Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Lifestyles of the rich and famous changes our brains
Thanks to Cathy Woods, for noting this interest/disturbing article.
Poverty meeting leaves premier looking bad
Liberal MLA Joan McIntyre didn't likely intend to take a shot at Premier Gordon Campbell.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
But she did.
McIntyre chairs the legislative committee on children and youth, which held a session on child poverty this week. It was the premier's idea, sort of.
Last June, Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond asked for a meeting with Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to talk about child poverty.
B.C. has had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Canada for the last six years, Statistics Canada reports. The recession likely increased the problems. The meeting, Turpel-Lafond said, would allow a non-partisan discussion of what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
"The premier and the opposition leader need to sit down together and think about how we're going to work on the child-poverty issue," Turpel-Lafond said. "Are we addressing it? Are we doing enough? Can we do more and work more collaboratively on it?"
The goal was action. "The issues are quite daunting, but I think good people working together can make change," she said.
James said yes. Campbell refused. He didn't want the issue to be politicized, he said. And the children's representative reports to the legislative committee. She should take up the issue there.
The result was this week's meeting.
But McIntyre's introduction set out clearly - even painfully - how little resemblance the session bore to the meeting sought by the representative almost a year ago.
McIntyre said she wanted to take time to make sure people didn't have "unrealistic expectations" about the outcome. The committee's focus is "strictly" on children at risk or receiving services from the government.
"I also wanted to clarify that developing a strategy or even providing a written analysis does go beyond our terms of reference and crosses over into the realm of government policy making," she said.
So the experts could talk. The MLAs could ask questions. The transcript would go up on a website.
But there would be no action, no recommendation, no report, not even a summary.
It's an anemic interpretation of the committee's role. Its mandate includes increasing awareness about the child welfare system. A report on the impact of poverty could be part of that role.
And it makes the premier's refusal to meet look entirely unjustified.
Especially as the alternative he suggested - going to the committee - was apparently guaranteed to produce no concrete results.
That's too bad. The risks of the meeting were minor and entirely political. The representative might point out problems Campbell would rather not see. James might use the occasion for partisan advantage.
The problems are real. StatsCan has reported B..C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for six straight years. Any improvements have not been great enough to change that standing. (Poverty definitions are tricky; but StatsCan was comparing provinces using a standard approach.)
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children were poor. In B.C., 13 per cent of the children fell below the poverty line. That's some 126,000 children.
There's a good moral objection to needlessly subjecting children to a life of poverty in such a wealthy and skilled province.
There is also a strong pragmatic one. We love rags to riches stories because they are encouraging. But we pay attention to them because they are rare.
Children who start poor tend to stay poor. Poor children have less success in school and are less healthy.
That's not genetic or an indicator that poor parents do a bad job. It's a reflection of poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition and a host of other factors. Research indicates that poverty even affects brain development.
By leaving children in poverty, we are increasing the risk of a tougher adult life for them. And we are guaranteeing higher costs for society in future, while squandering a chance to benefit from these peoples' fullest contributions.
The government doesn't want to commit to a plan on child poverty.
But surely a meeting with the children's representative shouldn't have been impossible.
Footonote: The presentations to the committee were excellent, on everything from the costs of childhood poverty to plans in other provinces to measures that could provide immediate benefits. I'll present some of the highlights in a coming column.
Things get very complicated if HST petition passes
Even if the anti-HST initiative gets the required number of signatures, there is no guarantee the tax is dead.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
The initiative process isn't binding on government. Although it's hard to see how the Liberals could simply ignore a successful campaign.
The anti-HST forces reported hitting another milestone this week. They have reached the required threshold in 83 of 85 provincial constituencies, with six weeks to go in their drive.
If they get the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding - which looks highly likely - the process hits the next stage.
Here's how it works.
The petitions have to be submitted to Elections B.C. by July 5. The agency has six weeks to verify the names and rule that the initiative succeeded or failed. (The six previous efforts all failed.)
