The provincial auditor general and the government are in a tussle, again, over the way more than $440 million in annual subsidies to the oil and gas industry are being handled.
It's tough to get people interested in accounting issues (until their RRSPs plummet because some company cooked the books and the auditors didn't provide the warning they were supposed to).
But the dispute raises broader issues, including the temptation for governments to hold a fire sale on non-renewable resources to pay the bills today and leaving future generations with nothing.
First, the accounting battle.
Auditor General John Doyle says the government is violating Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by failing to record the generous incentives to companies as expenses.
The government disagrees and says other provinces handle their incentives to lure companies in the same way.
I don't know who is right. My experience as a mid-level corporate guy was that the auditors had the last word. They were charged with certifying that the company was following the rules and the financial statements accurately represented reality.
If they expressed reservations about the financial statements - as Doyle has done - it was a bad thing and could even increase the cost of borrowing. Lenders and bond rating agencies like clean financial statements.
The accounting dispute raises more fundamental issues.
We own the natural gas resources under the ground.
The government of the day, on our behalf, sells companies the right to find and develop them. Leases are auctioned each month, giving companies the right to explore and develop.
If natural gas is found, the government, on our behalf, charges royalties on the gas taken from the ground. It's big money, about $1.2 billion this year.
Setting royalties is inexact. Try for too high a price and the energy companies head off - or threaten to head off - to Alberta or Montana or Nigeria.
The government is trying to be competitive enough to attract the energy companies, while ensuring that the owners - the people of B.C. now and in the future - get a good price for the gas we're selling.
But any government has a conflict of interest.
It wants the resource revenues - and the jobs and economic activity -now. There is unavoidable pressure to cut royalty levels to encourage companies to explore and develop gas wells as quickly as possible.
Even if the smart thing, in terms of the province's long-term interests, might be to keep royalty rates high and accept that development will take place over a longer term. That's especially true when natural gas prices are low, as royalties are based on the value of the resource.
The incentives - royalty cuts for deep wells and other harder to get gas, subsidies to help companies build roads and the like - apparently work. The government maintains each dollar in subsidies brings a substantial increase in royalties and drilling.
But the big winners are the energy customers, as jurisdictions cut the price of their resources to compete with each other. The Alberta government commissioned a review of its royalty rates and found they were too low; the public was losing about $2 billion a year. B.C. has never done such a review.
The big losers, arguably, are future generations.
We're selling a non-renewable public resource today and spending the money on ourselves.
When the gas - or coal or oil - is gone, the royalty revenue stops. A future generation will be left with government spending based on a revenue stream that no longer exists.
There is a simple solution. Other jurisdictions have set up heritage funds for all or part of non-renewable resource revenues.
That provides a cushion for the day the resource runs out.
And it reduces the temptation for governments to sell too cheaply in pursuit of short-term benefits.
Footnote: The outlook for natural gas prices is weak. The government based its budget on prices around $6.20 per gigajoule; prices have been more than $1 below that through the year. Each dollar that the price falls below the forecast means about $300 million in lost revenue.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Government shouldn't set terms of Pickton inquiry
Ernie Crey's sister was murdered after Robert Pickton should have been caught.
He wants an independent inquiry. And he doesn't want the government to control the questions the inquiry asks or how it is structured.
"Should it all fall to the government to decide what those terms of reference are?" Crey told the Times Colonist in a story here. "Like Michael de Jong and a bunch of lawyers on his staff and some cops? No, it shouldn't.
"And if that were the case, that's what would heighten the level the suspicion. People would lose confidence [in] an inquiry of that nature."
It makes sense. The government's role should be the subject of an inquiry. It would create a perception of bias to have it set the terms of reference and place some areas off limits - like prosecutors' 1998 decision to stay an attempted murder charge for an attack on a woman. The government should name a panel - perhaps a retired judge, a First Nations representative. the Children's Representative and the Police Complaints Commissioner - to set up the inquiry and appoint a commissioner.
You also read a column by Lindsay Kines on Rich Coleman's response to the release of the Vancouver Police Department internal review of them Pickton investigation.
