Why did the province's criminal justice branch decide against charges in Robert Dziekanski's death without gathering the needed facts?
In the aftermath of the Braidwood inquiry, the government appointed Richard Peck as a special prosecutor to review the decision not to lay charges.
This week, Peck recommended the file be re-opened. The government news release said Peck cited �factual material that was not available to the branch at the time, including but not limited to expert video analysis and expert opinions relating to the reasonableness of the escalation and de-escalation of force.�
Note that he is not referring to newly discovered evidence or information that was beyond the reach of the criminal justice branch when it decided against charges.
Which raises the obvious question: Why did prosecutors and senior lawyers in the Attorney General's Ministry make a decision on charges without those expert opinions?
It can't be lack of funds - the RCMP had enough money to send four officers to Poland to dig into Dziekanski's background.
And it wasn't time pressure. The decision not to lay charges came 14 months after Dziekanski died.
And the branch should have known of the public interest in the case and concern that the investigation of the four officer's actions was done by the Lower Mainland's integrated homicide investigation team, which includes the RCMP.
So why didn't the branch ask independent experts to review the video and the officer's actions?
At the time, a spokesman for the branch said the force used to subdue and restrain Dziekanski was "reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances." There was no substantial likelihood of conviction on any charges, he said.
Most people who watched the video would disagree. The Braidwood inquiry did.
And at the least, most people would believe the evidence should be put before a judge or jury for a decision.
The government needs to explain two things: Why did it disagree; and why did it not seek independent expert opinions, as Braidwood did, before deciding the officers should not face charges.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Business tries to sink HST initiative, at great cost to the Liberals
This is such a bad idea I wondered at first if it was a hoax e-mail.
The province's big business organizations have gone to court to argue that the anti-HST initiative petition should be declared invalid and tossed.
People who signed the petition were supporting a bill eliminating the HST. The business groups maintain that the federal government has responsibility for the tax and provincial legislation killing it would be unconstitutional.
The courts will sort out the arguments. But the last-minute effort to thwart the initiative is a disaster for the Liberals. The legal challenge reinforces the public perception that the tax benefits corporations, not individuals and families.
If it's successful, the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition will feel cheated. And the Liberals' chance of re-election in 2013 would shrink dramatically.
Surely the last thing the business community should want is an NDP government in three years.
Update:
Here's an example of how badly this could unfold, from Justine Hunter's article on the legal challenge in the Globe.
�We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition � they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn�t really know what they were signing,� said Rick Jeffrey, president of the Council of Forest Industries.
So it's not that the business groups disagree with the people who signed the petition; just that they think those 700,000 people are dupes too dim to know what they were signing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement re launch of Judicial Review of HST initiative
Business Groups Seek Certainty on Validity of HST Extinguishment Act
Vancouver (June 29, 2010) - In a June 4, 2010 article in the Vancouver Sun, former BC Attorney General Geoff Plant questions the constitutional validity of the draft bill at the heart of the anti-HST initiative � the so-called �HST Extinguishment Act.�
Mr. Plant�s argument is rooted neither in the politics nor in the substantive merits of the HST itself. Rather, he focuses on whether or not the draft bill at the core of the anti-HST initiative can, constitutionally speaking, become law in British Columbia. If the draft legislation is unconstitutional, the B.C. legislature will be legally unable to enact the bill as drafted by its proponents, regardless of how many signatures the petition receives.
The vast majority of B.C. business organizations support the HST as an integral component of the province�s long-term economic prosperity. The tax will make B.C. businesses more competitive in Canada and around the world, and will encourage investment and job creation in the province. However, concerns about the constitutionality of the draft HST Extinguishment Act � such as those raised by Mr. Plant � give rise to uncertainty about the future of the province�s tax policy. This uncertainty has the potential to harm B.C. businesses and the economy at large.
Concerned about this uncertainty, a number of business associations have today filed for Judicial Review of the decision to approve the initiative petition and its draft bill in the first place. This process will enable a judge to make a simple determination as to whether the draft bill is constitutionally valid and therefore suitable for introduction to the Legislature. The petitioners are the Council of Forest Industries, the Mining Association of British Columbia, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Western Convenience Stores Association, the Coast Forest Products Association, and the BC Chamber of Commerce.
We are hopeful that the Judicial Review we have requested can be completed expeditiously, providing British Columbians with certainty and confidence that considerable time and money will not be expended on a draft bill that is constitutionally unsound and therefore incapable of becoming law. The Judicial Review will provide clarity as to whether or not the petition can legally move forward.
Seeking judicial review at this juncture will avoid the considerable legal confusion that would result if the initiative process were to proceed unchecked on its current course. There should be no hesitation whatsoever in taking the necessary steps to ensure that British Columbians are presented with all the pertinent facts as they consider government policies that will profoundly impact the province�s future.
- 30 -
For further information, contact:
John Allan, President & CEO, Council of Forest Industries
Pierre Gratton, President & CEO, Mining Association of BC
Philip Hochstein, President, Independent Contractors & Businesses Assoc.
Wayne Hoskins, President, Western Convenience Stores Association
Rick Jeffery, President & CEO, Coast Forest Products Association
John Winter, President & CEO, BC Chamber of Commerce
The province's big business organizations have gone to court to argue that the anti-HST initiative petition should be declared invalid and tossed.
People who signed the petition were supporting a bill eliminating the HST. The business groups maintain that the federal government has responsibility for the tax and provincial legislation killing it would be unconstitutional.
The courts will sort out the arguments. But the last-minute effort to thwart the initiative is a disaster for the Liberals. The legal challenge reinforces the public perception that the tax benefits corporations, not individuals and families.
If it's successful, the more than 700,000 people who signed the petition will feel cheated. And the Liberals' chance of re-election in 2013 would shrink dramatically.
Surely the last thing the business community should want is an NDP government in three years.
Update:
Here's an example of how badly this could unfold, from Justine Hunter's article on the legal challenge in the Globe.
�We are not challenging the 700,000 people who signed the petition � they have been led down the garden path by the petitioners, they didn�t really know what they were signing,� said Rick Jeffrey, president of the Council of Forest Industries.
So it's not that the business groups disagree with the people who signed the petition; just that they think those 700,000 people are dupes too dim to know what they were signing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement re launch of Judicial Review of HST initiative
Business Groups Seek Certainty on Validity of HST Extinguishment Act
Vancouver (June 29, 2010) - In a June 4, 2010 article in the Vancouver Sun, former BC Attorney General Geoff Plant questions the constitutional validity of the draft bill at the heart of the anti-HST initiative � the so-called �HST Extinguishment Act.�
Mr. Plant�s argument is rooted neither in the politics nor in the substantive merits of the HST itself. Rather, he focuses on whether or not the draft bill at the core of the anti-HST initiative can, constitutionally speaking, become law in British Columbia. If the draft legislation is unconstitutional, the B.C. legislature will be legally unable to enact the bill as drafted by its proponents, regardless of how many signatures the petition receives.
The vast majority of B.C. business organizations support the HST as an integral component of the province�s long-term economic prosperity. The tax will make B.C. businesses more competitive in Canada and around the world, and will encourage investment and job creation in the province. However, concerns about the constitutionality of the draft HST Extinguishment Act � such as those raised by Mr. Plant � give rise to uncertainty about the future of the province�s tax policy. This uncertainty has the potential to harm B.C. businesses and the economy at large.
Concerned about this uncertainty, a number of business associations have today filed for Judicial Review of the decision to approve the initiative petition and its draft bill in the first place. This process will enable a judge to make a simple determination as to whether the draft bill is constitutionally valid and therefore suitable for introduction to the Legislature. The petitioners are the Council of Forest Industries, the Mining Association of British Columbia, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Western Convenience Stores Association, the Coast Forest Products Association, and the BC Chamber of Commerce.
