, they’re likely going to be shredded.
That rates a separate column.
But there are incentives for the opposition parties to co-operate now. If they don’t, they risk being rolled over by the Conservatives.
Jack Layton is the opposition leader. But his caucus includes many MPs who never thought they would be elected; they ran as placeholders. Some will likely be effective. Others will hate the job, or be dismal at it.
Unexpected political success is risky. I was living in Peterborough when Bob Rae’s NDP won a surprise Ontario election victory in 1990. Our MPP, who ran as a New Democrat candidate expecting to be defeated by a popular Liberal incumbent, ended up as energy minister. Six disastrous months later, she was dropped from cabinet. It was not a happy experience for anyone. The Rae government was a one-term flop.
The Liberals are shattered. Leaderless, adrift, rejected, demoralized and broke.
And while Green leader Elizabeth May is buoyant now, rightly, the challenges in Ottawa will be tough.
All parties face the end of public funding, one of the changes Stephen Harper promised if he won a majority. The funding - roughly $2 each year per vote received in the previous election - was an overly generous replacement when corporate and union donations were banned.
The change is huge.
The Green party raises about $1.1 million in donations from supporters, and received $1.9 million in public funding. Spending will have to be slashed.
The New Democrats got about $4 million in donations and $6 million in public funding. About 60 per cent of their spending is going to have to stop.
The Liberals got $7.3 million in public funding and $9 million in donations. They too face cuts.
The Conservatives will be affected. As the top vote-getters, they received $10.4 million in public funding.
But they also pulled in $17.7 million in donations. The other three parties combined received $15.1 million.
The opposition parties also face a skillful Conservative government, with - based on the finding of contempt of Parliament - a willingness to do whatever it takes to reach political goals.
The questions around long-term alliances, or new parties, are complex.
But if the NDP, Liberal and Green MPs don’t co-operate now, at least in the short term, they’re likely going to be shredded.
Hallsor on Lunn's defeat, and the election
Bruce Hallsor was Gary Lunn's campaign manager. (And a controversial figure in the last election - see here.)
He offered a simple, but inaccurate explanation for Elizabeth May's convincing victory over Lunn this time.
Hallsor said Lunn's support stayed about the same, and May united the non-Conservative
vote.
That's only partially true. Lunn actually captured about 3,500 fewer votes than he did in 2008.
And even if he had held all his support, he would have lost this time.
Hallsor said May's success was in winning Liberal and NDP support. "We're used to having the opposition split and Elizabeth pulled it together."
There's more basis for that claim. And the vote split was a factor that produced Conservative victories in a lot of ridings this election. The number of people voting jumped by seven per cent — about 4,500 more people cast ballots than in 2008.
It appears the Greens captured the interest of non-voters and had the organization to get them to the polls.
He offered a simple, but inaccurate explanation for Elizabeth May's convincing victory over Lunn this time.
Hallsor said Lunn's support stayed about the same, and May united the non-Conservative
vote.
That's only partially true. Lunn actually captured about 3,500 fewer votes than he did in 2008.
And even if he had held all his support, he would have lost this time.
Hallsor said May's success was in winning Liberal and NDP support. "We're used to having the opposition split and Elizabeth pulled it together."
There's more basis for that claim. And the vote split was a factor that produced Conservative victories in a lot of ridings this election. The number of people voting jumped by seven per cent — about 4,500 more people cast ballots than in 2008.
It appears the Greens captured the interest of non-voters and had the organization to get them to the polls.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Conservatives poised for long time in power
Assuming Stephen Harper and the Conservatives don't mess up, they are now poised to settle into government for many years.
It's not just that Harper has finally won a majority on his fourth try.
But the victory came largely because of the dramatic collapse of the Liberals. The party, for the first time in Canadian history, fell to third place in Monday's election. With 34 seats as I write this, the party is desperately weak. It faces fierce challenges in the months ahead and might not survive.
The New Democrats made big gains as a result of falling Liberal support and the collapse of the Bloc Québécois. The party, for the first time in its history, has the second largest number of seats, at 104. Jack Layton will lead the official Opposition.
But the NDP surge also is largely responsible for the Conservative majority. (The Conservatives' targeted campaign also deserves credit.)
The Harper party's share of the popular vote scarcely changed, from 37.6 per cent in 2008 to about 40 per cent in this election.
That translated into a 20-per-cent increase in seats, because the NDP gained votes in ridings that had been held by the Liberals. In many of those, the result was a Conservative victory.
The Liberals are left in a dismal situation, which will only get worse. They will have a minor role in Parliament and face a potentially divisive leadership campaign to replace Michael Ignatieff.
Harper's majority means he will go ahead with his plan to end public financial support for political parties. Liberal donations will plummet as a result of their third-place finish, leaving the party short of the money needed to rebuild.
All this should create some hard decisions for the two main opposition parties. The Liberals aren't beaten into the dirt as the Conservatives were in the 2000 election, setting the stage for their takeover by the Canadian Alliance.
But they aren't far off. The Conservatives won 12 seats in 2000; the Liberals' 34 in this election isn't much more impressive.
The Liberals are lost. They can't pry votes from the Conservatives' base and they can no longer count on being the default choice of centre-left voters.
That's almost certain to lead to pressure to unite the centre-left, as Harper united the centre-right.
And those discussions will create additional problems for the Liberals, with members likely to be sharply divided on any alliance with the New Democrats.
The Bloc collapse was even greater than the Liberal stumble, with the party reduced from the 49 seats won two years ago to just three. That's not necessarily a good thing in terms of national unity.
The Conservatives have just six seats in the province; Quebecers will again be on the outside of the national government.
It's also hard to know what to make of Green party leader Elizabeth May's victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands. It's a historic win; the Greens have never had a seat in Parliament.
But at the same time, the party's support across Canada fell sharply and it has demonstrated no potential as a serious political force. May has four years to change that.
Now the attention shifts to Harper. His entire campaign was based on the need for a majority to allow him to complete his agenda (and the perils of a coalition by the other parties).
But Harper still only has the support of a minority of Canadian voters, and he faces some significant challenges in fulfilling his commitments. Big spending cuts, for example, will be needed to meet the timeline for eliminating the deficit, with no clear indication where those savings will be found.