That could take until Aug. 16.
If the initiative is successful, the petition and a draft bill eliminating the HST go to the legislative initiatives committee of the legislature. That's made up of four New Democrats and six Liberals. It's chaired by Kamloops Liberal MLA Terry Lake; more than 10,000 people have signed the petition in his riding.
The committee has to meet within 30 days and reach a decision within 90 days - say by mid-November.
It has two options. It can send the bill to kill the HST to the legislature. It could be debated in the fall, or put off until next spring.
Or it can send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a province-wide vote. That would be held Sept. 24, 2011.
The vote is no sure thing. The initiative legislation requires support from 50 per cent of registered voters province-wide and 50 per cent of registered voters in two-thirds of ridings.
That's a tough test. The requirement is a majority of registered voters, not just of those who participate. In the 2009 election, there were three million registered voters in the province; only 1.65 million people actually cast ballots.
If it does pass, then the bill to kill the HST has to be introduced in the legislature.
Note that the requirement in both cases is only that the bill be introduced, not that it be passed. The Liberals could decide to amend or defeat it. Or to stall.
The political calculations must be giving strategists terrible headaches.
Start with the most basic question - whether to accept the initiative as a legitimate expression of the public will and eliminate the HST.
Business would be irked. The province wouldn't get the $1.6 billion over three years the federal government is paying to encourage adoption of the tax. And the Liberals would be dealt a public rebuke.
All with no guarantee voters would be forgiving in 2013 when the next election rolls around.
The temptation might be to stick with the tax.
The Liberals might be considering forcing a provincial vote on the initiative and hope it fails. But that would anger the people who oppose the tax.
And if the initiative passes in the vote, the government would have even less time before the next election to try to repair the damage.
It gets more complicated, because the anti-HST forces don't have to sit quietly by and wait for the government to decide.
They are already talking about "Recall in the Fall" if the government doesn't respond to the campaign by killing the tax. It takes signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters to recall an MLA and force a byelection.
Given the organization in place, that seems possible in many ridings. In Lake's riding, for example, 32 per cent of people have already signed the anti-HST petition.
There are many twists, turns and calculations ahead. So far, the Liberals show no sign of changing direction on the tax.
But the box is growing tighter each day. And none of the exits look appealing.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell defended the tax Monday in the legislature, maintaining it would create jobs and opportunities for future generations. The problem is that he is effectively telling a majority of British Columbians that he is smarter than they are.
Why did Liberal MLAs march into HST debacle?
What if just one or two Liberal MLAs had decided it was a mistake to bring in the HST without seeking the public's views?
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
And spoken up, maybe rallied some other backbenchers to ask questions?
These are responsible people, accomplished and respected in their communities. They ran on the Liberal platform. And a new tax, shifting $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families, wasn't part of the platform. The Liberals had always rejected the HST as bad for B.C. and promised, in writing, that it wasn't in their plans.
But within days of the election, the big guys in the Liberal government were looking at the tax.
At some point, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen must have let the Liberal MLAs in on the secret.
What if a few of them had raised concerns? They could have said the tax seemed like a good idea, but the public needed to be persuaded. They could have told the premier that they felt a need to talk to people back in their communities and see what they thought.
But either no one did, or, if they tried, they were ignored.
As a result, the Liberal government is in deep trouble.
MLAs were keen to come to Victoria and represent their communities a year ago - 18 of them elected for the first time. Now they're wildly unpopular, defending a decision they had no part in making. (While Campbell travels to Europe and Asia.)
In many ridings, the public is overwhelmingly against the HST. But Liberal MLAs are forced to tell the voters the party knows best and they are just too dim to get it.
A case can be made for the HST, especially since Ontario adopted the tax.
The average person will pay more in tax. The theory is that businesses will pass some of their tax savings on to consumers as lower prices.
And that, given a chance to pay less in taxes, companies will expand their operations in the province. If they need more employees, there will be new jobs and higher pay as companies compete for good workers.
