The cuts to supports for people with "developmental disabilities" - what we once called the mentally handicapped - are taking a terrible toll. And worse times are ahead.
According to Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation set up to provide services, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created six years ago.
In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. By 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.
If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006. (There is a small amount of additional money for a personalized supports initiative; it doesn't change the reality of the annual cuts.)
The result is damaging. People who have lived in group homes for years, happily and in a family-like setting, are being forced out as homes are closed to save money.
People who once had full lives - supported in jobs and social activities - are now spending all day alone. The supports that involved them in the community, helped them keep jobs and gave them rich lives have been pulled away.
Waiting lists for services are growing and, in many cases, services are just denied. No money, says CLBC.
CLBC says several factors, all predictable, are pushing up demand for services.
The corporation takes responsibility for supports when people turn 19. CLBC says parents, after seeing their children assisted through the school years, expect quality services to continue.
Too often, they don't. Teens who have been thriving with effective supports face disaster when they become adults.
Like Jonathan Martin of Burnaby. He has Down syndrome and autism. He's been supported as a youth and CLBC's own report says he needs continued support and access to day programs next month when he leaves high school. "There is a grave concern that Jonathan's independence and acquired skill would quickly decline after he finishes school and if day program is not available," the agency's report says, according to the Burnaby NewsLeader. "Constant supervision is required for huge safety concerns."
But CLBC says it has no money. Jonathan will go on a wait list, with no real chance of getting support.
At the other end of the age spectrum, CLBC reports that people with developmental disabilities are living longer and needing more support as they age.
At the same time, many aging family caregivers, usually parents, can no longer provide as much support and are turning to CLBC.
They are finding the support isn't there.
That is particularly cruel. All parents worry about their children. But most enter old age knowing that their sons and daughters are launched.
Imagine the anguish in fearing that your death or incapacity will leave your developmentally disabled adult child at risk of exploitation or neglect. Knowing that the efforts you made to help ensure a safe, productive, satisfying life could end in tragedy.
The B.C. Association for Community Living has supported CLBC since its creation and continues to applaud the efforts to provide individualized supports.
But executive director Faith Bodnar says underfunding has reached a critical point. "Insufficient funding to CLBC has meant reacting to crisis only and the real danger of relegating people to lives of isolation and subsistence as their supports and services are cut," she wrote this month. "For people with developmental disabilities and their families it has created uncertainty, desperation, vulnerability and real suffering as they experience cuts to services or are placed on waitlists without hope."
There are pragmatic reasons for providing these services.
But this is also a moral issue. These are vulnerable people who, with help, can live rich, satisfying lives. They have the right to that opportunity. We have the collective ability to give them the chance.
But the government, on our behalf, has decided that would cost too much.
Footnote: CLBC notes that part of the pressure from services comes from the province's "five great goals," set by the government in 2005. The third goal called for B.C. to "build the best system of supports fpr persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors." It turns out families believed the government was serious.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Desperate, expensive gamble to save HST
Governments aren’t supposed to make tax policy — or prepare budgets — like this.
The Liberals’ last-ditch attempt to save the HST is a dramatic flip-flop on tax principles they once said were essential for the province’s future.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says that if voters decide to stick with the HST in this summer’s referendum, the government promises to cut the rate from 12 per cent to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012. There would be another cut to 10 per cent on July 1, 2014, assuming the Liberals are still in office.
By 2014, Falcon claimed, the tax burden on individuals and families would be less than it was under the provincial sales tax,
But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there’s more. If voters stick with the HST, the government will send out one-time payments to help cover some of the increased tax burden. Families with children under 18 will get $175 per child; low-income seniors would also get $175. (Using taxpayers’ money to send cheques to the province’s richest families hardly seems sound public policy.)
Cutting the HST rate by one percentage point, according to Falcon, would cost the government about $850 million a year. So by 2014, the government would be taking in about $1.7 billion less in revenue than it had planned.
No worries, says Falcon. The government would still balance the budget by 2013/14 and manage despite the lost revenue.