Coleman's dismissive comments were poorly informed and indicated the government had no plans to do a serious review of what wrong. They show, Kines writes, exactly why a fully independent inquiry is needed.
He wants an independent inquiry. And he doesn't want the government to control the questions the inquiry asks or how it is structured.
"Should it all fall to the government to decide what those terms of reference are?" Crey told the Times Colonist in a story here. "Like Michael de Jong and a bunch of lawyers on his staff and some cops? No, it shouldn't.
"And if that were the case, that's what would heighten the level the suspicion. People would lose confidence [in] an inquiry of that nature."
It makes sense. The government's role should be the subject of an inquiry. It would create a perception of bias to have it set the terms of reference and place some areas off limits - like prosecutors' 1998 decision to stay an attempted murder charge for an attack on a woman. The government should name a panel - perhaps a retired judge, a First Nations representative. the Children's Representative and the Police Complaints Commissioner - to set up the inquiry and appoint a commissioner.
You also read a column by Lindsay Kines on Rich Coleman's response to the release of the Vancouver Police Department internal review of them Pickton investigation.
Coleman's dismissive comments were poorly informed and indicated the government had no plans to do a serious review of what wrong. They show, Kines writes, exactly why a fully independent inquiry is needed.
Alberta oilsands boycotts bad news for B.C. tourism
Alberta's oilsands - and its government - are about to become a big problem for B.C.
Advocacy groups have targeted the energy megaprojects, pointing to environmental destruction and the big greenhouse-gas emissions involved in getting the sticky oil out of the ground.
And this summer, they dusted off one of their most effective tactics - a call for a tourism boycott.
That's bad news for B.C.'s tourist industry, already facing what managers like to call "challenges."
Consider this headline in The Guardian: "Think twice about visiting Canada until it abandons tar sands destruction."
I couldn't determine if the column appeared in the print edition of the British national newspaper or just online. It doesn't really matter: The newspaper claims about 1.2 million readers a day; the web version actually has more visitors.
Note the headline doesn't urge people to stay away from Alberta. Shun Canada, it says.
It wouldn't make much of a difference even if the distinction were made. I just finished an RV trip from Victoria through the mountains to Calgary, Drumheller and back.
Most of the people in the campgrounds and at the big attractions were from Canada. But there were visitors from Germany, England, Italy, Asia. Many weren't visiting Alberta. They were touring Canada's two western provinces.
If the boycott message is effective, some travellers will head to another destination
The campaign is a problem for B.C. And worse, it has no direct ability to manage the response.
Alberta has done a mediocre job so far.
That's typical. B.C. governments complained about the unfairness of international campaigns against old-growth logging, but were ineffectual in countering them.
Graham Thomson is an astute Edmonton Journal columnist who spent a year on fellowship learning about the oilsands and their impacts.
He gives the Alberta government poor grades for addressing the international criticism.
Conservative Premier Ed Stelmach has defended the oilsands and the companies. The environmental groups are stretching the truth, he says. Environmental rules are effective. The critics are wrong.
The denial response plays well in Alberta, Thomson writes. But it won't ease doubts about the oilsands around the world.
"The best way for the Alberta government and energy companies to win the public relations battle over environmental concerns is through actions, not more public relations battles," he wrote last month.
The problem - for Alberta and now B.C. - is that there are real concerns about the costs of extracting the oil given current technology.
The oilsands - or tarsands as they used to be called - have vast amounts of oil mixed with sand. To make money, the companies have to scoop up the sand and process it with boiling water or steam. The oil, or bitumen, a precursor, is separated and can be sent off by pipeline. The nasty waste is pumped into giant tailing ponds or underground. (Yes, this is grossly oversimplified.)
Generating all that hot water and steam means burning lots of natural gas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found producing a barrel of oil from the Alberta sands resulted in 82 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel produced in the U.S.
Which means the oil might be shunned in U.S. and state climate-change plans.