We are hopeful that the Judicial Review we have requested can be completed expeditiously, providing British Columbians with certainty and confidence that considerable time and money will not be expended on a draft bill that is constitutionally unsound and therefore incapable of becoming law. The Judicial Review will provide clarity as to whether or not the petition can legally move forward.
Seeking judicial review at this juncture will avoid the considerable legal confusion that would result if the initiative process were to proceed unchecked on its current course. There should be no hesitation whatsoever in taking the necessary steps to ensure that British Columbians are presented with all the pertinent facts as they consider government policies that will profoundly impact the province�s future.
- 30 -
For further information, contact:
John Allan, President & CEO, Council of Forest Industries
Pierre Gratton, President & CEO, Mining Association of BC
Philip Hochstein, President, Independent Contractors & Businesses Assoc.
Wayne Hoskins, President, Western Convenience Stores Association
Rick Jeffery, President & CEO, Coast Forest Products Association
John Winter, President & CEO, BC Chamber of Commerce
Summits cost you $32 and delivered little
The big G8/G20 summits in Ontario look like a ripoff.
The three days of meetings cost Canada $1.1 billion. That's about $32 for every one of us; $128 for a family of four.
In return we got mostly bad publicity, thuggery, mass arrests, a sneak violation of citizens' rights and statements of good intentions from the world leaders.
It's useful for the presidents and prime ministers to gather and exchange ideas and concerns. Even better if they come up with agreements on a co-ordinated approach to problems.
But it's bizarre that the leaders had to bring 8,000 other people along to talk about the importance of reducing deficits.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the ugly scenes in Toronto - windows smashed, three police cars set on fire - justified security spending of almost $1 billion.
Among the thousands of protesters, a few hundred were violent. Their actions and locations were predictable. Yet the security measures were inadequate.
What about the results?
Look at a couple of issues. The leaders were trying to figure out how to deal with government deficits and debt.
Some wanted dramatic deficit reductions immediately; others feared that would slow - and maybe halt - the economic recovery. They agreed to cut their deficits in half from current levels by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.
Or more accurately, they agreed that would be a good idea, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Deficits are a problem. Like families, governments that borrow have to pay interest. Choices today mean fewer options for coming generations.
But government spending - like Canada's infrastructure fund - eased the impact of the recession by providing jobs. Cut spending too rapidly, and citizens are hurt and the economy suffers.
It was striking that all the coverage viewed this as a commitment by the governments to cut spending.
That's not what the agreement said. It talked about reducing deficits, which could also be accomplished by raising government revenues - collecting more in taxes or royalties.
The fact the current orthodoxy doesn't even acknowledge that approach as a possibility shows an alarming blindness to basic fiscal management.
Which leads to another summit non-commitment.
At a 2009 summit, the G20 agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The subsidies are costly and encourage energy consumption that produces greenhouse gases.
In Toronto, the leaders agreed again to the "phase out over the medium term of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs."
Not exactly a rock-solid commitment.
Which is shame. According to the last year's summit, getting rid of the subsidies by 2020 would mean a 10-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.
And it would reduce government deficits around the world by $560 billion a year - the amount spent on various subsidies supporting oil and gas and coal use.
Most of the subsidies go to keep gas cheap for consumers - drivers in Iran pay about 10 cents a litre, which costs the government about $100 billion in subsidies.
Producing nations and provinces also subsidize the industry. They offer grants or build roads or cut royalties to encourage the companies to develop oil and gas in their jurisdiction. They want the royalty revenue and the jobs.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta energy policy organization, estimates federal government subsidies to the oil and gas industry at $2 billion. The B.C. government provided subsidies of $327 million.
The case for subsidies is based on the need to compete with other jurisdictions for energy industry investment. So if Alberta cuts royalties, B.C. does the same.
If Canada and other jurisdictions were serious about the commitment, the need to sell resources at a discount would be eased.
There was better progress on a plan to improve maternal health in the developing world, with G8 countries promising $5 billion over five years. But that's less than Harper hoped for and governments have failed to honour past commitments.
Footnote: An independent review of security would be useful. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had 50 observers at the protest and reported police conduct "was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive." Mass arrests of 900 people captured peaceful protesters and bystanders without stopping the vandalism and destruction.
The three days of meetings cost Canada $1.1 billion. That's about $32 for every one of us; $128 for a family of four.
In return we got mostly bad publicity, thuggery, mass arrests, a sneak violation of citizens' rights and statements of good intentions from the world leaders.
It's useful for the presidents and prime ministers to gather and exchange ideas and concerns. Even better if they come up with agreements on a co-ordinated approach to problems.
But it's bizarre that the leaders had to bring 8,000 other people along to talk about the importance of reducing deficits.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the ugly scenes in Toronto - windows smashed, three police cars set on fire - justified security spending of almost $1 billion.
Among the thousands of protesters, a few hundred were violent. Their actions and locations were predictable. Yet the security measures were inadequate.
What about the results?
Look at a couple of issues. The leaders were trying to figure out how to deal with government deficits and debt.
Some wanted dramatic deficit reductions immediately; others feared that would slow - and maybe halt - the economic recovery. They agreed to cut their deficits in half from current levels by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.
Or more accurately, they agreed that would be a good idea, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Deficits are a problem. Like families, governments that borrow have to pay interest. Choices today mean fewer options for coming generations.
But government spending - like Canada's infrastructure fund - eased the impact of the recession by providing jobs. Cut spending too rapidly, and citizens are hurt and the economy suffers.
It was striking that all the coverage viewed this as a commitment by the governments to cut spending.
That's not what the agreement said. It talked about reducing deficits, which could also be accomplished by raising government revenues - collecting more in taxes or royalties.
The fact the current orthodoxy doesn't even acknowledge that approach as a possibility shows an alarming blindness to basic fiscal management.
Which leads to another summit non-commitment.
At a 2009 summit, the G20 agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The subsidies are costly and encourage energy consumption that produces greenhouse gases.
In Toronto, the leaders agreed again to the "phase out over the medium term of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs."
Not exactly a rock-solid commitment.
Which is shame. According to the last year's summit, getting rid of the subsidies by 2020 would mean a 10-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.
And it would reduce government deficits around the world by $560 billion a year - the amount spent on various subsidies supporting oil and gas and coal use.
Most of the subsidies go to keep gas cheap for consumers - drivers in Iran pay about 10 cents a litre, which costs the government about $100 billion in subsidies.
Producing nations and provinces also subsidize the industry. They offer grants or build roads or cut royalties to encourage the companies to develop oil and gas in their jurisdiction. They want the royalty revenue and the jobs.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta energy policy organization, estimates federal government subsidies to the oil and gas industry at $2 billion. The B.C. government provided subsidies of $327 million.
The case for subsidies is based on the need to compete with other jurisdictions for energy industry investment. So if Alberta cuts royalties, B.C. does the same.
If Canada and other jurisdictions were serious about the commitment, the need to sell resources at a discount would be eased.
There was better progress on a plan to improve maternal health in the developing world, with G8 countries promising $5 billion over five years. But that's less than Harper hoped for and governments have failed to honour past commitments.
Footnote: An independent review of security would be useful. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had 50 observers at the protest and reported police conduct "was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive." Mass arrests of 900 people captured peaceful protesters and bystanders without stopping the vandalism and destruction.
If John Les walks, so should bureaucrat
Les Leyne reviews the special prosecutor's report on John Les and Chilliwack bureaucrat Grant Sanborn in today's column.