If the HST is approved, he said, the government would raise the corporate income tax rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, reversing past cuts. That would bring in about $400 million a year.
And the government would cancel the planned elimination of the small business tax, adding about $250 million a year to government revenues.
That still means government revenue would fall by $1.7 billion a year when the HST rate reductions were in place.
The other tax changes would bring in about $650 million, leaving a billion-dollar gap.
Falcon’s claim the budget can still be balanced on schedule rests on the fact that the full impact of the HST cuts won’t hit until after the target date. Even so, the government’s forecast allowance and contingency funds — the cushions against unexpected revenue losses or spending needs, like a bad forest fire season — are now committed. There is no margin for unforseen events And the budget already called for spending cuts in most ministries this year, with a freeze in place for the following two years. (Health being a notable exception.)
Given the Liberals’ track record of HST misinformation, Falcon should present a clear budget plan showing how the revenue shortfalls will be handled before people vote in the referendum.
The Liberals’ credibility overall is hurt by the latest lurch from tax policies they once said were critical to the province’s future.
Take the corporate tax increase. When NDP leader Adrian Dix advocated the same tax change, Falcon said corporate tax increases would threaten the fragile economic recovery. Education Minister George Abbott said the proposal represented “the leading edge of 18th-century socialism in this province.”
Or the HST rate cut. When Falcon proposed an HST rate reduction during his leadership campaign, Christy Clark was critical, saying the government couldn’t afford to give up billions in revenue. Anyway, she said, changing the rate before the referendum would just look like the Liberals were trying to buy people’s support for the tax with their own money.
Credibility is a big referendum problem. The Liberals have provided misinformation on the HST every step of the way, underestimating the costs to families, inflating the economic benefits and claiming it was revenue-neutral. All the claims were contradicted by an expert panel the government appointed.
And now they are offering a new tax policy and making new claims with only weeks to go before the referendum, leaving no time to commission a new independent analysis to replace the now largely useless one.
Trust us, Clark says. This time we’ve got it right.
Some voters will. Some will look at the costs of getting out of the HST and decide it’s best to stick with the tax.
But many will likely be seeking much more information before buying the government’s claims this time.
Footnote: The New Democrats seized on past comments from Clark in question period Wednesday. During the leadership campaign, she rejected Falcon’s call for a rate cut. “Cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get that money, because we’re either going to have a $1.6-billion bigger deficit, or we’re going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms.”
The Liberals’ last-ditch attempt to save the HST is a dramatic flip-flop on tax principles they once said were essential for the province’s future.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says that if voters decide to stick with the HST in this summer’s referendum, the government promises to cut the rate from 12 per cent to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012. There would be another cut to 10 per cent on July 1, 2014, assuming the Liberals are still in office.
By 2014, Falcon claimed, the tax burden on individuals and families would be less than it was under the provincial sales tax,
But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there’s more. If voters stick with the HST, the government will send out one-time payments to help cover some of the increased tax burden. Families with children under 18 will get $175 per child; low-income seniors would also get $175. (Using taxpayers’ money to send cheques to the province’s richest families hardly seems sound public policy.)
Cutting the HST rate by one percentage point, according to Falcon, would cost the government about $850 million a year. So by 2014, the government would be taking in about $1.7 billion less in revenue than it had planned.
No worries, says Falcon. The government would still balance the budget by 2013/14 and manage despite the lost revenue.
If the HST is approved, he said, the government would raise the corporate income tax rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, reversing past cuts. That would bring in about $400 million a year.
And the government would cancel the planned elimination of the small business tax, adding about $250 million a year to government revenues.
That still means government revenue would fall by $1.7 billion a year when the HST rate reductions were in place.
The other tax changes would bring in about $650 million, leaving a billion-dollar gap.
Falcon’s claim the budget can still be balanced on schedule rests on the fact that the full impact of the HST cuts won’t hit until after the target date. Even so, the government’s forecast allowance and contingency funds — the cushions against unexpected revenue losses or spending needs, like a bad forest fire season — are now committed. There is no margin for unforseen events And the budget already called for spending cuts in most ministries this year, with a freeze in place for the following two years. (Health being a notable exception.)