Then there's a federal parliamentary committee on the environment, which has been looking at the oilsands. MPs from the four parties couldn't agree on a report. Liberal MPs have released their version, which found the Alberta government has failed to protect water quality and the health of First Nations.
The boycott campaign - Rethink Alberta - includes billboards in the U.S. and England showing oil-soaked ducks in a tailing pond and calling Alberta "the other oil disaster," comparing it with BP's Gulf spill.
It might not be fair, but that doesn't matter. The campaigns work unless governments move quickly and effectively to make their case.
And unless they make real changes to address legitimate concerns.
Alberta isn't doing either. And the B.C. tourism industry will pay the price.
Footnote: In a move reminiscent of the campaign over B.C. logging practices, the anti-oilsands forces are also pressuring U.S. companies to shun oilsands-based energy. The drugstore chain Walgrens has said it will switch fuel suppliers to avoid the Alberta product. The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss they'll look for non-oilsands energy.
Advocacy groups have targeted the energy megaprojects, pointing to environmental destruction and the big greenhouse-gas emissions involved in getting the sticky oil out of the ground.
And this summer, they dusted off one of their most effective tactics - a call for a tourism boycott.
That's bad news for B.C.'s tourist industry, already facing what managers like to call "challenges."
Consider this headline in The Guardian: "Think twice about visiting Canada until it abandons tar sands destruction."
I couldn't determine if the column appeared in the print edition of the British national newspaper or just online. It doesn't really matter: The newspaper claims about 1.2 million readers a day; the web version actually has more visitors.
Note the headline doesn't urge people to stay away from Alberta. Shun Canada, it says.
It wouldn't make much of a difference even if the distinction were made. I just finished an RV trip from Victoria through the mountains to Calgary, Drumheller and back.
Most of the people in the campgrounds and at the big attractions were from Canada. But there were visitors from Germany, England, Italy, Asia. Many weren't visiting Alberta. They were touring Canada's two western provinces.
If the boycott message is effective, some travellers will head to another destination
The campaign is a problem for B.C. And worse, it has no direct ability to manage the response.
Alberta has done a mediocre job so far.
That's typical. B.C. governments complained about the unfairness of international campaigns against old-growth logging, but were ineffectual in countering them.
Graham Thomson is an astute Edmonton Journal columnist who spent a year on fellowship learning about the oilsands and their impacts.
He gives the Alberta government poor grades for addressing the international criticism.
Conservative Premier Ed Stelmach has defended the oilsands and the companies. The environmental groups are stretching the truth, he says. Environmental rules are effective. The critics are wrong.
The denial response plays well in Alberta, Thomson writes. But it won't ease doubts about the oilsands around the world.
"The best way for the Alberta government and energy companies to win the public relations battle over environmental concerns is through actions, not more public relations battles," he wrote last month.
The problem - for Alberta and now B.C. - is that there are real concerns about the costs of extracting the oil given current technology.
The oilsands - or tarsands as they used to be called - have vast amounts of oil mixed with sand. To make money, the companies have to scoop up the sand and process it with boiling water or steam. The oil, or bitumen, a precursor, is separated and can be sent off by pipeline. The nasty waste is pumped into giant tailing ponds or underground. (Yes, this is grossly oversimplified.)
Generating all that hot water and steam means burning lots of natural gas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found producing a barrel of oil from the Alberta sands resulted in 82 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel produced in the U.S.
Which means the oil might be shunned in U.S. and state climate-change plans.
Then there's a federal parliamentary committee on the environment, which has been looking at the oilsands. MPs from the four parties couldn't agree on a report. Liberal MPs have released their version, which found the Alberta government has failed to protect water quality and the health of First Nations.
The boycott campaign - Rethink Alberta - includes billboards in the U.S. and England showing oil-soaked ducks in a tailing pond and calling Alberta "the other oil disaster," comparing it with BP's Gulf spill.
It might not be fair, but that doesn't matter. The campaigns work unless governments move quickly and effectively to make their case.
And unless they make real changes to address legitimate concerns.
Alberta isn't doing either. And the B.C. tourism industry will pay the price.