Sanborn faces criminal charges for not doing his duty in processing development applications, including a project led by Les, then the mayor. Charges weren't recommended against Les.
Leyne notes the prosecutor found Les and council were strongly pro-development and encouraged city staff to see regulations and bylaws "as guidelines only, with a goal of finding creative ways to make development opportunities happen."
If the political masters told staff bending the law was OK, then it's wrong to penalize staff alone, Leyne concludes.
Worth a read.
Sanborn faces criminal charges for not doing his duty in processing development applications, including a project led by Les, then the mayor. Charges weren't recommended against Les.
Leyne notes the prosecutor found Les and council were strongly pro-development and encouraged city staff to see regulations and bylaws "as guidelines only, with a goal of finding creative ways to make development opportunities happen."
If the political masters told staff bending the law was OK, then it's wrong to penalize staff alone, Leyne concludes.
Worth a read.
No room for retreat on HST
With a few days left before the HST kicks in, it�s hard to see any way out of the muck-filled hole the Liberals have dug for themselves.
No other MLAs have followed Blair Lekstrom�s lead and resigned. Businesses are getting ready to charge the new tax beginning Thursday. The government�s pro-HST ad campaign is all ready to go.
Which all leaves the Liberals in a bad spot. The tax takes effect as proponents of an anti-HST initiative say they have the signatures of almost 670,000 people who want the tax repealed. About 752,000 people voted Liberal in the last election.
If government doesn�t pledge to repeal the tax, the opponents say they will start recall campaigns against targeted MLAs in November.
The Liberals won�t repeal the tax. They�re convinced they are right and the public is wrong; they don�t want to look erratic; and the process is too far along.
The last point is legitimate. Even two months ago, the Liberals could have - and should have - put the tax on hold for proper analysis, consultation and discussion. (None of those steps were taken before the HST deal was done with the federal government.) Now, retreat isn�t warranted.
The harmonized sales tax will cost most people more money. The Times Colonist asked Statistics Canada to run a forecast based on peoples� spending, the HST and other tax changes and credits. The HST will cost an average family an extra $521. Everyone will pay more, but the cost will be greatest for those with higher incomes.
Shifting $1.9 billion in taxes off businesses and on to individuals and families is bound to mean higher taxes for most British Columbians. And many of them don�t like the idea of paying more to provide tax breaks for corporations, not to improve health care or public safety.
For some people on tight budgets, the extra cost will pinch. But the higher costs will be manageable for most people.
They will also be highly visible. Eat out, pay a gym membership, buy vitamins, use a cellphone, hire a carpenter to fix something and you�ll pay seven per cent more starting on Thursday.
The Liberals continue to pitch the benefits. The theory is that businesses, now facing $1.9 billion less in taxes, will pass the savings on in cheaper prices.
In some competitive sectors, that will happen. But is the carpenter really likely to cut his hourly rate to reflect his savings from the HST?
And many of the industries that benefit sell their goods outside the province - the forest industry will save $140 million a year - so lower prices won�t mean savings for most British Columbians.
That raises the other claim for the HST. If forest companies can sell more wood, then they will be more likely to expand, which could mean additional jobs. A lower tax burden might also encourage business to locate here - again bringing jobs. And, some economists suggest if there is more demand for employees, wages might rise.
The government, relying on a report by University of Calgary economics prof Jack Mintz, says the HST will bring 113,000 additonal jobs by 2020. That�s good. But there are about 2.9 million people with jobs in B.C. today. Adding 13,000 jobs a year isn�t going to create much upward wage pressure.
So the tax will come in. People will see they�re paying more, though not that much. The benefits will invisible.
Even if the HST brings benefits, it�s not about the tax policy anymore. Polls - and all those names on the petitions - indicate people think the Liberals were dishonest in rejecting the HST during the election campaign and then starting talks with Ottawa about the new tax days after taking power.
They are angry at being ordered to pay more taxes so business can pay less, with no discussion or consultation.
And they�re insulted that Campbell and company say the problem is that voters can�t grasp the obvious benefits - that they are, in short, not as smart as their masters.
Footnote: The government�s pro-HST ad campaign starts once the petition drive ends. The risk is a backlash when the public sees tax dollars spent to promote a tax change the public has rejected.
No other MLAs have followed Blair Lekstrom�s lead and resigned. Businesses are getting ready to charge the new tax beginning Thursday. The government�s pro-HST ad campaign is all ready to go.
Which all leaves the Liberals in a bad spot. The tax takes effect as proponents of an anti-HST initiative say they have the signatures of almost 670,000 people who want the tax repealed. About 752,000 people voted Liberal in the last election.
If government doesn�t pledge to repeal the tax, the opponents say they will start recall campaigns against targeted MLAs in November.
The Liberals won�t repeal the tax. They�re convinced they are right and the public is wrong; they don�t want to look erratic; and the process is too far along.
The last point is legitimate. Even two months ago, the Liberals could have - and should have - put the tax on hold for proper analysis, consultation and discussion. (None of those steps were taken before the HST deal was done with the federal government.) Now, retreat isn�t warranted.
The harmonized sales tax will cost most people more money. The Times Colonist asked Statistics Canada to run a forecast based on peoples� spending, the HST and other tax changes and credits. The HST will cost an average family an extra $521. Everyone will pay more, but the cost will be greatest for those with higher incomes.
Shifting $1.9 billion in taxes off businesses and on to individuals and families is bound to mean higher taxes for most British Columbians. And many of them don�t like the idea of paying more to provide tax breaks for corporations, not to improve health care or public safety.
For some people on tight budgets, the extra cost will pinch. But the higher costs will be manageable for most people.
They will also be highly visible. Eat out, pay a gym membership, buy vitamins, use a cellphone, hire a carpenter to fix something and you�ll pay seven per cent more starting on Thursday.
The Liberals continue to pitch the benefits. The theory is that businesses, now facing $1.9 billion less in taxes, will pass the savings on in cheaper prices.
In some competitive sectors, that will happen. But is the carpenter really likely to cut his hourly rate to reflect his savings from the HST?
And many of the industries that benefit sell their goods outside the province - the forest industry will save $140 million a year - so lower prices won�t mean savings for most British Columbians.
That raises the other claim for the HST. If forest companies can sell more wood, then they will be more likely to expand, which could mean additional jobs. A lower tax burden might also encourage business to locate here - again bringing jobs. And, some economists suggest if there is more demand for employees, wages might rise.
The government, relying on a report by University of Calgary economics prof Jack Mintz, says the HST will bring 113,000 additonal jobs by 2020. That�s good. But there are about 2.9 million people with jobs in B.C. today. Adding 13,000 jobs a year isn�t going to create much upward wage pressure.
So the tax will come in. People will see they�re paying more, though not that much. The benefits will invisible.
Even if the HST brings benefits, it�s not about the tax policy anymore. Polls - and all those names on the petitions - indicate people think the Liberals were dishonest in rejecting the HST during the election campaign and then starting talks with Ottawa about the new tax days after taking power.
They are angry at being ordered to pay more taxes so business can pay less, with no discussion or consultation.
And they�re insulted that Campbell and company say the problem is that voters can�t grasp the obvious benefits - that they are, in short, not as smart as their masters.
Footnote: The government�s pro-HST ad campaign starts once the petition drive ends. The risk is a backlash when the public sees tax dollars spent to promote a tax change the public has rejected.
Why Obama should fire his Afghan commander
Barack Obama has an interesting problem.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, heading up the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, has been called back to Washington. The general, a generally astute politician in his own right, co-operated with a Rolling Stone magazine profile.