Which could be true. But it would also have been true over the last five years; the Liberals always said it wasn't and rejected the tax.
Sometimes governments just brazen their way through these things. Broken claims of balanced budgets and betrayed promises not to sell B.C. Rail or expand gambling leap to mind.
But that doesn't seem to be working this time. I didn't think the initiative drive against the tax would be successful. The legislation, as Campbell said in opposition, seemed intended to make sure any efforts would fail. The law required people seeking to force a change in government policy to get signatures from 10 per cent of eligible voters in every riding.
There have been six initiative efforts. The best obtained 98,000 signatures, less than half the required amount.
The anti-HST petition has more than 500,000 signatures. Organizers say they have reached the required threshold in 72 of 85 ridings, with more than six weeks to go.
The Liberals can press ahead with the tax even if the HST initiative is successful. (The process requires a separate column.)
But their popularity will sink even lower.
And the HST opponents have pledged to launch recall campaigns against some MLAs if they don't heed the public will. They start with a formidable organization and large volunteer base.
Based on the petition numbers, at least some of those would likely succeed. Seven successful campaigns, followed by NDP victories in the resulting byelections, could topple the Liberal government.
Liberal MLAs are in a tough spot. They are getting clear direction from local voters - don't introduce the HST. And they are defying the public's wishes. (At least so far.)
The government could have been spared a pile of trouble if one or two MLAs had urged a different course on the HST - and if Campbell had listened.
Footnote: A Mustel Group poll this week showed the NDP with a decisive lead. It had 44 per cent, compared with 32 per cent for the Liberals, 13 per cent for the Greens and seven per cent for the Conservatives. Campbell's approval rating plunged to 28 per cent.
Following the BC Rail corruption trial
As well as the usual sources, I suggest anyone interested in the trial check out pacificgazette.blogspot.com.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Useful links to the coverage as it unfolds and analysis.
Liberals stumble, again, on children and families
Monday was a bad day for the Liberals.
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn�t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
The anti-HST petition people passed the 500,000-signature mark - about one-third of the number people who voted in the last election.
The B.C. Rail corruption trial finally started.
And Ted Hughes - the Liberals' choice to review the troubled children and families' ministry in 2006 - complained the government was sabotaging the effort to restore trust in the system.
Hughes wrote Gordon Campbell with his concerns, but the wandering premier is in China.
Poor Children's Minister Mary Polak was left to respond both to the Hughes letter and a court judgment that found the government was illegally withholding information from the Representative for Children and Youth.
It did not go well.
First, a brief background summary. In 2001, the Liberals eliminated independent oversight of services for vulnerable children and families. Not needed, they said.
After a series of disastrous missteps, ill-considered budget cuts, re-organizations and scandals, the government asked Hughes, a respected retired judge, to investigate.
He made recommendations, including the creation of the independent representative's office to provide advocacy, monitoring and public accountability.
Campbell accepted the recommendations. Legislation was passed giving the representative broad access to information to allow effective monitoring. But the ministry never really seemed to accept the oversight.
When the representative's office decided to review changes to a program aimed at children in the care of a relative, the government wouldn't provide relevant documents.
Only if the representative agreed in advance to keep the information secret, the government proposed, might she be allowed to see the cabinet documents.
That made no sense. The legislations setting up the representative's office, introduced by the Liberal government and passed unanimously by MLAs, gave complete access to all documents, except those protected by lawyer-client privilege. The representative's right to the information was crystal clear.
So Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the children's representative, went to court to get the information. About 4,500 children are in the program; perhaps more should be. It's important to know how it's working.
The B.C. Supreme Court decision, handed down Friday, was a slap in the face for Campbell and Polak.
There is no justification for withholding the information, Justice Susan Griffin found. The law is clear and the government is refusing to accept it. She ordered the government to hand over the information and pay the legal costs for both sides.
So our money was wasted on lawyers' fees in a doomed effort to keep the facts from us.