Footnote: In a move reminiscent of the campaign over B.C. logging practices, the anti-oilsands forces are also pressuring U.S. companies to shun oilsands-based energy. The drugstore chain Walgrens has said it will switch fuel suppliers to avoid the Alberta product. The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss they'll look for non-oilsands energy.
Getting tough on crime means more dead women
Good Times Colonist column here on the latest wrinkle in the Conservatives' "get tough on crime" plans.
Running a bawdy house is now punishable by a sentence of up to two years; the government plans to impose a five-year minimum jail term.
Jody Paterson notes that the inevitable result would be to drive escorts and other sex-trade workers onto the streets � where Robert Pickton found his victims.
Running a bawdy house is now punishable by a sentence of up to two years; the government plans to impose a five-year minimum jail term.
Jody Paterson notes that the inevitable result would be to drive escorts and other sex-trade workers onto the streets � where Robert Pickton found his victims.
An ex-officer's perspective on the Pickton case
Bob Cooper is a retired Vancouver police officer who walked a beat, worked in the Asian organized crime section and the homicide squad.
He is not much optimistic about the promise of a review of the Pickton investigation promised by acting solicitor general Rich Coleman.
"Aside from the irony of a Liberal cabinet minister using the word �transparent�, it�s well known in law enforcement that as long as Gordon Campbell is premier the re-signing of the RCMP�s contract in 2012 is a foregone conclusion and Victoria doesn�t want anything rocking that boat. A �transparent review� will take forever to set up and even longer to run its course. This scores the government political points for calling it and buys them time while allowing them to deflect any questions about the case."
I recommend reading the rest of his blog post here.
He is not much optimistic about the promise of a review of the Pickton investigation promised by acting solicitor general Rich Coleman.
"Aside from the irony of a Liberal cabinet minister using the word �transparent�, it�s well known in law enforcement that as long as Gordon Campbell is premier the re-signing of the RCMP�s contract in 2012 is a foregone conclusion and Victoria doesn�t want anything rocking that boat. A �transparent review� will take forever to set up and even longer to run its course. This scores the government political points for calling it and buys them time while allowing them to deflect any questions about the case."
I recommend reading the rest of his blog post here.
Pickton, ministers' willful blindness and dumping the RCMP
The Vancouver Police Department's internal review of the Robert Pickton investigation is grim reading.
Deputy chief Doug LePard sets out - over 400-plus pages - an unblinking look at the failures, mistakes and conflicts that allowed Pickton to keep on killing years after he should have been caught. Long enough, in fact, to have killed another 13 women.
The report was completed four years ago. It couldn't be released publicly then, as Pickton's jury trial wasn't concluded.
But the findings were so important, then Vancouver chief Jamie Graham tried to share the report with John Les, the solicitor general.
Les refused.
Last year, current Vancouver chief Jimmy Chu set out to alert the government once again. He offered Kash Heed, the solicitor general at the time, a copy of the report and a briefing.
Heed said no.
The ministers' almost identical responses said they didn't want to know about the report because the matter was before the courts.
That's ridiculous. Pickton's right to a fair trial would not be affected if the solicitor general, responsible for policing, read a report on problems with the investigation. There is nothing in the law or tradition that says government ministers must remain ignorant about serious public policy issues because a trial is underway.
Especially when their willful blindness puts the public at risk.
LePard's report sets out police missteps and failures. The Vancouver department was slow to take an interest in the reports that women were disappearing from Vancouver's rougher streets and refused to accept the evidence that serial killer was at work. Petty internal rivalries undermined efforts to investigate.
And the report concludes the fragmented policing structure in the Lower Mainland helped allow Pickton to keep killing. The victims were from Vancouver; the murders were on his farm in Coquitlam.
As evidence against Pickton increased, Vancouver police asked the Coquitlam RCMP to co-operate in a joint investigation. The Mounties said no.
The report found the RCMP detachment let the file languish for months and failed to move the investigation forward.