The subhead captures the flavour" "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." McChrystal and his aides see the people elected to run the governments as incompetent schmos in their way, the article suggests.
The generals call the shots in many countries. Obama now has to decide if the U.S. is one of them.
Of course, Canada has had its flirtations with the military. Here's what I wrote in 2008 when Gen. Rick Hillier stepped down as head of the Canadian Forces.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defense staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, heading up the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, has been called back to Washington. The general, a generally astute politician in his own right, co-operated with a Rolling Stone magazine profile.
The subhead captures the flavour" "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House." McChrystal and his aides see the people elected to run the governments as incompetent schmos in their way, the article suggests.
The generals call the shots in many countries. Obama now has to decide if the U.S. is one of them.
Of course, Canada has had its flirtations with the military. Here's what I wrote in 2008 when Gen. Rick Hillier stepped down as head of the Canadian Forces.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defense staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
Waiting to see if the RCMP will really change
Don't be too quick to think the RCMP has really learned from the death of Robert Dziekanski.
Former justice Thomas Braidwood's inquiry report, even with its narrow scope, was devastating. The four officers who responded to a call about a man behaving erratically were incompetent, poorly trained or bad hires. Their actions weren't justified and resulted in Dziekanski's death.
Their statements and written reports were "deliberately misrepresented and overstated" to try and make Dziekanski look bad and justify the officers' actions, Braidwood found. In other words, they lied.
Yet an RCMP internal investigation found no wrongdoing. No one was fired or disciplined. The force said the officers acted appropriately.
Prosecutors, based on the information provided by the RCMP, decided against criminal charges.
And after the death, Braidwood found the RCMP provided the media with statements that weren't deliberately misleading, but included "factual inaccuracies, consistently self-serving, painted Mr. Dziekanski in an unfairly negative, and the officers in an unfairly positive, light."
When the RCMP knew the comments in false, it chose not to correct them - an "error in judgment," Braidwood concludes.
Incompetence is expected in large organizations. The RCMP has about 27,000 employees, about twice as many as the Canadian navy. Things will sometimes go badly wrong. Braidwood noted the case should not reflect unfairly on the reputation of thousands of RCMP officers respected for protecting communities across Canada.
But the RCMP never really acknowledged the officers had done anything wrong.
Quite the opposite. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologized to Dziekanski's mother earlier this year.
But the apology went through a dozen drafts and Bass, in an internal memo obtained through freedom of information laws, assured his fellow officers he wasn't apologizing for anything the airport four had done. Another apology after the report was released was less equivocal.
While the RCMP was clearing its own, it was diligent in preparing for the inquiry, sending a team of officers to Poland to look into Dziekanski's background. (Which is to say, to dig up dirt). They came back with nothing.
Braidwood's main recommendation was that the RCMP quit investigating themselves when there are concerns or allegations of wrongdoing.
Investigations into potential deaths, serious bodily harm or other possible offences by officers should be conducted by an independent investigation unit staffed by civilians, he recommended.
That's the only way to avoid the perception - or reality - of bias.
It's not a new recommendation. Ontario and Alberta has had such a unit for years. A similar approach has been recommended for B.C.
But the RCMP have always refused such oversight. And since they are responsible for policing about 70 per policing in B.C., the provincial government has never gone ahead.
The provincial government was quick to accept Braidwood's recommendations and promised to create a civilian investigative unit to deal with cases of possible police wrongdoing.
The RCMP, in February, said it would accept independent investigation if provinces had the ability to conduct them.
But it was not clear that the force would also accept the jurisdiction of the B.C. Police Complaints Commission. That too is necessary to ensure true accountability.
None of this is to slight the job done by police officers every day. They face physical risks and complex challenges on our behalf. One minute, they are subduing an angry drunk; the next they are effectively social workers trying to sort out some person's problems. They are expected to ignore provocations.
That doesn't reduce the need for accountability. We give police great powers, including the power to take away the liberty - and in rare cases - lives of other citizens.
That kind of power requires checks and balances that satisfy the public interest.
Perhaps the RCMP will learn from the Braidwood inquiry.
But the culture of any large, hierarchal organization is deeply entrenched. And the RCMP culture has too often placed the interests of the force ahead of accountability.
Footonote: The Dziekanski case cannot be treated as an aberration. In a number of deaths and other incidents in B.C. in recent years, the RCMP has acted in a manner that suggested little interest in accountability or concern about the perception of bias in dealing with possible crimes by officers.
Former justice Thomas Braidwood's inquiry report, even with its narrow scope, was devastating. The four officers who responded to a call about a man behaving erratically were incompetent, poorly trained or bad hires. Their actions weren't justified and resulted in Dziekanski's death.
Their statements and written reports were "deliberately misrepresented and overstated" to try and make Dziekanski look bad and justify the officers' actions, Braidwood found. In other words, they lied.
Yet an RCMP internal investigation found no wrongdoing. No one was fired or disciplined. The force said the officers acted appropriately.
Prosecutors, based on the information provided by the RCMP, decided against criminal charges.
And after the death, Braidwood found the RCMP provided the media with statements that weren't deliberately misleading, but included "factual inaccuracies, consistently self-serving, painted Mr. Dziekanski in an unfairly negative, and the officers in an unfairly positive, light."
When the RCMP knew the comments in false, it chose not to correct them - an "error in judgment," Braidwood concludes.
Incompetence is expected in large organizations. The RCMP has about 27,000 employees, about twice as many as the Canadian navy. Things will sometimes go badly wrong. Braidwood noted the case should not reflect unfairly on the reputation of thousands of RCMP officers respected for protecting communities across Canada.
But the RCMP never really acknowledged the officers had done anything wrong.
Quite the opposite. RCMP Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass apologized to Dziekanski's mother earlier this year.
But the apology went through a dozen drafts and Bass, in an internal memo obtained through freedom of information laws, assured his fellow officers he wasn't apologizing for anything the airport four had done. Another apology after the report was released was less equivocal.
While the RCMP was clearing its own, it was diligent in preparing for the inquiry, sending a team of officers to Poland to look into Dziekanski's background. (Which is to say, to dig up dirt). They came back with nothing.
Braidwood's main recommendation was that the RCMP quit investigating themselves when there are concerns or allegations of wrongdoing.
Investigations into potential deaths, serious bodily harm or other possible offences by officers should be conducted by an independent investigation unit staffed by civilians, he recommended.
That's the only way to avoid the perception - or reality - of bias.
It's not a new recommendation. Ontario and Alberta has had such a unit for years. A similar approach has been recommended for B.C.
But the RCMP have always refused such oversight. And since they are responsible for policing about 70 per policing in B.C., the provincial government has never gone ahead.
The provincial government was quick to accept Braidwood's recommendations and promised to create a civilian investigative unit to deal with cases of possible police wrongdoing.
The RCMP, in February, said it would accept independent investigation if provinces had the ability to conduct them.
But it was not clear that the force would also accept the jurisdiction of the B.C. Police Complaints Commission. That too is necessary to ensure true accountability.
None of this is to slight the job done by police officers every day. They face physical risks and complex challenges on our behalf. One minute, they are subduing an angry drunk; the next they are effectively social workers trying to sort out some person's problems. They are expected to ignore provocations.
That doesn't reduce the need for accountability. We give police great powers, including the power to take away the liberty - and in rare cases - lives of other citizens.
That kind of power requires checks and balances that satisfy the public interest.
Perhaps the RCMP will learn from the Braidwood inquiry.
But the culture of any large, hierarchal organization is deeply entrenched. And the RCMP culture has too often placed the interests of the force ahead of accountability.