And, based on the campaign, Layton will be an effective opposition leader. His success in the election came from a positive campaign that convinced many Canadians he understood the issues that mattered to them. He now has four years to reinforce that, while portraying Harper as out of touch.
It's customary to claim most elections bring dramatic change to the political landscape. This time, it's true.
Footnote: The Conservatives elected the most MPs from B.C. with 20, but they and the Liberals still lost seats. The Liberals are down to two MPs. The New Democrats gained and have 13 seats.
It's not just that Harper has finally won a majority on his fourth try.
But the victory came largely because of the dramatic collapse of the Liberals. The party, for the first time in Canadian history, fell to third place in Monday's election. With 34 seats as I write this, the party is desperately weak. It faces fierce challenges in the months ahead and might not survive.
The New Democrats made big gains as a result of falling Liberal support and the collapse of the Bloc Québécois. The party, for the first time in its history, has the second largest number of seats, at 104. Jack Layton will lead the official Opposition.
But the NDP surge also is largely responsible for the Conservative majority. (The Conservatives' targeted campaign also deserves credit.)
The Harper party's share of the popular vote scarcely changed, from 37.6 per cent in 2008 to about 40 per cent in this election.
That translated into a 20-per-cent increase in seats, because the NDP gained votes in ridings that had been held by the Liberals. In many of those, the result was a Conservative victory.
The Liberals are left in a dismal situation, which will only get worse. They will have a minor role in Parliament and face a potentially divisive leadership campaign to replace Michael Ignatieff.
Harper's majority means he will go ahead with his plan to end public financial support for political parties. Liberal donations will plummet as a result of their third-place finish, leaving the party short of the money needed to rebuild.
All this should create some hard decisions for the two main opposition parties. The Liberals aren't beaten into the dirt as the Conservatives were in the 2000 election, setting the stage for their takeover by the Canadian Alliance.
But they aren't far off. The Conservatives won 12 seats in 2000; the Liberals' 34 in this election isn't much more impressive.
The Liberals are lost. They can't pry votes from the Conservatives' base and they can no longer count on being the default choice of centre-left voters.
That's almost certain to lead to pressure to unite the centre-left, as Harper united the centre-right.
And those discussions will create additional problems for the Liberals, with members likely to be sharply divided on any alliance with the New Democrats.
The Bloc collapse was even greater than the Liberal stumble, with the party reduced from the 49 seats won two years ago to just three. That's not necessarily a good thing in terms of national unity.
The Conservatives have just six seats in the province; Quebecers will again be on the outside of the national government.
It's also hard to know what to make of Green party leader Elizabeth May's victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands. It's a historic win; the Greens have never had a seat in Parliament.
But at the same time, the party's support across Canada fell sharply and it has demonstrated no potential as a serious political force. May has four years to change that.
Now the attention shifts to Harper. His entire campaign was based on the need for a majority to allow him to complete his agenda (and the perils of a coalition by the other parties).
But Harper still only has the support of a minority of Canadian voters, and he faces some significant challenges in fulfilling his commitments. Big spending cuts, for example, will be needed to meet the timeline for eliminating the deficit, with no clear indication where those savings will be found.
And, based on the campaign, Layton will be an effective opposition leader. His success in the election came from a positive campaign that convinced many Canadians he understood the issues that mattered to them. He now has four years to reinforce that, while portraying Harper as out of touch.
It's customary to claim most elections bring dramatic change to the political landscape. This time, it's true.
Footnote: The Conservatives elected the most MPs from B.C. with 20, but they and the Liberals still lost seats. The Liberals are down to two MPs. The New Democrats gained and have 13 seats.
About those fat severance cheques
The federal election shifted attention from the $2.4 million in severance payments made after Christy Clark decided on some post-victory housecleaning. That's only a small part of the total cost - more people were fired as part of the purges.
The Times Colonist had a useful editorial Saturday, reprinted below.
"Generous severances
Taxpayers should feel abused by the rich severance payments to 13 senior managers terminated by Christy Clark days after she took office.
The payments totalled $2.4 million, or about $185,000 per person. The highest payment went to Gordon Campbell's displaced deputy Allan Seckel, who got $550,000. Paul Taylor received $114,000 even though he had only been hired as Campbell's chief of staff six months ago. The amounts will rise once bonuses are added.
The payments -first reported by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com -raise two issues. First, did Clark need to terminate all these people, or could they have been offered other positions and continued to contribute? Most could and that would have been less disruptive and saved money.
And second, why are these payments so generous? Employees terminated without cause are entitled to severance and government managers should be treated no differently. Political staff, in particular, live with limited job security -if the election brings a new government, they are likely going to be looking for new jobs.
But severance is not supposed to be a windfall. It is intended to provide replacement income for a reasonable period, allowing the terminated employee to find comparable work. Typically, barring unusual circumstances, courts will award something like one month per year of service. Employers sometimes choose to continue monthly payments, rather than a lump sum, and halt the severance payments once the employee finds a new job.
Instead, the government chose to be generous with taxpayers' money. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon noted the maximum payments were equal to 18 months' pay, and said some of the people had been employees for years.
But in the private sector, the payments would almost certainly be much less.
The payments also highlight the gap between what the government considers fair for itself and for other British Columbians. The Employment Standards Act sets out severance payments for similar terminations. Under those rules, payments are capped at a maximum of two months, no matter how long an employee has served. Taylor's six months on the job would entitle him to severance pay equal to one week's salary.
People in the public sector have to be treated fairly, and pay and employment conditions should be competitive.
These payments go well beyond those standards."
The Times Colonist had a useful editorial Saturday, reprinted below.
"Generous severances
Taxpayers should feel abused by the rich severance payments to 13 senior managers terminated by Christy Clark days after she took office.
The payments totalled $2.4 million, or about $185,000 per person. The highest payment went to Gordon Campbell's displaced deputy Allan Seckel, who got $550,000. Paul Taylor received $114,000 even though he had only been hired as Campbell's chief of staff six months ago. The amounts will rise once bonuses are added.
The payments -first reported by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com -raise two issues. First, did Clark need to terminate all these people, or could they have been offered other positions and continued to contribute? Most could and that would have been less disruptive and saved money.