Given the Liberals’ track record of HST misinformation, Falcon should present a clear budget plan showing how the revenue shortfalls will be handled before people vote in the referendum.
The Liberals’ credibility overall is hurt by the latest lurch from tax policies they once said were critical to the province’s future.
Take the corporate tax increase. When NDP leader Adrian Dix advocated the same tax change, Falcon said corporate tax increases would threaten the fragile economic recovery. Education Minister George Abbott said the proposal represented “the leading edge of 18th-century socialism in this province.”
Or the HST rate cut. When Falcon proposed an HST rate reduction during his leadership campaign, Christy Clark was critical, saying the government couldn’t afford to give up billions in revenue. Anyway, she said, changing the rate before the referendum would just look like the Liberals were trying to buy people’s support for the tax with their own money.
Credibility is a big referendum problem. The Liberals have provided misinformation on the HST every step of the way, underestimating the costs to families, inflating the economic benefits and claiming it was revenue-neutral. All the claims were contradicted by an expert panel the government appointed.
And now they are offering a new tax policy and making new claims with only weeks to go before the referendum, leaving no time to commission a new independent analysis to replace the now largely useless one.
Trust us, Clark says. This time we’ve got it right.
Some voters will. Some will look at the costs of getting out of the HST and decide it’s best to stick with the tax.
But many will likely be seeking much more information before buying the government’s claims this time.
Footnote: The New Democrats seized on past comments from Clark in question period Wednesday. During the leadership campaign, she rejected Falcon’s call for a rate cut. “Cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get that money, because we’re either going to have a $1.6-billion bigger deficit, or we’re going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms.”
Friday, May 20, 2011
Poll results support early election call
There’s good and bad news for both B.C. parties in the first big poll after the leadership races.
For starters, they’re both probably relieved to be in a tie.
The Liberals have the support of 41 per cent of decided voters, the New Democrats 39 per cent, according to the Ipsos Reid poll released this week. That’s within the margin of error.
And both parties are even likely heartened that people think the Liberals are unethical and doing a lousy job of governing, for different reasons, of course.
It has to be reassuring for Christy Clark and company that the Liberals have 41-per-cent support when the government is widely seen as incompetent, according to the poll. That indicates a deep concern about the NDP would be even worse.
The survey found dissatisfaction with the Liberal government on every issue.
Respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of the government’s performance since the 2009 election. The only positive was on its handling of the economy — 51 per cent approved, 43 per cent disapproved.
But on education, environment and crime and justice, a significant majority of those polled gave the government thumbs down.
The results were even more negative for the government’s handling of taxes and health care — and on spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Sixty-five per cent of those polled thought the government is doing a poor job in managing spending; only 29 per cent gave the Liberals positive grades.
And the results were worst for ethics and accountability. Only one in five respondents approved of the government’s performance in this area; 70 per cent found the Liberals wanting in terms of ethics and public accountability.
That’s why Clark has been working so hard to distance herself from Gordon Campbell — no easy task given the presence of all his key lieutenants at her side — and reduce obvious irritants, like parking fees in parks. If the party is doing well in the polls now, while people think it’s doing a poor job, there’s a chance of gains.
But Adrian Dix and the New Democrats can take encouragement from the Liberals’ poor marks as well.
They show Clark is vulnerable if the NDP can convince voters that it’s ready to provide better government.
And the poll results suggest that’s possible.
Clark scored much better when the pollster asked about the leaders. Almost 50 per cent of voters said she would make the better premier; only 25 per cent picked Dix.
And 36 per cent of voters said they have a positive impression of Clark, while 22 per cent have a negative impression.
Dix scores the same for negative ratings, but only 20 per cent have an overall positive impression.
That means, of course, that almost 60 per cent of voters don’t have views one way or another on Dix. His challenge is to shift more of those people into the positive column, while hoping Clark faces enough tough choices that her numbers slide.