Footonote: The Dziekanski case cannot be treated as an aberration. In a number of deaths and other incidents in B.C. in recent years, the RCMP has acted in a manner that suggested little interest in accountability or concern about the perception of bias in dealing with possible crimes by officers.
Polak stumbles on issue of children at risk
It's tough to figure out what Children's Minister Mary Polak was thinking.
The Representative for Children and Youth had just released a detailed audit of a government child support program that found many problems.
The most significant was that ineffective - or non-existent - screening meant some of the 4,500 children had been placed in homes that posed risks. The audit found children had ended up in homes with past records of child protection issues or where caregivers had troubling criminal records.
The report included a number of recommendations - the first identifying an "urgent need" to rescreen all the homes. More than 1,000 children could be at risk.
No, said Polak. I disagree.
Polak did not dispute the report's findings of incomplete or missing home assessments. She didn't say why she believed there weren't risks. She just disagreed.
It was an inadequate response to a report involving children's safety.
Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had audited the Children in the Home of a Relative program. The concept is excellent. If parents can't care for a child and a relative is willing to take on the responsibility, the program provides a small amount of financial support - $250 to $450 a month.
It's much better for children, as a rule, to stay with relatives than to go into government care. Their lives are more and stable and they remain connected with family. The financial support makes that possible - and saves government a great deal compared with the costs of care.
But there are still risks. The government belatedly realized that; in 2008, it started a screening process to make sure homes were safe and suitable and the relatives could actually cope. Once we're involved, as a society, in a child's life there shared obligations. The government has acknowledged that.
Front-line agencies have warned about problems with the program for years. The audit found they had grounds for concern.
"These children do, in most cases, become invisible to government and are unable to have their voices or concerns heard," Turpel-Lafond said.
Screening was inadequate and even when risks were identified, there was no action to protect the children's safety.
Polak's talking points in responding to the report were bizarre.
In rejecting rescreening, she said wanted to reassure relatives that they don't "have to be living in fear of us coming and knocking on their door."
It's a bad way for a minister to characterize front-line staff - as people families should fear.
A reporter asked if that meant relatives whose criminal records - perhaps for sexual assault - hadn't been identified before a child entered the home also wouldn't have to fear a knock on the door.
Ridiculous, Polak said.
But she didn't say why it's ridiculous, since the audit found children could be living in such homes.
The minister also suggested rescreening wasn't needed because no new children were being taken into the program.
The average stay is three years, she said, so the 4,500 children would move out of the program over the next several years.
That hardly reduces the risks.
Polak didn't have to accept all the recommendations. But when children's safety is involved, she did have to offer a credible response.
The Children in the Home of a Relative program was cancelled after the representative started the audit. It's been replaced by the Extended Family Program.
The report expressed concerns about that program as well.
Eligibility has been tightened, so fewer children and families will be helped. Some of the changes make little sense. Relatives who have legal guardianship won't be eligible; even though they were encouraged to seek guardianship under the previous program.
And while there are improvements in the plans, funding appears inadequate.
These relatives are making a great contribution and show the way families can stick together. Many are grandmothers raising grandchildren. Many are poor - 20 per cent are on income assistance themselves.
They deserve our thanks and support. And the children also deserve the basic efforts to ensure they are in a safe and secure home.
Footnote: The representative reports through the legislature committee on children and youth, which currently has no meetings scheduled. Given the ministry's response, chair Joan McIntyre, a Liberal MLA, should be calling a meeting as soon as possible.
The Representative for Children and Youth had just released a detailed audit of a government child support program that found many problems.
The most significant was that ineffective - or non-existent - screening meant some of the 4,500 children had been placed in homes that posed risks. The audit found children had ended up in homes with past records of child protection issues or where caregivers had troubling criminal records.
The report included a number of recommendations - the first identifying an "urgent need" to rescreen all the homes. More than 1,000 children could be at risk.
No, said Polak. I disagree.
Polak did not dispute the report's findings of incomplete or missing home assessments. She didn't say why she believed there weren't risks. She just disagreed.
It was an inadequate response to a report involving children's safety.
Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had audited the Children in the Home of a Relative program. The concept is excellent. If parents can't care for a child and a relative is willing to take on the responsibility, the program provides a small amount of financial support - $250 to $450 a month.
It's much better for children, as a rule, to stay with relatives than to go into government care. Their lives are more and stable and they remain connected with family. The financial support makes that possible - and saves government a great deal compared with the costs of care.
But there are still risks. The government belatedly realized that; in 2008, it started a screening process to make sure homes were safe and suitable and the relatives could actually cope. Once we're involved, as a society, in a child's life there shared obligations. The government has acknowledged that.
Front-line agencies have warned about problems with the program for years. The audit found they had grounds for concern.
"These children do, in most cases, become invisible to government and are unable to have their voices or concerns heard," Turpel-Lafond said.
Screening was inadequate and even when risks were identified, there was no action to protect the children's safety.
Polak's talking points in responding to the report were bizarre.
In rejecting rescreening, she said wanted to reassure relatives that they don't "have to be living in fear of us coming and knocking on their door."
It's a bad way for a minister to characterize front-line staff - as people families should fear.
A reporter asked if that meant relatives whose criminal records - perhaps for sexual assault - hadn't been identified before a child entered the home also wouldn't have to fear a knock on the door.
Ridiculous, Polak said.
But she didn't say why it's ridiculous, since the audit found children could be living in such homes.
The minister also suggested rescreening wasn't needed because no new children were being taken into the program.
The average stay is three years, she said, so the 4,500 children would move out of the program over the next several years.
That hardly reduces the risks.
Polak didn't have to accept all the recommendations. But when children's safety is involved, she did have to offer a credible response.
The Children in the Home of a Relative program was cancelled after the representative started the audit. It's been replaced by the Extended Family Program.
The report expressed concerns about that program as well.
Eligibility has been tightened, so fewer children and families will be helped. Some of the changes make little sense. Relatives who have legal guardianship won't be eligible; even though they were encouraged to seek guardianship under the previous program.
And while there are improvements in the plans, funding appears inadequate.
These relatives are making a great contribution and show the way families can stick together. Many are grandmothers raising grandchildren. Many are poor - 20 per cent are on income assistance themselves.
They deserve our thanks and support. And the children also deserve the basic efforts to ensure they are in a safe and secure home.
Footnote: The representative reports through the legislature committee on children and youth, which currently has no meetings scheduled. Given the ministry's response, chair Joan McIntyre, a Liberal MLA, should be calling a meeting as soon as possible.
Liberal MLAs could have saved Campbell
One of the scariest and saddest revelations in the wake of the Blair Lekstrom resignation is that Liberal MLAs were told the HST was coming two days before the public.
They weren't asked their opinions. The decision was already made.
They were told the new harmonized sales tax was coming, it was the right thing to do and their job was to defend it.
OK, the Liberal MLAs could have spoken up. But they were told about the new tax last July 21, barely two months after the election. And 18 of the 46 MLAs had just been elected a few months earlier and were still feeling their way.
Gordon Campbell told caucus it was a done deal and would the new tax would be announced two days later. Resistance would seem both futile and likely to bring reprisals.
It's insulting. For voters, and for the Liberal MLAs. These are elected representatives from all around the province. They have diverse backgrounds and a lot of experience and achievements. The voters respect them. The theory is that they represent the views of their constituents as the government sets policy.
And as well as being insulting, it's dumb.
James Surowiecki writes a column on business and finance for The New Yorker. He also wrote The Wisdom of Crowds, a fascinating book with the central thesis that the best decisions are reached when people with diverse backgrounds, skills and perspectives are brought together to solve a problem.