When the RCMP's provincial unsolved homicide unit became involved, its officers decided that the information from a key witness wasn't credible. But they had no reason for the decision, LePard notes. "Personalities or opinions about credibility without supporting evidence should never have derailed a murder investigation," he reports. "Neither that opinion nor the lack of resources in the Coquitlam RCMP detachment should have been sufficient to derail an investigation when the allegations were so serious."
The bizarre policing structure in the Lower Mainland - and in the capital region - have been identified as problems for years. Heed, as West Vancouver chief, called for a regional force to combat organized crime. (Les, as solicitor general, called Heed's boss, the mayor, to complain about the comments.)
Yet the government has resisted change. Surely, the report would have helped it make an informed policy decision.
At the same time, the government has been pushing ahead on a new 20-year contract with the RCMP for policing in the province. The current deal expires in 2012.
Again, surely the information in the report - which the ministers refused to read - should have been considered in that process.
The Vancouver police department review was released after Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines obtained a leaked copy. The government had hoped to stall release until next month. (Kines's work on the missing women with the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist has been an example of journalism at its best.)
That reporting forced acting Solicitor General Rich Coleman to promise some sort of review. The government had up until then refused to commit to an inquiry.
But Coleman dismissed the Vancouver police report as "finger-pointing." (Which suggests he could not have read it.)
It's just one side of the story, he said.
Perhaps the RCMP review of the investigation, completed eight years ago, does have other, useful information.
But it remains secret, which says much about the force's sense of its accountability to British Columbians.
Footnote: A shift away from the RCMP to a provincial force would be difficult. But the Mounties' problems have been well documented even before the failures in the Pickton investigation. Officers are employed, and rewarded or punished, by the national force, not by a provincial or municipal police department. They do not even accept the provincial police complaints process.
Deputy chief Doug LePard sets out - over 400-plus pages - an unblinking look at the failures, mistakes and conflicts that allowed Pickton to keep on killing years after he should have been caught. Long enough, in fact, to have killed another 13 women.
The report was completed four years ago. It couldn't be released publicly then, as Pickton's jury trial wasn't concluded.
But the findings were so important, then Vancouver chief Jamie Graham tried to share the report with John Les, the solicitor general.
Les refused.
Last year, current Vancouver chief Jimmy Chu set out to alert the government once again. He offered Kash Heed, the solicitor general at the time, a copy of the report and a briefing.
Heed said no.
The ministers' almost identical responses said they didn't want to know about the report because the matter was before the courts.
That's ridiculous. Pickton's right to a fair trial would not be affected if the solicitor general, responsible for policing, read a report on problems with the investigation. There is nothing in the law or tradition that says government ministers must remain ignorant about serious public policy issues because a trial is underway.
Especially when their willful blindness puts the public at risk.
LePard's report sets out police missteps and failures. The Vancouver department was slow to take an interest in the reports that women were disappearing from Vancouver's rougher streets and refused to accept the evidence that serial killer was at work. Petty internal rivalries undermined efforts to investigate.
And the report concludes the fragmented policing structure in the Lower Mainland helped allow Pickton to keep killing. The victims were from Vancouver; the murders were on his farm in Coquitlam.
As evidence against Pickton increased, Vancouver police asked the Coquitlam RCMP to co-operate in a joint investigation. The Mounties said no.
The report found the RCMP detachment let the file languish for months and failed to move the investigation forward.
When the RCMP's provincial unsolved homicide unit became involved, its officers decided that the information from a key witness wasn't credible. But they had no reason for the decision, LePard notes. "Personalities or opinions about credibility without supporting evidence should never have derailed a murder investigation," he reports. "Neither that opinion nor the lack of resources in the Coquitlam RCMP detachment should have been sufficient to derail an investigation when the allegations were so serious."
The bizarre policing structure in the Lower Mainland - and in the capital region - have been identified as problems for years. Heed, as West Vancouver chief, called for a regional force to combat organized crime. (Les, as solicitor general, called Heed's boss, the mayor, to complain about the comments.)
Yet the government has resisted change. Surely, the report would have helped it make an informed policy decision.
At the same time, the government has been pushing ahead on a new 20-year contract with the RCMP for policing in the province. The current deal expires in 2012.