That’s certainly possible. Being premier, even a new, election-mode premier, means you have to do some things people don’t like.
But when former NDP leader Carole James started, polls found a large portion of the public had no opinion of her and she had difficulty in shifting them into the “positive” camp.
The poll included another finding, one that adds to the factors encouraging Clark to call an election in the coming months.
The relaunched provincial Conservative party — which hasn’t been a significant factor — had the support of 10 per cent of decided voters. That’s a serious base for party leader John Cummins to build on. And it’s already enough to raise the threat of vote-splitting in close ridings. If enough Liberal voters opt for the Conservatives, then New Democrat candidates have a much better chance.
All in, the poll suggests Clark should be looking at an election as soon as possible. Her approval is high, Dix is unknown and the Conservatives aren’t yet organized.
All those could have change by the end of the year.
Footnote: NDP support is concentrated on Vancouver Island; the Liberals are strongest in the Interior and North, while the parties are even in the Lower Mainland. Conservative support in the Interior is above 15 per cent.
And, significantly, the Liberals have a lead among people over 34 — the ones most likely to vote.
For starters, they’re both probably relieved to be in a tie.
The Liberals have the support of 41 per cent of decided voters, the New Democrats 39 per cent, according to the Ipsos Reid poll released this week. That’s within the margin of error.
And both parties are even likely heartened that people think the Liberals are unethical and doing a lousy job of governing, for different reasons, of course.
It has to be reassuring for Christy Clark and company that the Liberals have 41-per-cent support when the government is widely seen as incompetent, according to the poll. That indicates a deep concern about the NDP would be even worse.
The survey found dissatisfaction with the Liberal government on every issue.
Respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of the government’s performance since the 2009 election. The only positive was on its handling of the economy — 51 per cent approved, 43 per cent disapproved.
But on education, environment and crime and justice, a significant majority of those polled gave the government thumbs down.
The results were even more negative for the government’s handling of taxes and health care — and on spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Sixty-five per cent of those polled thought the government is doing a poor job in managing spending; only 29 per cent gave the Liberals positive grades.
And the results were worst for ethics and accountability. Only one in five respondents approved of the government’s performance in this area; 70 per cent found the Liberals wanting in terms of ethics and public accountability.
That’s why Clark has been working so hard to distance herself from Gordon Campbell — no easy task given the presence of all his key lieutenants at her side — and reduce obvious irritants, like parking fees in parks. If the party is doing well in the polls now, while people think it’s doing a poor job, there’s a chance of gains.
But Adrian Dix and the New Democrats can take encouragement from the Liberals’ poor marks as well.
They show Clark is vulnerable if the NDP can convince voters that it’s ready to provide better government.
And the poll results suggest that’s possible.
Clark scored much better when the pollster asked about the leaders. Almost 50 per cent of voters said she would make the better premier; only 25 per cent picked Dix.
And 36 per cent of voters said they have a positive impression of Clark, while 22 per cent have a negative impression.
Dix scores the same for negative ratings, but only 20 per cent have an overall positive impression.
That means, of course, that almost 60 per cent of voters don’t have views one way or another on Dix. His challenge is to shift more of those people into the positive column, while hoping Clark faces enough tough choices that her numbers slide.
That’s certainly possible. Being premier, even a new, election-mode premier, means you have to do some things people don’t like.
But when former NDP leader Carole James started, polls found a large portion of the public had no opinion of her and she had difficulty in shifting them into the “positive” camp.
The poll included another finding, one that adds to the factors encouraging Clark to call an election in the coming months.
The relaunched provincial Conservative party — which hasn’t been a significant factor — had the support of 10 per cent of decided voters. That’s a serious base for party leader John Cummins to build on. And it’s already enough to raise the threat of vote-splitting in close ridings. If enough Liberal voters opt for the Conservatives, then New Democrat candidates have a much better chance.
All in, the poll suggests Clark should be looking at an election as soon as possible. Her approval is high, Dix is unknown and the Conservatives aren’t yet organized.
All those could have change by the end of the year.