And second, why are these payments so generous? Employees terminated without cause are entitled to severance and government managers should be treated no differently. Political staff, in particular, live with limited job security -if the election brings a new government, they are likely going to be looking for new jobs.
But severance is not supposed to be a windfall. It is intended to provide replacement income for a reasonable period, allowing the terminated employee to find comparable work. Typically, barring unusual circumstances, courts will award something like one month per year of service. Employers sometimes choose to continue monthly payments, rather than a lump sum, and halt the severance payments once the employee finds a new job.
Instead, the government chose to be generous with taxpayers' money. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon noted the maximum payments were equal to 18 months' pay, and said some of the people had been employees for years.
But in the private sector, the payments would almost certainly be much less.
The payments also highlight the gap between what the government considers fair for itself and for other British Columbians. The Employment Standards Act sets out severance payments for similar terminations. Under those rules, payments are capped at a maximum of two months, no matter how long an employee has served. Taylor's six months on the job would entitle him to severance pay equal to one week's salary.
People in the public sector have to be treated fairly, and pay and employment conditions should be competitive.
These payments go well beyond those standards."
Friday, April 29, 2011
The necessity of strategic voting
If we had a better electoral system, then strategic voting would be less important.
But we don't. So if you're a New Democrat or Liberal in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and you don't want to be represented by Green candidate Elizabeth May, then you need to vote for Conservative Gary Lunn.
If you don't want a Conservative majority, then you need to vote for May.
The race is close enough that neither of the two are assured of victory. Liberals and New Democrats with a strong preference have to rethink their choice.
The same is true in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, although the choices are different. A poll on the Project Democracy website puts Conservative Troy DeSouza at 40 per cent support, New Democrat Randall Garrison at 35 per cent, Liberal Lillian Szpak at 15 per cent and Green Shaunna Salsman at 10 per cent.
So Green and Liberal voters who would prefer a Conservative MP over a New Democrat, or favour a Harper majority, should likely vote Conservative. Greens and Liberals who are worried about the possibility of an NDP-led official opposition should vote for for DeSouza.
It's a inexact business - who knows how accurate the projections are. But it's what we've got.
There's useful information on strategic voting, particularly in B.C., here.
But we don't. So if you're a New Democrat or Liberal in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and you don't want to be represented by Green candidate Elizabeth May, then you need to vote for Conservative Gary Lunn.
If you don't want a Conservative majority, then you need to vote for May.
The race is close enough that neither of the two are assured of victory. Liberals and New Democrats with a strong preference have to rethink their choice.
The same is true in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, although the choices are different. A poll on the Project Democracy website puts Conservative Troy DeSouza at 40 per cent support, New Democrat Randall Garrison at 35 per cent, Liberal Lillian Szpak at 15 per cent and Green Shaunna Salsman at 10 per cent.
So Green and Liberal voters who would prefer a Conservative MP over a New Democrat, or favour a Harper majority, should likely vote Conservative. Greens and Liberals who are worried about the possibility of an NDP-led official opposition should vote for for DeSouza.
It's a inexact business - who knows how accurate the projections are. But it's what we've got.
There's useful information on strategic voting, particularly in B.C., here.
What's the point of a legislature that doesn't sit?
MLAs found their way back to the legislature this week. It might have been tricky for some. There have only been four sitting days in the past 10 months.
And since the 2009 election - two years, in which most working British Columbians have put in 472 days on the job - the legislature has been in session for 90 days.
MLAs are still working when the legislature isn't sitting. They deal with constituents' issues and go to meetings. The caucuses talk about strategy and issues.
But is that a $100,000 a year job?
MLAs could also be working in legislative committees, examining important issues.
Except the committees don't meet. There's a legislative committee on health, for example. But the MLAs haven't met to do any work since 2006. I can think of about 20 issues the committee could have explored.
It's the same for the education committee, which also has been inactive for five years.
It's the premier's decision to sideline the committees. But MLAs take the insult.
MLAs used to send more time in the legislature - about 76 days a year through the 1990s, compared with 45 days in the last two years.
More sitting days isn't automatically a good thing, of course. There's no sense having MLAs fill time or pass unnecessary laws.
But real, important work has been neglected.
We're a month into the fiscal year, and the government has already spent some $3 billion. But the budget hasn't even been reviewed by MLAs. What's the point of budget debate after the money is spent?
And Clark is shutting down the legislature June 2, after just 20 sitting days.
That means MLAs will have 17 days for estimates debates - the formal review of the budgets and programs of every ministry and Crown corporation.
The debates are central to any attempt at accountable government - the one chance MLAs on both sides have to question spending plans, raise concerns and suggest alternatives. They should be a time for careful, detailed review and answers from ministers.
Instead, much of the budget will be passed with little or no discussion, because there won't be time. MLAs will be reviewing and approving $2.5 billion in spending plans per day.
There is no reason for the rush. MLAs could stay on the job through June. Last year, the spring session lasted 46 days - twice as long.
So either Clark doesn't like the idea of oversight by the people's elected representatives or she wants the budget passed quickly to clear the way for an early election.
The government's failure to let the legislature do its work has been damaging in other ways.
Liberal house leader Rich Coleman says the government doesn't have much of a legislative agenda anyway.
But important legislation has been stalled as the legislature sat empty over the past 10 months.
Take one example.
The government set up a task force to look at the serious problems in the rules governing municipal elections. There are, practically, none. Anyone with enough money could buy control of a council. The public doesn't know who funds candidates. The door is open to corruption and campaign abuses.
The task force made useful recommendations. And Ben Stewart, the minister responsible at the time, said all 31 recommendations would be implemented in time for this fall's municipal elections.
But last week, the Liberal government reneged. It was too late to make the changes, said Ida Chong, the minister responsible. They would be introduced in 2014.
That's inexcusable. The reforms are needed, as Stewart acknowledged. And a competent government - and a legislature sitting for more than four days - could easily have passed the laws early enough to allow candidates and municipalities to prepare.
Instead, voters will have another round of flawed municipal elections.
The government just isn't letting MLAs do their jobs.
And accountability to elected representatives - central to democracy - is being lost.