Again, surely the information in the report - which the ministers refused to read - should have been considered in that process.
The Vancouver police department review was released after Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines obtained a leaked copy. The government had hoped to stall release until next month. (Kines's work on the missing women with the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist has been an example of journalism at its best.)
That reporting forced acting Solicitor General Rich Coleman to promise some sort of review. The government had up until then refused to commit to an inquiry.
But Coleman dismissed the Vancouver police report as "finger-pointing." (Which suggests he could not have read it.)
It's just one side of the story, he said.
Perhaps the RCMP review of the investigation, completed eight years ago, does have other, useful information.
But it remains secret, which says much about the force's sense of its accountability to British Columbians.
Footnote: A shift away from the RCMP to a provincial force would be difficult. But the Mounties' problems have been well documented even before the failures in the Pickton investigation. Officers are employed, and rewarded or punished, by the national force, not by a provincial or municipal police department. They do not even accept the provincial police complaints process.
Why Campbell is likely to leave soon
Jordan Bateman is a Langley Township councillor and active Liberal party member. (He's president of Rich Coleman's riding association.)
So his suggestion that Gordon Campbell will announce his departure soon � perhaps before the party's November convention in Pentiction - is worth reading here.
So his suggestion that Gordon Campbell will announce his departure soon � perhaps before the party's November convention in Pentiction - is worth reading here.
Court turfs business HST challenge; more Liberal bad news
The big business attempt to derail the anti-HST initiative was an amazing bungle.
The six business associations made things worse for the Liberals by launching the last-minute legal challenge to the petition signed by some 705,000 British Columbians.
And B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman quickly dismissed their arguments Friday, ruling that the anti-HST effort "complies with the spirit and the letter" of the initiative legislation.
Bauman noted Premier Gordon Campbell had even described the initiative petition as "a victory for democracy." (Which, naturally, raises questions about what the business groups were attempting to achieve.)
It was a thorough slapdown for the legal challenge.
Lawyers for the business groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - argued the Chief Electoral Officer should never have approved the initiative.
Initiatives can only be launched on issues within provincial jurisdiction. The HST was imposed by the federal government and isn't a provincial tax at all, the business groups argued. The draft bill extinguishing the tax, part of the initiative process, was therefore fatally flawed.
Leave aside the legal issues for a second and just consider the argument based on common sense. The federal government says it didn't bring the HST. The business groups are arguing the provincial government didn't bring it in either. A new tax, apparently, just happened - maybe the tax fairy brought it.
Bauman rejected the argument on legal grounds. There might be constitutional problems in repealing the tax, he agreed.
But the standard set out in the initiative act is simply that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the province. Bauman noted the draft bill calls for the cancellation of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
That's the agreement to introduce the tax and, he noted, it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
The business groups also argued the draft bill that would end the HST wasn't clear enough. Bauman said that just wasn't true.
It was a rout. All the business groups succeeded in doing was angering many members of the public, who objected to an attempt to subvert a successful grassroots democratic effort. (One lauded by the premier, remember.) And they reminded people that businesses are paying $1.9 billion less in taxes under the HST, while individuals and families are paying $1.9 billion more.
None of this means the tax will be repealed.
The anti-HST effort now goes to the legislative initiatives committee, which has six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats. The committee has 90 days to choose one of two courses.
It can pass the draft bill to repeal the tax on to the legislature. The government is free to ignore it, amend it or use its majority to vote it down.
Or it can send the measure to a province-wide referendum in September 2011.
That might be appealing in some ways. The standards for success in a referendum are daunting. To pass, the anti-HST side would need the support of more than 50 per cent of registered voters across the province and in at least two-thirds of riding.
The key words there are "registered voters." It's not a question of getting a majority of the people who turn out to vote; it has to be a more than 50 per cent of those on the voters' list. Those who don't show up - about 45 per cent in the 2009 election - would be counted as supporting the HST.
And even if the anti-HST side is successful, the result isn't binding.
There are no good choices for the Liberals.