Surowiecki cites examples. A lot of very bright NASA people, he notes, were monitoring the space shuttle Columbia after it was damaged on takeoff in 2003. They decided it could return safely; it burned up on re-entry, killing seven people.
But while they were smart, they were also all engineers with similar perspectives and experience. There was no one to bring a different perspective.
Surowiecki also looks at the TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Contestants had to answer questions to win money. They had the chance, if they were uncertain, to call an expert - the most knowledgeable person they knew.
And they could poll the audience, a random group of American game-show fans, and go with their choice of the right answer.
Who was the best bet - the smartest person the contestants knew or a bunch of TV fans?
You can guess the answer. The expert offered the right answer in 65 per cent of questions. The studio audience picked the right answer 91 per cent of the time.
Many people together, with different skills and insights and perspectives, reach the best decisions. (If the process allows them to express those views and encourages discussion and debate.)
That's how our government is supposed to work. Elected representatives - MLAs or MPs - debate policy and make the decisions. Historically, they decide who should be premier or prime minister.
But the HST disaster shows how far we have moved from that traditional model of representative democracy.
The decision was made by a handful of people, who were as much, or more, alike as the NASA engineers.
They deferred to the premier. He had spent nine years surrounded by people telling him how smart he was, which does not encourage critical thinking
The result was disastrous. The tax, which shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals, might make economic sense. But it has enraged the public.
If Liberal MLAs had been given a real, meaningful chance to talk about the tax, instead of being treated like sheep, the Liberals wouldn't be in such a mess.
The bigger question is why this happens. The people in ridings send their representatives off to Victoria or Ottawa with great hopes.
And they fall silent in the face of party discipline.
We all lose when our representatives are reduced to irrelevancy.
Footnote: The B.C. Rail corruption trial is providing interesting perspective on all this. It appears Campbell sent memos to ensure ministers mentioned his "strong leadership" when they made speeches. Orders to laud the boss don't encourage full and frank debate of his ideas.
They weren't asked their opinions. The decision was already made.
They were told the new harmonized sales tax was coming, it was the right thing to do and their job was to defend it.
OK, the Liberal MLAs could have spoken up. But they were told about the new tax last July 21, barely two months after the election. And 18 of the 46 MLAs had just been elected a few months earlier and were still feeling their way.
Gordon Campbell told caucus it was a done deal and would the new tax would be announced two days later. Resistance would seem both futile and likely to bring reprisals.
It's insulting. For voters, and for the Liberal MLAs. These are elected representatives from all around the province. They have diverse backgrounds and a lot of experience and achievements. The voters respect them. The theory is that they represent the views of their constituents as the government sets policy.
And as well as being insulting, it's dumb.
James Surowiecki writes a column on business and finance for The New Yorker. He also wrote The Wisdom of Crowds, a fascinating book with the central thesis that the best decisions are reached when people with diverse backgrounds, skills and perspectives are brought together to solve a problem.
Surowiecki cites examples. A lot of very bright NASA people, he notes, were monitoring the space shuttle Columbia after it was damaged on takeoff in 2003. They decided it could return safely; it burned up on re-entry, killing seven people.
But while they were smart, they were also all engineers with similar perspectives and experience. There was no one to bring a different perspective.
Surowiecki also looks at the TV show Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Contestants had to answer questions to win money. They had the chance, if they were uncertain, to call an expert - the most knowledgeable person they knew.
And they could poll the audience, a random group of American game-show fans, and go with their choice of the right answer.
Who was the best bet - the smartest person the contestants knew or a bunch of TV fans?
You can guess the answer. The expert offered the right answer in 65 per cent of questions. The studio audience picked the right answer 91 per cent of the time.
Many people together, with different skills and insights and perspectives, reach the best decisions. (If the process allows them to express those views and encourages discussion and debate.)
That's how our government is supposed to work. Elected representatives - MLAs or MPs - debate policy and make the decisions. Historically, they decide who should be premier or prime minister.
But the HST disaster shows how far we have moved from that traditional model of representative democracy.
The decision was made by a handful of people, who were as much, or more, alike as the NASA engineers.
They deferred to the premier. He had spent nine years surrounded by people telling him how smart he was, which does not encourage critical thinking
The result was disastrous. The tax, which shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals, might make economic sense. But it has enraged the public.
If Liberal MLAs had been given a real, meaningful chance to talk about the tax, instead of being treated like sheep, the Liberals wouldn't be in such a mess.
The bigger question is why this happens. The people in ridings send their representatives off to Victoria or Ottawa with great hopes.
And they fall silent in the face of party discipline.
We all lose when our representatives are reduced to irrelevancy.
Footnote: The B.C. Rail corruption trial is providing interesting perspective on all this. It appears Campbell sent memos to ensure ministers mentioned his "strong leadership" when they made speeches. Orders to laud the boss don't encourage full and frank debate of his ideas.
Lekstrom turns up the heat on Liberal MLAs
Blair Lekstrom's resignation Friday capped a lousy week for the Liberals.
Lekstrom gave up his post as energy minister and left the party to sit as an independent because he can't support going ahead with the HST.
He's been wrestling with his obligations, Lekstrom said.
"I believe that my first priority as an elected official is to the people that elect me and then to the political party I represent," he concluded.
And the people were telling, him overwhelmingly and strenuously, that they didn't like the tax or the way the Liberals had introduced it. About 5,000 people have signed the anti-HST petitions in Peace River South; that's more than the 4,805 people who voted for Lekstrom in the last election.
Earlier in the week, Lekstrom had suggested putting the HST on hold for six months or a year to his cabinet colleagues and involving the public in a full discussion of tax options.
But Premier Gordon Campbell nixed the idea. He still maintains the problem is that people don't understand how positive the tax will be. (That seems to make people angrier, since it can be taken as an insult. And it raises the question - if the tax is such a no-brainer, why did the Liberals reject it for years - including through the election campaign?)
Cynics might grumble that Lekstrom left it awfully late. But it remains a principled move, one that will cost him about $50,000 a year.
The biggest impact will be on other Liberal MLAs. They too know their constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax, the secretive introduction, or both.
Lekstrom's example leaves other Liberals to explain why they are willing to ignore the will of the people they represent.
And while one resignation won't shift the premier, two or three might. At the least, they would kick start the race to replace him.
The resignation came in the same week as an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll that should give Liberal MLAs serious concern.
The party's support has dropped to 26 per cent, with the NDP at 46 per cent. That's still above the amazing lows of the former NDP government in its last days, but not a whole lot.
It gets worse for the Liberals. The poll found three-quarters of respondents opposed the HST.
And it found that in Liberal ridings across the province, 45 per cent of those surveyed said they would definitely sign a recall petition against their MLA given a chance; another 17 per cent they would probably sign.
And they might get a chance.
The anti-HST petition looks to be successful. The government would then have several options in responding to it.
But some of the campaigners have said that unless the HST is axed, they will launch recall campaigns in November. Successful campaigns would mean the seats would be declared vacant and byelections held.
It's difficult to stage a successful recall campaign. Proponents would need signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - not just of the number who actually cast ballots.
But there is a lot of anger and a well-organized cadre of volunteers in place.
Liberal MLAs in ridings where the HST opposition is fiercest and margins of victory were small should be looking over their shoulders.
Some will likely be wondering how much they should suffer for decisions they had no real part in making.
It's unlikely the public will be much cheerier in November. Campbell has been dismal in defending the tax and the way it was sprung on British Columbians without analysis or discussion.
And a planned advertising blitz - at taxpayer expense - is likely to make people angrier.
With the legislature shut down, likely until next spring, MLAs are going to be spending a lot of time in their ridings.