Footnote: Governments also don't like question period - the daily grilling of cabinet ministers by the opposition. Based on the first two days of this session, expect a lot of NDP attention to the HST referendum and amount of money the government will spend trying to get a yes vote.
And since the 2009 election - two years, in which most working British Columbians have put in 472 days on the job - the legislature has been in session for 90 days.
MLAs are still working when the legislature isn't sitting. They deal with constituents' issues and go to meetings. The caucuses talk about strategy and issues.
But is that a $100,000 a year job?
MLAs could also be working in legislative committees, examining important issues.
Except the committees don't meet. There's a legislative committee on health, for example. But the MLAs haven't met to do any work since 2006. I can think of about 20 issues the committee could have explored.
It's the same for the education committee, which also has been inactive for five years.
It's the premier's decision to sideline the committees. But MLAs take the insult.
MLAs used to send more time in the legislature - about 76 days a year through the 1990s, compared with 45 days in the last two years.
More sitting days isn't automatically a good thing, of course. There's no sense having MLAs fill time or pass unnecessary laws.
But real, important work has been neglected.
We're a month into the fiscal year, and the government has already spent some $3 billion. But the budget hasn't even been reviewed by MLAs. What's the point of budget debate after the money is spent?
And Clark is shutting down the legislature June 2, after just 20 sitting days.
That means MLAs will have 17 days for estimates debates - the formal review of the budgets and programs of every ministry and Crown corporation.
The debates are central to any attempt at accountable government - the one chance MLAs on both sides have to question spending plans, raise concerns and suggest alternatives. They should be a time for careful, detailed review and answers from ministers.
Instead, much of the budget will be passed with little or no discussion, because there won't be time. MLAs will be reviewing and approving $2.5 billion in spending plans per day.
There is no reason for the rush. MLAs could stay on the job through June. Last year, the spring session lasted 46 days - twice as long.
So either Clark doesn't like the idea of oversight by the people's elected representatives or she wants the budget passed quickly to clear the way for an early election.
The government's failure to let the legislature do its work has been damaging in other ways.
Liberal house leader Rich Coleman says the government doesn't have much of a legislative agenda anyway.
But important legislation has been stalled as the legislature sat empty over the past 10 months.
Take one example.
The government set up a task force to look at the serious problems in the rules governing municipal elections. There are, practically, none. Anyone with enough money could buy control of a council. The public doesn't know who funds candidates. The door is open to corruption and campaign abuses.
The task force made useful recommendations. And Ben Stewart, the minister responsible at the time, said all 31 recommendations would be implemented in time for this fall's municipal elections.
But last week, the Liberal government reneged. It was too late to make the changes, said Ida Chong, the minister responsible. They would be introduced in 2014.
That's inexcusable. The reforms are needed, as Stewart acknowledged. And a competent government - and a legislature sitting for more than four days - could easily have passed the laws early enough to allow candidates and municipalities to prepare.
Instead, voters will have another round of flawed municipal elections.
The government just isn't letting MLAs do their jobs.
And accountability to elected representatives - central to democracy - is being lost.
Footnote: Governments also don't like question period - the daily grilling of cabinet ministers by the opposition. Based on the first two days of this session, expect a lot of NDP attention to the HST referendum and amount of money the government will spend trying to get a yes vote.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The cost of Christy Clark's transition
Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman has the results of an FOI on severance payments to people fired by Christy Clark as part of the transition process. The tab - which is partial - is more than $2.4 million. Martyn Brown, Gordon Campbell's long-time deputy, left with $416,000. Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in children and families, with $324,000.
OK, a new boss needs to make changes and getting rid of people without cause is expensive.
But $2.4 million is a lot of money for taxpayers to hand over to political appointees. It would be nice to be more confident that every option to keep them on the job in useful roles had been explored.
Holman's post is here.
OK, a new boss needs to make changes and getting rid of people without cause is expensive.
But $2.4 million is a lot of money for taxpayers to hand over to political appointees. It would be nice to be more confident that every option to keep them on the job in useful roles had been explored.
Holman's post is here.
Christy Clark's costly firings
Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman has the details on $2.4 million in severance paid to 13 people sacked by Clark without cause.
Read it here.
Read it here.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Fear-mongering on refugees
Are they scoundrels or less than competent? That seems the choice when it comes to the Harper Conservatives' proposed legislation on human smuggling.
And the law is just a symptom of our bizarre approach to broader immigration issues.
Bill C-49, introduced after a boatload of Tamils arrived off Vancouver Island, is grandly called the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. (Which sounds like a Maoist slogan.)
All the opposition parties rejected the legislation, which died with the last government. Stephen Harper has pledged to pass it if he gets a majority.
It's a bad law. False refugee claimants are already deported. And human trafficking is already a serious Criminal Code offence.
What this bill does - besides political posturing - is to introduce penalties for legitimate refugees who arrive in a group.
Unlike other refugees, they would be barred from applying for permanent residence or reuniting with their family for five years even if their claims are accepted. They could also be detained for a year without any right to challenge their detention in court.
So a refugee, fearing death or persecution in his homeland, who cobbles together money for false documents and a plane ticket and makes it into Canada is treated one way.
His neighbour, with less money, who chooses a dangerous three-month journey on a ship is treated much more harshly.
It makes no sense. Either people are legitimate refugees or they aren't.
The law was rejected by a majority of MPs. It's unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge. And it won't accomplish anything.
The Conservatives either haven't thought this through or are attempting to use a bad law to win votes.
The sleazy election flyer I got from attacking Michael Ignatieff for being "weak on border security, dangerously soft on crime" suggests a cynical political ploy at the expense of refugees.
That would continue a pattern.
When the Sun Sea arrived in Canadian waters last summer with 492 Tamil passengers, the Harper government did much fear-mongering about terrorists on the ship.
So far, two people have been found to have ties to the Tamil Tigers, a group that used terror tactics against the Sri Lankan government. They have been deported. Another 30 are still being investigated.
The other 460 were deemed no threat and their refugee applications are being assessed.
Still, the Conservatives are warning about the dire threat posed by migrants and citing the danger posed by the Tamil Tigers.