The NDP set out to bash Polak around after the ruling. It's a tough spot for a minister, defending the indefensible.
Polak's talking points in question period were embarrassing and unworthy.
She continued to say the government had been prepared to provide the information; it just wanted control over how it would be used.
But the judgment shredded that argument. "I do not agree with the respondents that this case is not about document disclosure," Griffin wrote. "To the contrary, this is exactly what this case is about."
Afterward, Polak told reporters she hadn't read the entire judgment. It was delivered three days earlier. The court found she and her government had broken the law. A careful reading of it would take 30 minutes. It's baffling that she hadn't found time to read the decision.
Meanwhile, the government wouldn�t agree to withdraw new legislation to reduce the representative's access to information.
That prompted the letter from Hughes, who called on the government to abandon the changes, introduced in the legislature last month but not yet debated.
He noted his report called for a fully independent advocacy, monitoring and reporting role for the new office. The proposed curbs on access to information needed to fulfill those roles is wrong, Hughes said, and would "strike a negative blow to the heart" of efforts to rebuild public confidence in the system.
By Tuesday, the government had agreed to withdraw the bill. But the affair has, again, left the Liberals looking like bumblers on a critical issue.
Footnote: Hughes also noted the dysfunctional relationship that has evolved between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, the deputy minister in charge of the ministry. He offered to play a mediating role; all parties should grab the badly needed help.
wilcocks@ultranet.ca
Province's role in capital marina dispute
A proposal for a marina in the Inner Harbour across from the legislature has created a great divide in the community. The marina is to target really large yachts. Opponents fear a wall of big boats blocking the water and problems for kayakers and other waterfront users.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.
Gulf oil spill burying B.C. offshore dreams
All that oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and washing up on U.S. shorelines is going to have an impact in B.C.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada�s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
The provincial government's eagerness to see oil and gas drilling off the B.C. coast has faded in the recent years. Since Richard Neufeld left the cabinet for the Senate in 2008, there has been less talk about the potential offshore.
But the government is still working away - and spending money - on clearing the path for development of what could be huge oil and gas resources.
It's gone more slowly than the Liberals expected. The Campbell government's throne speech in 2003 predicted that drilling would be under way by now.
"By 2010, your government wants to have an offshore oil and gas industry that is up and running, environmentally sound and booming with job creation," the government boldly forecast then. The promise was always that drilling would only be allowed if it could be done safely.
A government task force had reported in 2002 that "there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science or technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify a blanket moratorium."
And even in their second term, the Liberals were pressing ahead with efforts to launch the industry.
But there were several problems. The federal government wasn't keen on the political cost of allowing drilling. Neufeld noted in 2006 that a minority federal government wouldn't likely tackle the issue.
Energy companies didn't put B.C. offshore development high on their priority lists.
And the opposition within the province is strong - including some First Nations in a position to block drilling.
That opposition has grown as each day passes with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.
The petroleum industry has touted its safety record. With modern drilling techniques, nothing major could go wrong, it maintained. Any small leaks or spills could be quickly contained.
But those "trust us" claims are in tatters.
The Deepwater Horizon was a new drilling rig. U.S. regulations are similar to Canada's. The well owner was BP, a giant energy company (which also hopes to drill offshore in Canada's north, where it has leases).
The contractor was Transocean, another giant with operations around the world - including on Canada�s east coast. And some work was done by Halliburton, another global giant.
Yet the well blew out; the rig exploded; 11 people died; and oil has been pouring into the ocean since April 20.
In more than three weeks, no company or government agency has found a way to stop the oil, which is flowing into the ocean at 33,000 litres per hour.
In their first public explanations, at a U.S. congressional committee, executives from the three companies could offer no explanation. BP said Transocean was responsible for rig operation. Transocean pointed to possible problems with Halliburton's work on a concrete casing. Not our responsibility, said Halliburton.