Footnote: NDP support is concentrated on Vancouver Island; the Liberals are strongest in the Interior and North, while the parties are even in the Lower Mainland. Conservative support in the Interior is above 15 per cent.
And, significantly, the Liberals have a lead among people over 34 — the ones most likely to vote.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Criminal record searches, free, public, online
That's what the B.C. government has provided. Wonder if your son's girlfriend has a criminal record? Your boss? Check them out.
Jody Paterson has the info here. Like her, I'm still thinking about this. (A triumph for information freedom, or a destructive invasion of privacy. I'm leaning toward the former.)
UPDATE
Jody Paterson has the info here. Like her, I'm still thinking about this. (A triumph for information freedom, or a destructive invasion of privacy. I'm leaning toward the former.)
UPDATE
I'm reminded the criminal record information has been available, at no charge, since the fall. Fees were lifted as a result of the award-winning Access Denied project by Times Colonist reporters Lindsay Kines, Rob Shaw and Louise Dickson. The series looked at the erosion of access to information that was supposed to be public in courthouses.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
So what if the world is going to end Saturday?
The Times Colonist has some useful thoughts in an editorial today.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Clark promises more democratic nomination contests
Colin Hansen's convention pitch for a new name for the Liberals sparked much talk - and many jokes.
It's interesting. But much more significant was Premier Christy Clark's pledge to end the party's practice of preventing nomination challenges for incumbent MLAs. That's been an unwritten, but strictly enforced, rule.
It's profoundly undemocratic. Someone who wins a Liberal nomination in a safe seat can sleepwalk through a couple of decades in the legislature without having to worry about being challenged for the party nomination.
There's little incentive to pay much attention to the concerns of local residents. The nomination is guaranteed and, in many ridings, victory in the election would be almost certain no matter who the party ran.
And there is considerable incentive to place the interests of the party brass ahead of local residents, because they're the key to job security.
And there's little chance for party renewal. A brilliant potential candidate, with great credentials and broad community support, might be in the wings. But unless the incumbent decides to retire, it's impossible to challenge for the nomination.
It's an odd position for the Liberals, who talk a lot about how free competition brings the best results. Except when it comes to competition for MLA jobs, with their $100,000 base salary and dandy benefits.
Clark said that's going to change. Well, actually, she claimed that there had never been a ban on nomination challenges and wouldn't be as we head toward an election. "The B.C. Liberals have never had a policy of protecting incumbents," she told the Globe and Mail, "and we are not going to start doing that now."
Clark's claim was immediately contradicted by MLA Kevin Krueger, who said he enforced the ban on nomination challenges as caucus whip. People who wanted to challenge an incumbent were "encouraged" to look elsewhere, he said. "It was not 'open season' and it won't be 'open season' this time," he said.
Krueger is more believable. That raises the possibility that Clark doesn't really want to end the practice, just to pretend it's not happening.
That would be a shame.
There are risks to allowing open nomination contests. A well-funded, ambitious would-be candidate could hijack a constituency association, sign up a bunch of instant party members and take over without real support from party members.
But simple rules could prevent that. Something as basic as requiring people to be members of the party for at least six months before being allowed to vote in a nomination contest reduces the risks.
And the benefits, for the public interest, are great. MLAs would have to pay much more attention to the concerns of the riding, rather than the interests of the party, to ensure they weren't replaced.
Meanwhile, Hansen's call for a new party name had to have been made with Clark's blessing. Many voters are confused and think the provincial party has some connection with the federal Liberals, he said. Which is not a good thing these days.
Perhaps a different name might better reflect the party's coalition of centre and centre-right voters, Hansen said.
A name change would mean a pretty short run for the modern incarnation of the Liberal party, revived by Gordon Wilson in 1991. It's interesting that after winning three elections, the party still doesn't feel comfortable with its name. Or believe that it has built loyalty among voters.
It's possible that nothing will come of the idea - that simply floating it was a way to suggest to voters that the party is keen to distance itself from its own record. (No wonder Gordon Campbell chose to skip the convention.)