But, at the same time, the party has nominated Tamil Ragavan Paranchothy as a candidate in a Toronto suburb. (Toronto has a community of some 200,000 Tamils.) Last November, Paranchothy hosted a TV special marking an annual commemoration of dead Tamil Tiger fighters. He described them as "strong and faithful people who stood guard for the Tamils, fought for freedom and peace."
And The Globe and Mail reported this week on consultants working in China who make illegal immigration to Canada possible for anyone with money. A federal program welcomes immigrants with $1.6 million in assets, skills and a clean record. The consultants fake the skills and records. The immigrants get a clean way Canada.
The government has yet to talk about bills to curb those abuses.
And, as the Conservative government frets about a few hundred men, women and children risking their lives for better futures, it brings in more and more people on temporary work permits to provide cheap labour.
Canada had 281,000 immigrants last year. But there were 283,000 people here on temporary permits, at the request of employers. The number has increased 76 per cent increase since 2006.
Our government will accept temporary foreign workers to clean our hotel rooms, but won't welcome refugees looking for a safe future.
That seems a bizarre attitude for an underpopulated, demographically challenged nation of immigrants.
Just as it seems bizarre to introduce bad laws to score political points.
Footnote: Immigration is a touchy election issue for the Conservatives. All parties attempt to woo "ethnic" voters, who tend to favour measures that increases immigration, particularly family reunification programs. The Harper party also stress their social conservativism, which aligns with the traditional values of many of the communities.
But at the same time, the Conservative rhetoric on refugees attempts to appeal to other voters nervous about new Canadians.
And the law is just a symptom of our bizarre approach to broader immigration issues.
Bill C-49, introduced after a boatload of Tamils arrived off Vancouver Island, is grandly called the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. (Which sounds like a Maoist slogan.)
All the opposition parties rejected the legislation, which died with the last government. Stephen Harper has pledged to pass it if he gets a majority.
It's a bad law. False refugee claimants are already deported. And human trafficking is already a serious Criminal Code offence.
What this bill does - besides political posturing - is to introduce penalties for legitimate refugees who arrive in a group.
Unlike other refugees, they would be barred from applying for permanent residence or reuniting with their family for five years even if their claims are accepted. They could also be detained for a year without any right to challenge their detention in court.
So a refugee, fearing death or persecution in his homeland, who cobbles together money for false documents and a plane ticket and makes it into Canada is treated one way.
His neighbour, with less money, who chooses a dangerous three-month journey on a ship is treated much more harshly.
It makes no sense. Either people are legitimate refugees or they aren't.
The law was rejected by a majority of MPs. It's unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge. And it won't accomplish anything.
The Conservatives either haven't thought this through or are attempting to use a bad law to win votes.
The sleazy election flyer I got from attacking Michael Ignatieff for being "weak on border security, dangerously soft on crime" suggests a cynical political ploy at the expense of refugees.
That would continue a pattern.
When the Sun Sea arrived in Canadian waters last summer with 492 Tamil passengers, the Harper government did much fear-mongering about terrorists on the ship.
So far, two people have been found to have ties to the Tamil Tigers, a group that used terror tactics against the Sri Lankan government. They have been deported. Another 30 are still being investigated.
The other 460 were deemed no threat and their refugee applications are being assessed.
Still, the Conservatives are warning about the dire threat posed by migrants and citing the danger posed by the Tamil Tigers.
But, at the same time, the party has nominated Tamil Ragavan Paranchothy as a candidate in a Toronto suburb. (Toronto has a community of some 200,000 Tamils.) Last November, Paranchothy hosted a TV special marking an annual commemoration of dead Tamil Tiger fighters. He described them as "strong and faithful people who stood guard for the Tamils, fought for freedom and peace."
And The Globe and Mail reported this week on consultants working in China who make illegal immigration to Canada possible for anyone with money. A federal program welcomes immigrants with $1.6 million in assets, skills and a clean record. The consultants fake the skills and records. The immigrants get a clean way Canada.
The government has yet to talk about bills to curb those abuses.
And, as the Conservative government frets about a few hundred men, women and children risking their lives for better futures, it brings in more and more people on temporary work permits to provide cheap labour.
Canada had 281,000 immigrants last year. But there were 283,000 people here on temporary permits, at the request of employers. The number has increased 76 per cent increase since 2006.
Our government will accept temporary foreign workers to clean our hotel rooms, but won't welcome refugees looking for a safe future.
That seems a bizarre attitude for an underpopulated, demographically challenged nation of immigrants.
Just as it seems bizarre to introduce bad laws to score political points.
Footnote: Immigration is a touchy election issue for the Conservatives. All parties attempt to woo "ethnic" voters, who tend to favour measures that increases immigration, particularly family reunification programs. The Harper party also stress their social conservativism, which aligns with the traditional values of many of the communities.
But at the same time, the Conservative rhetoric on refugees attempts to appeal to other voters nervous about new Canadians.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Everyone is a suspect in Campbell River
When Stephen Harper comes to town, even the Conservative riding association president is a terror suspect, it seems.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Vancouver's killed casino might be symbol of change
Vancouver council's decision to reject a mega-casino - and the provincial government's muted reaction - might be symbols of change.
The casino project was backed by Gordon Campbell and promoted by Liberal insiders who stood to profit. It was cited as justification for the $563-million new roof for B.C. Place.
But many Vancouver residents were opposed to another 1,500 slots. The health authority thought it would increase addiction and care costs.
And a lot of business owners weren't keen. A B.C. Lotteries study projected that gamblers from the Lower Mainland would lose $580,000 a day in the casino. That's money that wouldn't be spent in bars or movie theatres (or, for some addicts, on food for the family).
Vancouver council voted unanimously against the casino.
If Campbell were still the boss, Vancouver's politicians would have paid a price for defying the government.
Instead, a quick provincial government news release quoted Jobs Minister Pat Bell saying the government "respects the province and Vancouver city council's decision."
And the release put some distance between the current government and Campbell.
"We have a renewed government under the leadership of Premier Christy Clark, and we are going to take a fresh look at options to develop this property," Bell said (he didn't really say it, of course - no one talks like that).
It's a big reversal. In March 2010, Campbell and cabinet ministers Rich Coleman and Kevin Krueger announced the project as a done deal. It would bring economic activity, Campbell said, standing beside the managers from Paragon, the casino's prospective operator.