The potential reserves off B.C.'s coast are understandably attractive to government. There could be almost 10 billion barrels of oil and more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about $170 billion worth of gas alone. The government could take in something like $35 billion, according to the Liberals.
But after the Gulf disaster, the oil and gas are going to be staying there for a long time.
The spill isn't just a problem for offshore drilling proponents.
The images of oil slicks and fouled birds are profoundly unhelpful for Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat. That project alone would face many challenges.
But the project would see the oil transported to markets in tankers cruising through B.C. coastal waters to export markets.
No worries, the proponents maintain. Today's tankers are capable of operating with no risk to the environment. Technology and other advances mean nothing could go wrong.
Which sounds awfully similar to the claims of the offshore oil industry before the gulf disaster.
Footnote: Earlier this month, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the spill hasn't changed the government's position on the offshore. "If it can be done properly, I think people will entertain it; if it can't, then it wouldn't be," he told reporters.
Children lose as government fights to keep secrets
Something has gone badly wrong when the person charged with looking after the interests of vulnerable children in B.C. ends up suing the government to get information.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, �something that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
And it's even worse when the government introduces legislation to allow it to keep secrets from the Representative for Children and Youth - and makes it retroactive to 2007.
The Liberals eliminated the independent agency monitoring the Children and Families Ministry and providing support for families and children in the government care after the 2001 election. It was dumb decision.
A damning report by Ted Hughes in 2006 revealed mismanagement and underfunding that hurt vulnerable children and families. The Hughes' recommendations included restoration of independent oversight, �something that the Campbell government had repeatedly insisted was unnecessary.
The representative's office was created as a result. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond - aboriginal, a Saskatchewan provincial court judge with an excellent academic background and an interest in child and youth issues - was hired by a committee of MLAs.
After a year on the job, Turpel-Lafond reported little progress had been made on the Hughes' recommendations. And she noted she had hoped for a co-operative report with the ministry, but was rebuffed.
That was a warning sign, it turned out. The ministry, it appeared, was not providing the co-operation you would expect if it accepted the idea of oversight and public accountability. It refused to provide briefings, tried to go around the representative and wouldn't respond to report recommendations. (Although other ministries, like health, did.)
From the outside, it was tough to judge all this. The ministry maintained it was co-operating, but the information requests were overwhelming and the representative's office was over-stepping its role.
But the latest developments suggest the government is trying to undermine the representative's oversight.
Turpel-Lafond has been working on a report on changes to the ministry's children in the care of a relative program. It provides support for relatives - most often grandparents - who care for children when parents can't. It's a useful alternative to foster care. At any given time, some 4,500 children are in the program. (About 9,000 are in other government care.)
The program wasn't even under the children's ministry until 2007. It was part of income assistance.
Turpel-Lafond wanted to review how the program is working after the changes.
That's important. There is no guarantee relatives will be able to cope with looking after these children. They might need financial support or help with the challenges. Not all homes would be suitable. Eligibility rules might exclude some families
And thousands of children's lives are affected by how well the program works.
Turpel-Lafond went looking for information. She asked for the reports that had gone to cabinet on the changes, believing those would be helpful.
The government stalled. It announced a replacement program - a new Extended Family Program - in February, with no details.
It said the representative could have the information, with conditions. The facts couldn't be revealed publicly. And the government would have a veto over any use of the information.
That's the law, said the premier's office.
But that's not the law the legislature passed in setting up the representative's office. It gives Turpel-Lafond the right to any documents, except those covered by lawyer-client privilege.
The Liberal government argues a different legal interpretation.
But the fact that it's also proposing to rewrite the law, changing the rules retroactively to dodge the representative's information request, indicates the government knows the representative has a legal right to the information, Otherwise, why change the legislation?
Turpel-Lafond talked about her role with the Calgary Herald last week. She explored the issue of independence.
"I'd be happy to work with a minister, but I'm not willing to have a minister say to me: 'Mary Ellen, you're not publishing that report.' Or: 'I'll release that report when I feel like it.'"