Assuming they won't retreat on the tax, public anger will continue and recall campaigns will soon be launched against vulnerable MLAs.
The Campbell government has dug a very deep hole for itself.
Footnote: The initiatives committee is chaired by Terry Lake, a first-term Liberal MLA from Kamloops. The other Liberals are Eric Foster and John Slater from the Okanagan, Pat Pimm of Peace River North and Richard Lee and Dave Hayer from the Lower Mainland.
The New Democrats are Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth from the Lower Mainland, Katrine Conroy from Kootenay West and Rob Fleming from Victoria.
The Liberals should start worrying about how the committee process is going to go.
The six business associations made things worse for the Liberals by launching the last-minute legal challenge to the petition signed by some 705,000 British Columbians.
And B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman quickly dismissed their arguments Friday, ruling that the anti-HST effort "complies with the spirit and the letter" of the initiative legislation.
Bauman noted Premier Gordon Campbell had even described the initiative petition as "a victory for democracy." (Which, naturally, raises questions about what the business groups were attempting to achieve.)
It was a thorough slapdown for the legal challenge.
Lawyers for the business groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - argued the Chief Electoral Officer should never have approved the initiative.
Initiatives can only be launched on issues within provincial jurisdiction. The HST was imposed by the federal government and isn't a provincial tax at all, the business groups argued. The draft bill extinguishing the tax, part of the initiative process, was therefore fatally flawed.
Leave aside the legal issues for a second and just consider the argument based on common sense. The federal government says it didn't bring the HST. The business groups are arguing the provincial government didn't bring it in either. A new tax, apparently, just happened - maybe the tax fairy brought it.
Bauman rejected the argument on legal grounds. There might be constitutional problems in repealing the tax, he agreed.
But the standard set out in the initiative act is simply that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the province. Bauman noted the draft bill calls for the cancellation of the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
That's the agreement to introduce the tax and, he noted, it's clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
The business groups also argued the draft bill that would end the HST wasn't clear enough. Bauman said that just wasn't true.
It was a rout. All the business groups succeeded in doing was angering many members of the public, who objected to an attempt to subvert a successful grassroots democratic effort. (One lauded by the premier, remember.) And they reminded people that businesses are paying $1.9 billion less in taxes under the HST, while individuals and families are paying $1.9 billion more.
None of this means the tax will be repealed.
The anti-HST effort now goes to the legislative initiatives committee, which has six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats. The committee has 90 days to choose one of two courses.
It can pass the draft bill to repeal the tax on to the legislature. The government is free to ignore it, amend it or use its majority to vote it down.
Or it can send the measure to a province-wide referendum in September 2011.
That might be appealing in some ways. The standards for success in a referendum are daunting. To pass, the anti-HST side would need the support of more than 50 per cent of registered voters across the province and in at least two-thirds of riding.
The key words there are "registered voters." It's not a question of getting a majority of the people who turn out to vote; it has to be a more than 50 per cent of those on the voters' list. Those who don't show up - about 45 per cent in the 2009 election - would be counted as supporting the HST.
And even if the anti-HST side is successful, the result isn't binding.
There are no good choices for the Liberals.
Assuming they won't retreat on the tax, public anger will continue and recall campaigns will soon be launched against vulnerable MLAs.
The Campbell government has dug a very deep hole for itself.
Footnote: The initiatives committee is chaired by Terry Lake, a first-term Liberal MLA from Kamloops. The other Liberals are Eric Foster and John Slater from the Okanagan, Pat Pimm of Peace River North and Richard Lee and Dave Hayer from the Lower Mainland.
The New Democrats are Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth from the Lower Mainland, Katrine Conroy from Kootenay West and Rob Fleming from Victoria.
The Liberals should start worrying about how the committee process is going to go.
Liberals set scene for Elections B.C. controversy
The controversy over interim Chief Electoral Officer Craig James�s decision on the anti-HST initiative is another self-inflicted wound for the Liberals.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I�m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have �enormous respect� for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries � think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush�s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn�t even allowed to vote � the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer�s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren�t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn�t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn�t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent�s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn�t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It�s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee�s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn�t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
It raises questions, again, about why the Campbell government seems to be fumbling so many issues.