But the deal quickly raised questions.
Start with the B.C. Place roof project launched in 2008.
PavCo, the Crown corporation that oversaw the $500-million cost overrun on the Vancouver convention centre, put out a request for proposals for a contractor to put a new roof on the stadium on Nov. 3, 2008.
It gave companies two weeks to bid on a project that would end up costing more than $500 million.
That was ludicrous. Companies couldn't possibly prepare competent, competitive bids.
On Nov. 26, nine days after bidding closed, PavCo signed an agreement with PCL Constructors Canada Inc. It took 17 working days to go from the first call for bids to a commitment.
PCL was also the convention centre builder for PavCo. Its regional manager was a big Liberal donor.
PavCo's plan to pay for the roof relied mainly on leasing public land around the stadium for the development.
That money could have been used for needed services or facilities around the province, or to pay down debt. But the government wanted that new stadium roof.
So on March 6, 2009, PavCo put a formal request for "expressions of interest" and gave potential developers just three weeks to respond.
Three weeks to come up with a plan for a big, prime piece of real estate in a desirable city.
PavCo picked qualified contenders and on April 20 called for proposals, giving companies five weeks to put in bids. Again, not much time for a considered approach, or to line up funding.
Only two bids were submitted.
And Paragon's casino plan won.
Paragon had tight ties to the Campbell government. Insider T. Richard Turner is a party donor - he gave the Liberals $50,000 last year - and was appointed chairman of the B.C. Lottery Corp. and ICBC by the Liberals.
Turner was well-enough connected that when the government started getting spooked about the huge cost of a new stadium roof, he called then-tourism minister Kevin Krueger and told him the roof was a "deal-breaker." Build it, or the casino deal wouldn't go ahead.
So the government went ahead with the roof, at a cost of $125 for every person in the province.
Paragon and B.C. Lotteries might be back with a revised plan.
But right now, Vancouver seems to have made a good choice.
And the new Liberal government seems to have accepted it.
Footnote: Who knows, the Clark government may even abandon the plan to work each year to increase both the number of people who gamble in the province and the amount each one loses. Clark did run for office in 2001 on a promise to halt gambling expansion, a promise that was quickly shredded as the Liberals went on a gambling spree.
The casino project was backed by Gordon Campbell and promoted by Liberal insiders who stood to profit. It was cited as justification for the $563-million new roof for B.C. Place.
But many Vancouver residents were opposed to another 1,500 slots. The health authority thought it would increase addiction and care costs.
And a lot of business owners weren't keen. A B.C. Lotteries study projected that gamblers from the Lower Mainland would lose $580,000 a day in the casino. That's money that wouldn't be spent in bars or movie theatres (or, for some addicts, on food for the family).
Vancouver council voted unanimously against the casino.
If Campbell were still the boss, Vancouver's politicians would have paid a price for defying the government.
Instead, a quick provincial government news release quoted Jobs Minister Pat Bell saying the government "respects the province and Vancouver city council's decision."
And the release put some distance between the current government and Campbell.
"We have a renewed government under the leadership of Premier Christy Clark, and we are going to take a fresh look at options to develop this property," Bell said (he didn't really say it, of course - no one talks like that).
It's a big reversal. In March 2010, Campbell and cabinet ministers Rich Coleman and Kevin Krueger announced the project as a done deal. It would bring economic activity, Campbell said, standing beside the managers from Paragon, the casino's prospective operator.
But the deal quickly raised questions.
Start with the B.C. Place roof project launched in 2008.
PavCo, the Crown corporation that oversaw the $500-million cost overrun on the Vancouver convention centre, put out a request for proposals for a contractor to put a new roof on the stadium on Nov. 3, 2008.
It gave companies two weeks to bid on a project that would end up costing more than $500 million.
That was ludicrous. Companies couldn't possibly prepare competent, competitive bids.
On Nov. 26, nine days after bidding closed, PavCo signed an agreement with PCL Constructors Canada Inc. It took 17 working days to go from the first call for bids to a commitment.
PCL was also the convention centre builder for PavCo. Its regional manager was a big Liberal donor.
PavCo's plan to pay for the roof relied mainly on leasing public land around the stadium for the development.
That money could have been used for needed services or facilities around the province, or to pay down debt. But the government wanted that new stadium roof.
So on March 6, 2009, PavCo put a formal request for "expressions of interest" and gave potential developers just three weeks to respond.
Three weeks to come up with a plan for a big, prime piece of real estate in a desirable city.
PavCo picked qualified contenders and on April 20 called for proposals, giving companies five weeks to put in bids. Again, not much time for a considered approach, or to line up funding.
Only two bids were submitted.
And Paragon's casino plan won.
Paragon had tight ties to the Campbell government. Insider T. Richard Turner is a party donor - he gave the Liberals $50,000 last year - and was appointed chairman of the B.C. Lottery Corp. and ICBC by the Liberals.
Turner was well-enough connected that when the government started getting spooked about the huge cost of a new stadium roof, he called then-tourism minister Kevin Krueger and told him the roof was a "deal-breaker." Build it, or the casino deal wouldn't go ahead.
So the government went ahead with the roof, at a cost of $125 for every person in the province.
Paragon and B.C. Lotteries might be back with a revised plan.
But right now, Vancouver seems to have made a good choice.
And the new Liberal government seems to have accepted it.
Footnote: Who knows, the Clark government may even abandon the plan to work each year to increase both the number of people who gamble in the province and the amount each one loses. Clark did run for office in 2001 on a promise to halt gambling expansion, a promise that was quickly shredded as the Liberals went on a gambling spree.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Don't be quick to underestimate Dix
I've already blown it once when predicting how new NDP leader Adrian Dix would do as a politician.
Back in December 2004, when Dix won an NDP nomination, I wrote that the Liberals should be pleased.
"For Gordon Campbell, it's like Christmas came three weeks early," I wrote. "Figure the Dix nomination is good for a few Liberal wins in close seats, as well as big laugh lines in campaign speeches."
Dix had, after all, been Glen Clark's closest political adviser as the NDP government plummeted in public support,
And after police raided Clark's home, Dix had produced a memo he had written that he said showed Clark had nothing to do with a friend's casino licence application.