The Liberals promised, after the Hughes report, independent oversight. It does not like they meant it.
Footnote: Mary Polak, the minister, describes the legal case as a waste of scarce resources. But she supports both the amendments to the legislation and the court battle to maintain secrecy. The legislative committee on children and youth, created along with the representatives' office, hasn't met since March 3.
Kash Heed affair gets worse and worse
With the Kash Heed mess, the Liberal government has stumbled closer to the abyss that swallowed the NDP regime in 2001.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general April 9, after RCMP officers said they wanted to question him about Elections Act violations during his campaign.
On Tuesday, a special prosecutor recommended charges against Heed's campaign manager, his financial agent and a supporter.
The charges include allegations that they sent a flyer smearing the NDP without revealing the Liberals' role, failed to report the election expense and obstructed justice in an attempted cover-up.
But special prosecutor Terence Robertson said Heed could not have been expected to know anything about the dirty tricks. He was exonerated.
The timing becomes important here.
Sometime the next day - Wednesday - Premier Gordon Campbell decided Heed should be re-appointed solicitor general.
That was unwise. Heed's senior campaign managers faced serious charges. Their evidence had not been heard. His narrow election victory is tainted.
It was a situation that should have called for careful consideration.
But Campbell, in Europe, decided to go ahead. At "approximately 4 o'clock," Attorney General Mike de Jong told the legislature, Heed accepted Campbell's invitation to take up his old job.
"Within a few moments," de Jong said, Robertson dropped a bombshell. He resigned as special prosecutor. His law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed's campaign (and thousands more to the Liberals).
Robertson said he knew about the donation and the RCMP had asked him about a potential conflict of interest. But he only decided to act on the concerns after he had exonerated Heed.
The conflict should have been obvious. Someone who helped fund a politician's election campaign shouldn't be deciding whether potentially career-ending charges are justified. Equally, the government should have known that it would be wrong to go ahead with Heed's return to cabinet.
But it didn't act. Heed was sworn in around 8 p.m. despite the obvious problems. Ineptitude or arrogance? Or was THE government unable to function because of a dependence on Campbell, sleeping through the early morning hours in Europe?
There's no good explanation, as de Jong revealed in the legislature this week. The New Democrats pounced, of course. They went too far in slagging the Liberals - de Jong's unhappiness with all this is real.
But the main points were valid. The special prosecutor system was established to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest in political cases. The fear was that a Crown prosecutor might be suspected of being soft on powerful government figures who could decide his career future.
Yet it failed. A Liberal partisan was named to assess election campaign violations. And although campaign donations are online, no one noticed and Robertson apparently didn't tell anyone.
And even when that was revealed, Heed was re-appointed. He stepped down 13 hours later. But the re-appointment to cabinet should not have happened.
All this wrangling is significant, but dwarfed by the underlying issue.
In the last days of the 2009 campaign, a mailer went to households. It was in Chinese and English and hit hot buttons for the Chinese-Canadian community - about 40 per cent of the population in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding.
The flyer said the NDP would legalize heroin and prostitution and impose an inheritance tax. The flyer claims were false.
NDP candidate Gabriel Yiu lost by 748 votes.
No one admitted sending the flyer. The Heed campaign specifically denied having any role.
The special prosecutor believes that is not true and that the Heed campaign violated the election laws on the way to a narrow victory.
Which does not necessarily have anything to do with Heed. But it still taints his election, something Heed, Campbell and the Liberals have not acknowledged.
Heed might well turn out to be the victim in all this, a political Nemo swimming with sharks. His election could be overturned if the courts and Election B.C. finds the flyer pushed the campaign over spending limits
But the Liberals look like buffoons, willfully blind to serious scandal.
Footnote: Two other issues are of note.
Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall, is a strong Liberal supporter and former Liberal ministerial assistant. If the charges are proven, the party faces questions about campaign integrity.