They better be able to defend both the tax - and the damaging way their leader has handled it.
Footnote: Lekstrom has acted independently in the past. He voted against the legislation gutting the contracts of public sector unions and opposed the Tsawwassen First Nations treaty. No other obvious potential defectors among the Liberal MLAs come to mind.
Lekstrom gave up his post as energy minister and left the party to sit as an independent because he can't support going ahead with the HST.
He's been wrestling with his obligations, Lekstrom said.
"I believe that my first priority as an elected official is to the people that elect me and then to the political party I represent," he concluded.
And the people were telling, him overwhelmingly and strenuously, that they didn't like the tax or the way the Liberals had introduced it. About 5,000 people have signed the anti-HST petitions in Peace River South; that's more than the 4,805 people who voted for Lekstrom in the last election.
Earlier in the week, Lekstrom had suggested putting the HST on hold for six months or a year to his cabinet colleagues and involving the public in a full discussion of tax options.
But Premier Gordon Campbell nixed the idea. He still maintains the problem is that people don't understand how positive the tax will be. (That seems to make people angrier, since it can be taken as an insult. And it raises the question - if the tax is such a no-brainer, why did the Liberals reject it for years - including through the election campaign?)
Cynics might grumble that Lekstrom left it awfully late. But it remains a principled move, one that will cost him about $50,000 a year.
The biggest impact will be on other Liberal MLAs. They too know their constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax, the secretive introduction, or both.
Lekstrom's example leaves other Liberals to explain why they are willing to ignore the will of the people they represent.
And while one resignation won't shift the premier, two or three might. At the least, they would kick start the race to replace him.
The resignation came in the same week as an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll that should give Liberal MLAs serious concern.
The party's support has dropped to 26 per cent, with the NDP at 46 per cent. That's still above the amazing lows of the former NDP government in its last days, but not a whole lot.
It gets worse for the Liberals. The poll found three-quarters of respondents opposed the HST.
And it found that in Liberal ridings across the province, 45 per cent of those surveyed said they would definitely sign a recall petition against their MLA given a chance; another 17 per cent they would probably sign.
And they might get a chance.
The anti-HST petition looks to be successful. The government would then have several options in responding to it.
But some of the campaigners have said that unless the HST is axed, they will launch recall campaigns in November. Successful campaigns would mean the seats would be declared vacant and byelections held.
It's difficult to stage a successful recall campaign. Proponents would need signatures from 40 per cent of the people eligible to vote in the last election - not just of the number who actually cast ballots.
But there is a lot of anger and a well-organized cadre of volunteers in place.
Liberal MLAs in ridings where the HST opposition is fiercest and margins of victory were small should be looking over their shoulders.
Some will likely be wondering how much they should suffer for decisions they had no real part in making.
It's unlikely the public will be much cheerier in November. Campbell has been dismal in defending the tax and the way it was sprung on British Columbians without analysis or discussion.
And a planned advertising blitz - at taxpayer expense - is likely to make people angrier.
With the legislature shut down, likely until next spring, MLAs are going to be spending a lot of time in their ridings.
They better be able to defend both the tax - and the damaging way their leader has handled it.
Footnote: Lekstrom has acted independently in the past. He voted against the legislation gutting the contracts of public sector unions and opposed the Tsawwassen First Nations treaty. No other obvious potential defectors among the Liberal MLAs come to mind.
If health authority boards ran the schools
If you like the way your regional health authority board is working, the government's review of the Vancouver school district will please you.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
No matter where you live, the report matters. It's setting the stage for an overhaul of school boards that could make them much more like the health authorities. That is, unelected, less accountable to the public and focused on carrying out the government's direction.
Vancouver's trustees - like most boards across the province - have complained that provincial funding has been inadequate to cover necessary costs.
The government asked comptroller general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland - the government's top accountant, in effect - to review the district's operations after trustees said they needed $16 million more to cover education costs.
Her report is good reading. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Vancouver trustees, especially around a lack of long-term planning and the power of interest groups within the school district - mainly unions.
And some good suggestions, for school boards and government.
But the report is based on a faulty premise. It criticizes the board for being too focused on "advocacy" in pushing for programs and funding to improve education in Vancouver.
Trustees, Wenezenki-Yolland concludes, should instead be looking for ways to live within the available funding. There are chances to increase revenue and cut costs.
They should be much more like a corporate board of directors, she suggests, setting broad policy directions and letting management take charge. And much more focused on staying within budget.
Every board should be making the most effective use of available money.
But the report seems to forget that school trustees are elected. The voters decide who they think should serve. And they selected the Vancouver trustees, presumably, because they wanted people who would advocate for public education.
The report would appear to suggest those voters just got it wrong. That's possible, of course. Turnout is dismal for school board elections - generally less than one-third of registered voters. Motivated special interests can play a large role.
Still, that's democracy.
The report concludes trustees could balance the budget. They need, Wenezenki-Yolland says, to cut back to basics.
Junior kindergarten might be nice and improve the long-term outcomes for children, but the province doesn't fund it and it could be cut to save money, the report noted.
The district has been charging below-market rents for child care centres in school properties to create more spaces. The rents could be raised to bring in more money.
And the district could close schools to save money.
The trustees might be meeting community needs, but they are not critical to education, Wenezenki-Yolland says.
The problem is that the trustees were elected to meet community needs - to keep junior kindergarten, support day care and protect schools. They weren't appointed to follow the path the Education Ministry sets.
That's the basic issue. Should school boards be elected and accountable to voters, which means they will be advocates and push for more funding?
Or should they be appointed with an eye to what Wenezenki-Yolland calls a "competency matrix" to provide broad direction consistent with the government's policies.
It's an interesting debate in the abstract. Find nine diverse, knowledgeable, committed people and ask them to provide direction to a school district.
But the debate isn't in the abstract. That's the model the government has chosen for the five regional health authorities.
You would be hard-pressed to find many people in any corner of the province who thinks that has worked well. The boards are unaccountable; decisions are made behind closed doors; there are no champions for the needs of the community. It might suit the government's purposes; but for the public it has been a failure.
Elected school boards might be messy. But they beat the alternative.
And it's wise to be wary anytime government wants to take the right to elect your representatives away.
Footnote: The report suggested moving to a common accounting model to allow useful comparisons between school districts, a good step. It also suggested money could be saved by negotiating concessions with the Vancouver district's unions. The report didn't say why the unions would agree to hurt the interests of their members or what the district could offer in return for concessions.
Double standard on drunk driving?
A National Post editorial today takes a tough stand on drunk driving and particularly charges against a Liberal MP.
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
"Pablo Rodriguez must step down," says the headline.
"One thousand, two hundred and thirty-nine people dead. Seventy-three thousand, one hundred and twenty people injured. Between $2.2-billion and $12.6-billion in damages.
"These aren't the statistics from the latest natural disaster, terror attack or industrial accident. They are the toll drunk driving takes in a single year in Canada.
"It is obvious that drunk driving remains a deadly problem in this country, despite efforts by law enforcement, the justice system and public interest groups...
"Instead, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has turned a blind eye when one of his own caucus stands accused of failing to comply with a police officer's request for a breathalyzer test, following a car accident in which alcohol may have been a factor...
"This incident happened in April. The police charged Mr. Rodriguez in May and he has a court date scheduled for June 15. All the while, with the full blessing of Mr. Ignatieff, he has continued to sit as chairman of the Liberal caucus...
"While Mr. Rodriguez maintains that he has done nothing wrong and intends to fight the charges, he should have done the honourable thing and resigned from caucus in the interim. More importantly, his leader should have asked for his resignation. Mr. Ignatieff's staggering indifference sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious issue -- or is only important when it involves politicians of other parties.