The memo was dated almost a year earlier. But Dix had actually written the memo months later, got the office date stamp from a secretary's desk, and rolled the date back. Dix admitted wrongdoing and resigned.
I predicted Dix would be an easy target for Campbell and the Liberals.
And I was dead wrong. Carole James made Dix critic for the children and families ministry. He was by far the most effective New Democrat (helped by Liberal bungling).
Dix had command of the issues, raised them clearly and revealed government incompetence and indifference. He made life heck for Liberal cabinet ministers.
And, most important, actually made things better for kids and families who depended on the ministry.
The lesson is don't underestimate Dix.
The conventional wisdom, following his third-ballot victory, is that Dix isn't a great choice as NDP leader. Too left, too serious, too much baggage. Mike Farnworth or John Horgan would appeal to more voters, the theory goes.
When an election is called, likable Christy Clark will move move the Liberals to the centre, serious Dix will take the NDP to the left. The Liberals will win re-election, because most voters are moderate, the analysis goes.
Maybe.
But you could make an alternate argument that if Farnworth, for example, and Clark were both claiming the centre, voters might see no reason to swap a known quantity for a new governing party with a similar approach.
And, as I learned, it's a mistake to underestimate how much a very smart, hardworking and, perhaps, excessively focused person can accomplish.
Dix has continued to be an effective critic and strong constituency MLA. He championed the fight against school closures in his riding and helped parents mount an effective case.
His challenge - aside from the baggage - will be convincing voters his policies won't hurt the economy.
Still, Liberals are happy he won the leadership. The association with the late-1990s NDP government will hurt Dix, they think.
And Clark will portray him - accurately - as a supporter of having big business pay more in taxes. That will cost jobs and growth, she'll say.
Dix has a chance to present himself as the smart, slightly nerdy guy who will make government think first of how it can make life better for people who live here. Who will spend less time listening to corporations, and more to people. And who can pull the fractious NDP together.
Clark has her own baggage as deputy premier in the early years of the Campbell government, and a less than dazzling track record as a cabinet minister.
And she risks casting herself as the defender of the status quo.
I'm not sure how many people are fond of the status quo in B.C.
I'm also not sure people are ready to take a chance with Dix.
I am sure that my 2004 predictions that Dix would be a liability were wildly wrong.
Most Liberals seem genuinely pleased the New Democrats chose Dix to lead them into an election, likely this fall.
It's far from certain they will be feeling the same way as a September election campaign unfolds.
Footnote: B.C. Conservative leader-in-waiting John Cummins was quick to congratulate Dix. The Conservative impact is still the biggest unknown in the election, with the potential to cost the Liberals votes and seats.
Dix might help Clark in her effort to warn against splitting the centre-right vote.
Back in December 2004, when Dix won an NDP nomination, I wrote that the Liberals should be pleased.
"For Gordon Campbell, it's like Christmas came three weeks early," I wrote. "Figure the Dix nomination is good for a few Liberal wins in close seats, as well as big laugh lines in campaign speeches."
Dix had, after all, been Glen Clark's closest political adviser as the NDP government plummeted in public support,
And after police raided Clark's home, Dix had produced a memo he had written that he said showed Clark had nothing to do with a friend's casino licence application.
The memo was dated almost a year earlier. But Dix had actually written the memo months later, got the office date stamp from a secretary's desk, and rolled the date back. Dix admitted wrongdoing and resigned.
I predicted Dix would be an easy target for Campbell and the Liberals.
And I was dead wrong. Carole James made Dix critic for the children and families ministry. He was by far the most effective New Democrat (helped by Liberal bungling).
Dix had command of the issues, raised them clearly and revealed government incompetence and indifference. He made life heck for Liberal cabinet ministers.
And, most important, actually made things better for kids and families who depended on the ministry.
The lesson is don't underestimate Dix.
The conventional wisdom, following his third-ballot victory, is that Dix isn't a great choice as NDP leader. Too left, too serious, too much baggage. Mike Farnworth or John Horgan would appeal to more voters, the theory goes.
When an election is called, likable Christy Clark will move move the Liberals to the centre, serious Dix will take the NDP to the left. The Liberals will win re-election, because most voters are moderate, the analysis goes.
Maybe.
But you could make an alternate argument that if Farnworth, for example, and Clark were both claiming the centre, voters might see no reason to swap a known quantity for a new governing party with a similar approach.
And, as I learned, it's a mistake to underestimate how much a very smart, hardworking and, perhaps, excessively focused person can accomplish.
Dix has continued to be an effective critic and strong constituency MLA. He championed the fight against school closures in his riding and helped parents mount an effective case.
His challenge - aside from the baggage - will be convincing voters his policies won't hurt the economy.
Still, Liberals are happy he won the leadership. The association with the late-1990s NDP government will hurt Dix, they think.
And Clark will portray him - accurately - as a supporter of having big business pay more in taxes. That will cost jobs and growth, she'll say.
Dix has a chance to present himself as the smart, slightly nerdy guy who will make government think first of how it can make life better for people who live here. Who will spend less time listening to corporations, and more to people. And who can pull the fractious NDP together.
Clark has her own baggage as deputy premier in the early years of the Campbell government, and a less than dazzling track record as a cabinet minister.
And she risks casting herself as the defender of the status quo.
I'm not sure how many people are fond of the status quo in B.C.
I'm also not sure people are ready to take a chance with Dix.
I am sure that my 2004 predictions that Dix would be a liability were wildly wrong.
Most Liberals seem genuinely pleased the New Democrats chose Dix to lead them into an election, likely this fall.
It's far from certain they will be feeling the same way as a September election campaign unfolds.
Footnote: B.C. Conservative leader-in-waiting John Cummins was quick to congratulate Dix. The Conservative impact is still the biggest unknown in the election, with the potential to cost the Liberals votes and seats.
Dix might help Clark in her effort to warn against splitting the centre-right vote.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Teachers court win a big challenge for Clark
The teachers' union big win in court this week has created big headaches for Christy Clark.
Practically, the ruling that the Liberals acted illegally in stripping class size and composition limits from teachers' contracts in 2002 could end up adding to the education.