And the independence of other special prosecutors in other cases is now being examined. Robertson recommended against illegal lobbying charges against former Campbell aide Ken Dobell. The Vancouver Sun reported at least seven other special prosecutors or their law firms had donated to the Liberals.
Victoria police face questions in woman's death
This is a case worth watching.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
The mistrial isn't the issue.
While it's early in the process and the information is limited, the report indicates that in the hours after a young woman died, Victoria police worked hard to make sure a suspect had a lawyer, rather than simply ensuring he understood his rights and pursuing the investigation.
Police might have been simply ensuring any evidence could not be challenged because the suspect's rights had been violated.
But it seems a considerable effort, one not usual in such cases.
HST turning into a political disaster
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's uncharacteristically snarky reaction to an Elections BC ban on a government campaign to sell the HST is a sign the Liberals are worried.
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
The Campbell government forced the HST bill through the legislature last week, using closure to shut down debate. All the Liberal MLAs, who ran on a platform rejecting the new tax, voted in favour. All New Democrats and Independent Vicki Huntington were opposed.
The broken promise not to bring in the tax and the widespread belief that the Liberals kept their real plans secret during the election campaign have turned into a devastating political issue.
The anti-HST initiative campaign led by former Bill Vander Zalm appears to be going strongly.
The legislation allowing British Columbians to petition for a referendum sets what most saw as an impossible threshold. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat legislation was designed to ensure initiative efforts would fail and promised changes. (That never happened.)
But opponents of the HST, or people just angry at a government that promised one thing and did the opposite, are flocking to sign the initiative petitions.
The task is still huge; 10 per cent of people on the voters' list for the last election must sign for the initiative calling for a referendum on the HST to succeed.
Even then, the result is uncertain. Provincial and federal governments signed the deal in November (six months after the election campaign in which the Liberals ruled out introducing the tax).
Hansen was testy after Elections BC said the government's plan to spend more than $2 million on a mailer defending the new tax would break the law.
The act is designed to keep rich special interests from buying legislative change. Interest groups - and the government is an interest group - must register and can't spend more than $5,000.
Hansen said the ruling was unfair. The government would normally send out ad material about the budget.
But Sean Holman reported on publiceyeonline.com that Elections BC raised its concerns by April 22 after the public affairs sought an opinion.
And the independent office that protects the integrity of voting in B.C. didn't rule against a budget mailing, just the sales job on the HST.
The tax betrayal has been damaging for the Liberals, leaving them looking either dishonest or incompetent. Dishonest if they promised not to introduce the tax while secretly planning to move ahead. Incompetent if they had been rejecting a change that Hansen now says is the single best thing that can be done for the B.C. economy.
Basically, the HST will cut taxes for businesses by $1.9 billion a year and increase the taxes paid by individuals and families by the same amount - something like $460 a year per person.
That's good for business and encourages investment in the province. The government maintains that's good for you, despite the higher tax bill. Businesses might pass on their lower taxes in price cuts. They might need more employees. They might have to raise wages to attract good people.
Or they might pocket the tax cuts and invest in machines that reduce the number of people they need to employ.
The Liberals needed to address those concerns before they imposed the tax, not after.
It's not just that 82 per cent of British Columbians oppose the tax, according to an Angus Reid poll. The poll found 64 per cent of people believed the Liberals were uncaring; a majority believed them to be dishonest.
And it put NDP support at 47 per cent of voters, far greater than the Liberals' 29 per cent.
Grim days for Campbell and company, especially for the Liberals who hoped to succeed him and are now tainted by the doubts about HST honesty.
Whether the HST initiative succeeds or evolves into a recall effort against vulnerable Liberal MLAs, the government faces a legitimacy crisis.
Footnote: Former finance minister Carole Taylor added to the Liberals' woes last week. She repeated her opposition to the tax shift on to consumers. And the "bigger issue," she said, is that the Liberals "promised that they would not - they would not - do the harmonization of the sales tax. And then right after the election, decided to do it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