"This is not an acceptable stance for the leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or any politician, to take. Will Mr. Ignatieff now do the right thing and ask that Mr. Rodriguez step down? Out of respect for the thousands of victims of this social scourge, he really has little choice."
Pretty clear position.
So what did the National Post editorialists say when Gordon Campbell was caught driving drunk?
"Don't resign," the headline read.
"As everyone in Canada knows, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell made a serious mistake when he got behind the wheel of his rental car in Maui while legally drunk. But he has owned up to his mistake, he has apologized and he has sworn off alcohol. It is now time for the Premier, and the province of British Columbia, to move on. If Mr. Campbell refuses to take on his critics forcefully, but instead indulges their political bloodlust with further displays of contrition, he will be making a second serious mistake, one that could end his political career...
"Let's be clear: Drunk driving is a serious problem that costs many lives, and Mr. Campbell is right to be ashamed of his behaviour. But the Premier did not hurt anybody. The offence with which he has been charged is a misdemeanour (in Hawaiian law), not a felony..."
Want open and transparent? Try Washington
After the B.C. cabinet met with the Washington State counterparts, the New Democrats submitted FOI requests here and in Washington to find out what had been talked about.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Les Leyne reports on the unsurprising results here.
Conservatives chip away at offshore moratoriums
It certainly looks like the federal government is making it a lot easier for offshore oil and gas drilling and tanker traffic in B.C.'s coastal waters.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chr�tien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
And each image of oil-soaked seabirds along the Gulf of Mexico coast is going to make that position more and more controversial.
Most people believe there is a moratorium on both tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development off the coast.
Not just the public or environmental groups. Former federal environment minister David Anderson says the bans are in place. So does the B.C. government; in 2004 it asked the federal government to review the need for the moratoriums.
The Chr�tien government appointed a panel. Those members all thought bans on drilling and tankers had been imposed in the 1970s and remained in place. So did the thousands of people and organizations presenting to the panel.
And at the end of the process, the panel recommended continuing the moratoriums.
But the Harper government disagrees.
Andrew Mayeda of Canwest News Service reported that the government had quietly issued a policy statement saying there is no tanker moratorium. The governments and the panel were wrong. Presto, it was gone.
Why does it matter?
Because Enbridge has a plan, now undergoing environmental assessment, to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat. There it would be pumped into tankers; about 220 a year would sail to Asia through waters that had been off limits.
And if there were a moratorium, the federal government would have to make a decision to lift it to allow the project, sparking public debate and controversy.
This way, it can just stand back and let the process unfold.
It's not a simple issue.
Tankers have a good safety record. The environmental assessment process now under way includes public input.
And it would be pretty hypocritical for most of us, who rely heavily on petroleum products in all their forms, to maintain we want oil and gas, but don't want to have anything to do with producing or transporting it.
But the offshore oil and gas industry had a pretty good safety record too. The companies and the government regulators offered assurances about safety and recovery plans and the great technical advances.
And now we're into week seven of the BP oil disaster.
The Conservative government hasn't gone quite so far on offshore oil and gas. Vancouver Island MP Gary Lunn offered assurances that the moratorium remains in place.
But not in a particularly firm way. The policy statement, Mayeda reported, also set out the new government's assessment of the offshore oil and gas moratorium.
There is no law imposing the moratorium, the government noted. The cabinet orders putting it in place have lapsed.
And so allowing drilling offshore is simply a "pure policy decision" that can be made at any time. There is no statutory impediment.
It's all remarkably loosey-goosey and fuzzy for such a huge issue.
What is clear is that the Conservative government has a different understanding of both issues than past federal governments and the public.
And its view means that tankers could sail the coastal waters and drilling rigs pop up off the coast with a much less thorough public debate than would be required before lifting a real moratorium. A cabinet order, or even bureaucratic directive, could be enough.
That won't likely be well received. There are arguments for allowing increased tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas development. Energy royalties - shared between the federal and provincial governments - could be in the billions. There are construction jobs and operating jobs and economic growth.
But what's unclear is who benefits and who bears the risks. How much risk should British Columbians accept - especially tourism operators and the fisheries sector - to allow expansion of Alberta's oilsands?
It's a debate that has become much more urgent with each day that oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's well.
Footnote: The B.C. government supports both the Enbridge proposal and offshore drilling, subject to appropriate environmental reviews. One problem is that the Gulf drilling program went through those same reviews. Another is that Canada has not yet shown how safety standards here differ from those in place in the U.S.
Vote for the Best party
A dandy political video. (No, not the U.S. one with the guy and his horse.)
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
And the party actually captured six of 15 seats on the Reykjavik city council on the weekend.
Municipal election reform ignores biggest problem
Do big campaign contributions influence politicians' decisions?
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
The committee that tackled municipal election reform in B.C. decided they don't.
Most British Columbians, polls suggest, disagree.
The committee - three Liberal MLAs and three Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives - delivered its recommendations this week.
There is much positive in the report, including a call for campaign spending limits and badly needed rules on third-party advertising.
But the group, chaired by Community Development Minister Bill Bennett, decided against any limits on campaign contributions. Unions, companies and individuals will still be able to donate millions of dollars to support candidates and slates. The public will still have to vote without knowing who is picking up the bills for candidates. (That is revealed months later.)
The wide-open approach undermines democracy.
Voter participation in municipal elections is dismal. Candidates struggle to be noticed. So financial backing can make a huge difference in their chances of being elected.
At a minimum, the dependence on large donors creates the risk that only candidates who can attract their support - or become part of a slate that can - have a serious chance of electoral success. That limits the ability of ordinary citizens to offer their ideas and energy in a fair election campaign.
And it creates the clear perception that candidates are indebted to their financial backers. If electoral success relies on donations from the union representing municipal workers or a major developer, then those organizations effectively become gatekeepers to the political process. Politicians who displease them face the risk of having their funding vanish the next time around.
The committee decided the donations were not a problem. People and organizations have a right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, it judged. And donations allow those affected by municipal government, but ineligible to vote - a corporation from any other province or country, for example - to participate in the democratic process.
Disclosure of donations within a few months of the election allow the public to be alert to any favoritism, the committee said. It called for an online municipal donation reporting site to make that easier, a welcome innovation. (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, while opposing donation limits, proposed requiring all contributions to be disclosed publicly five days before the vote.)
Most provinces disagree with B.C.'s approach. Only two others allow unlimited donations; the others either have limits or allow municipalities to impose them.
The public disagrees too. A Mustel poll earlier this year found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations.
And the committee received 134 submissions calling for limits on contributions, compared with 31 that wanted to maintain the status quo.
But the issue of political contributions goes beyond municipal elections.
There are no contribution limits in provincial elections. The Greens and New Democrats both support donation limits; the Liberals prefer to allow individuals, corporations and unions to give as much as they choose.
If the committee had decided some rules were needed in municipal campaigns - as the public believes - it would have been hard for the Liberals to keep arguing that provincial campaigns should remain a financing free-for-all.
Most of the changes recommended are positive. Spending limits - if they are set low enough - would reduce the influence of big donors and encourage grassroots campaigns. The committee has called for more effective disclosure of donations in an easily accessible way. Enforcement provisions would be strengthened.
And municipal election terms would change to four years from three. The reduced accountability would, it's hoped, by increased effectiveness as councillors had longer to learn their jobs and address issues before the next election loomed.
All useful changes. But sadly, the failure to move on contribution limits leaves the most significant problem untouched.
Footnote: The government decided against having independent MLA Vicki Huntington or any New Democrats on the committee. And Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is a former Liberal candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