It will certainly make contract talks with the B.C. Teachers Federation, already underway, much more difficult.
Politically, the ruling raises questions about Clark's judgment. She was education minister at the time and a key architect and defender of the discredited legislation.
And it reminds people that, while Clark has been working to distance herself from the Campbell years, she was a cabinet minister and deputy premier for the Liberals' first three years in government, when some of the most controversial decisions were made.
The issue isn't complex. The teachers' union had successfully bargained to have class size and composition limits in contracts. (Composition refers to the number of special needs students in a class.)
In 2001, the newly elected Liberals thought the limits were too restrictive, costly and properly a matter of education policy.
So they passed laws in 2002 to strip them from the contract and bar the union from negotiating the issues in future.
The Liberals had a point. Class sizes are matter of education policy, which should be the responsibility of school trustees and MLAs.
But a sensible government would recognize they are also an issue of working conditions. Unions negotiate working conditions. There needs to be some balancing of interests.
Clark didn't see it that way. The government used legislation to strip the contracts. (In spite of Gordon Campbell's pre-election promise to honour all signed agreements.)
It did the same thing with health workers, leading to the firing of some thousands of employees to be replaced with people working for much lower wages.)
The health unions won their lawsuit in 2007. That cost taxpayers $85 million in settlement costs.
Now the teachers' union has won a similar victory. The court found there was no justification for stripping the contract and removing teachers' right to bargain working conditions - especially when they had agreed to other concessions in negotiations in return for the class size and composition limits.
The court didn't rule teachers had an absolute right to negotiate class size limits.
But it found the government hadn't made any real case that the issues couldn't have been addressed through bargaining and had made no effort to find other, less draconian solutions.
Before Clark and company stripped the contracts, there months of consultation with the B.C. School Employers' Association, which bargained for school districts.
But none, literally, with the B.C. Teachers Federation on ways of dealing with the underlying issues.
OK, the BCTF was a difficult union. (And still is - the union is seeking outlandish wage increases in the current round of negotiations.)
But the government's failure to make any effort before using legislation to strip contracts was thuggish and incompetent.
And costly. If the government had made any sort of real effort to seek solutions to real problems, the outcome of the court case might have been different.
The law on bargaining rights was unclear at the time. The health unions' 2007 Supreme Court of Canada victory changed that.
But practically and ethically, seeking a solution without attacking the bargaining rights of teachers - and creating years of costly conflict - would have been much smarter.
Instead, the government blundered ahead. In court, it couldn't provide any evidence class size limits were a real problem. It couldn't offer any evidence that a negotiated resolution wasn't available. And it conceded it didn't even try to solve the problem without a harsh law.
Those were costly mistakes. The court gave the government 12 months to address the rights' violation, but the teachers' union is not going to sign a new agreement that doesn't reflect the judgment.
Clark faces an early test. And not an easy one.
Footnote: It's also surprising that the government didn't try to negotiate a settlement with the teachers once the health unions won in 2007.
The clear legal victory gives the BCTF considerable bargaining clout in the current talks, which the union will certainly use.
Practically, the ruling that the Liberals acted illegally in stripping class size and composition limits from teachers' contracts in 2002 could end up adding to the education.
It will certainly make contract talks with the B.C. Teachers Federation, already underway, much more difficult.
Politically, the ruling raises questions about Clark's judgment. She was education minister at the time and a key architect and defender of the discredited legislation.
And it reminds people that, while Clark has been working to distance herself from the Campbell years, she was a cabinet minister and deputy premier for the Liberals' first three years in government, when some of the most controversial decisions were made.
The issue isn't complex. The teachers' union had successfully bargained to have class size and composition limits in contracts. (Composition refers to the number of special needs students in a class.)
In 2001, the newly elected Liberals thought the limits were too restrictive, costly and properly a matter of education policy.
So they passed laws in 2002 to strip them from the contract and bar the union from negotiating the issues in future.
The Liberals had a point. Class sizes are matter of education policy, which should be the responsibility of school trustees and MLAs.
But a sensible government would recognize they are also an issue of working conditions. Unions negotiate working conditions. There needs to be some balancing of interests.
Clark didn't see it that way. The government used legislation to strip the contracts. (In spite of Gordon Campbell's pre-election promise to honour all signed agreements.)
It did the same thing with health workers, leading to the firing of some thousands of employees to be replaced with people working for much lower wages.)
The health unions won their lawsuit in 2007. That cost taxpayers $85 million in settlement costs.
Now the teachers' union has won a similar victory. The court found there was no justification for stripping the contract and removing teachers' right to bargain working conditions - especially when they had agreed to other concessions in negotiations in return for the class size and composition limits.
The court didn't rule teachers had an absolute right to negotiate class size limits.
But it found the government hadn't made any real case that the issues couldn't have been addressed through bargaining and had made no effort to find other, less draconian solutions.
Before Clark and company stripped the contracts, there months of consultation with the B.C. School Employers' Association, which bargained for school districts.
But none, literally, with the B.C. Teachers Federation on ways of dealing with the underlying issues.
OK, the BCTF was a difficult union. (And still is - the union is seeking outlandish wage increases in the current round of negotiations.)
But the government's failure to make any effort before using legislation to strip contracts was thuggish and incompetent.
And costly. If the government had made any sort of real effort to seek solutions to real problems, the outcome of the court case might have been different.
The law on bargaining rights was unclear at the time. The health unions' 2007 Supreme Court of Canada victory changed that.
But practically and ethically, seeking a solution without attacking the bargaining rights of teachers - and creating years of costly conflict - would have been much smarter.
Instead, the government blundered ahead. In court, it couldn't provide any evidence class size limits were a real problem. It couldn't offer any evidence that a negotiated resolution wasn't available. And it conceded it didn't even try to solve the problem without a harsh law.
Those were costly mistakes. The court gave the government 12 months to address the rights' violation, but the teachers' union is not going to sign a new agreement that doesn't reflect the judgment.
Clark faces an early test. And not an easy one.
Footnote: It's also surprising that the government didn't try to negotiate a settlement with the teachers once the health unions won in 2007.
The clear legal victory gives the BCTF considerable bargaining clout in the current talks, which the union will certainly use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