Whatever the party is called, it would be welcome if it loosened the straitjacket that prevents party members from nominating the best candidates to represent their ridings in favour of a system based on seniority, not performance.
Footnote: The convention also saw Clark promise some sort of changes to the HST in an effort to win a yes vote in next month's mail-in referendum. And she continued to signal a desire for an early election, urging delegates to prepare for the campaign.
It's interesting. But much more significant was Premier Christy Clark's pledge to end the party's practice of preventing nomination challenges for incumbent MLAs. That's been an unwritten, but strictly enforced, rule.
It's profoundly undemocratic. Someone who wins a Liberal nomination in a safe seat can sleepwalk through a couple of decades in the legislature without having to worry about being challenged for the party nomination.
There's little incentive to pay much attention to the concerns of local residents. The nomination is guaranteed and, in many ridings, victory in the election would be almost certain no matter who the party ran.
And there is considerable incentive to place the interests of the party brass ahead of local residents, because they're the key to job security.
And there's little chance for party renewal. A brilliant potential candidate, with great credentials and broad community support, might be in the wings. But unless the incumbent decides to retire, it's impossible to challenge for the nomination.
It's an odd position for the Liberals, who talk a lot about how free competition brings the best results. Except when it comes to competition for MLA jobs, with their $100,000 base salary and dandy benefits.
Clark said that's going to change. Well, actually, she claimed that there had never been a ban on nomination challenges and wouldn't be as we head toward an election. "The B.C. Liberals have never had a policy of protecting incumbents," she told the Globe and Mail, "and we are not going to start doing that now."
Clark's claim was immediately contradicted by MLA Kevin Krueger, who said he enforced the ban on nomination challenges as caucus whip. People who wanted to challenge an incumbent were "encouraged" to look elsewhere, he said. "It was not 'open season' and it won't be 'open season' this time," he said.
Krueger is more believable. That raises the possibility that Clark doesn't really want to end the practice, just to pretend it's not happening.
That would be a shame.
There are risks to allowing open nomination contests. A well-funded, ambitious would-be candidate could hijack a constituency association, sign up a bunch of instant party members and take over without real support from party members.
But simple rules could prevent that. Something as basic as requiring people to be members of the party for at least six months before being allowed to vote in a nomination contest reduces the risks.
And the benefits, for the public interest, are great. MLAs would have to pay much more attention to the concerns of the riding, rather than the interests of the party, to ensure they weren't replaced.
Meanwhile, Hansen's call for a new party name had to have been made with Clark's blessing. Many voters are confused and think the provincial party has some connection with the federal Liberals, he said. Which is not a good thing these days.
Perhaps a different name might better reflect the party's coalition of centre and centre-right voters, Hansen said.
A name change would mean a pretty short run for the modern incarnation of the Liberal party, revived by Gordon Wilson in 1991. It's interesting that after winning three elections, the party still doesn't feel comfortable with its name. Or believe that it has built loyalty among voters.
It's possible that nothing will come of the idea - that simply floating it was a way to suggest to voters that the party is keen to distance itself from its own record. (No wonder Gordon Campbell chose to skip the convention.)
Whatever the party is called, it would be welcome if it loosened the straitjacket that prevents party members from nominating the best candidates to represent their ridings in favour of a system based on seniority, not performance.
Footnote: The convention also saw Clark promise some sort of changes to the HST in an effort to win a yes vote in next month's mail-in referendum. And she continued to signal a desire for an early election, urging delegates to prepare for the campaign.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Conrad Black on the war on drugs
"Unfortunately, like archaic cultures that clung to the belief that the Earth was flat, those who support mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes are willfully ignorant of the near universal consensus that mandatory minimum sentences are both extremely costly and ineffective."
And a joint byline with UBC's Evan Wood. Read it here.
And, loosely related, an excellent and personal argument in favour of Insite here is also worth your time.
And a joint byline with UBC's Evan Wood. Read it here.
And, loosely related, an excellent and personal argument in favour of Insite here is also worth your time.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tax hike can stay if HST defeated, Falcon says
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