James has been much abused for deciding not to send the legislation rescinding the HST to a legislative committee even though opponents of the tax gathered the required signatures on their petition. Unsupported accusations of partisanship and political interference have been flying around.
I�m not sure James made the correct decision, but see no evidence of a political agenda.
James has been clerk of committees at the legislature for more than two decades, working closely with NDP and Liberal governments and MLAs from all parties. He is also, in my experience, a nice guy and in 10 years in the Press Gallery I never saw a hint of partisanship or sneakiness or anything but quality public service. The New Democrats have stated they have �enormous respect� for James.
But the Liberals put him in this mess and created the perception of possible political interference. And it was unnecessary.
The critical qualities in a chief electoral officer are competence, non-partisanship and absolute independence. Otherwise, the risks of real and perceived election-rigging undermine democracy.
Not just in developing countries � think back to the recounts and hanging chads and protracted political wrangling that led to George W. Bush�s election as U.S. president in 2000. That kind of scenario is highly unlikely here.
The Election Act sets strict rules to ensure independence and guard against partisan appointments. The Chief Electoral Officer isn�t even allowed to vote � the only citizen, as far as I know, ordered to forego that right.
More significantly, candidates for electoral officer�s job must be the unanimous choice of a legislative committee of government and opposition MLAs and approved by a vote in the legislature before being appointed by the lieutenant governor.
And they serve fixed terms, to ensure the threat of firing does not affect their decisions.
But James is an acting chief electoral officer. He was appointed by the Liberal government. The New Democrats complained they weren�t adequately consulted.
The legislative guarantees of independence and non-partisanship have been subverted, no matter who is in the job.
There was no reason for the Liberals to create this problem. The Chief Electoral Officer, remember, serves a fixed term. He or she oversees two elections; one year after the second one, the appointment ends.
So the Liberals have known, literally since the day former electoral officer Harry Neufeld started work in 2002, that his term would end in June of this year and a replacement would be needed.
But they things slide. Maybe they were thinking about re-appointing Neufeld until he delivered an unfavourable decision barring a taxpayer-funded pro-HST ad campaign during the petition drive.
Or maybe the government has just lost its grip on things.
The government told Neufeld in April he wouldn�t be re-appointed.
But the all-party committee responsible for finding a new chief electoral officer wasn�t created by the government until May 6. It has met once, for less than an hour, and has no meetings scheduled.
The legislature, which has to vote on the eventual choice, is not scheduled to meet until next spring.
That means, potentially, almost a year with an interim chief electoral officer, appointed by the party in power.
A year in which highly controversial issues about recall campaigns and the anti-HST initiative will emerge.
A year of questions about the independence and political neutrality of Elections B.C., unfair or not.
The Liberals were elected in part because voters wanted competence.
But a competent government would have looked ahead and ensured a new chief electoral officer was ready to take over when the incumbent�s fixed term ended.
The Liberals didn�t do that. And they and, unfortunately, James are taking a beating as a result.
Footnote: The delay will continue to hurt the Liberals. It�s likely the legislature will have to be recalled to vote on the committee�s recommendation this fall. That will give New Democrats a chance to question cabinet ministers in a host of topics for at least a few days.
And it will let them point out all the issues the legislature could be dealing with if the government wasn�t determined to keep the sitting as brief as possible.
HST mess gets worse for the Liberals
Big business groups in B.C. are the NDP's best allies right now.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Just when the Liberals thought the anti-HST anger might be fading, six big business associations have got voters riled up again.
The groups - the Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of B.C., Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Western Convenience Stores Association, Coast Forest Products Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce - want the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the anti-HST petition invalid.
They filed a legal challenge one day before the proponents delivered petitions with 700,000 names calling for the tax to be rescinded.
The challenge, along with a counter argument from opponents that the HST itself is illegal because the legislature never approved it, are being heard in B.C. Supreme Court this week. Chief Justice Robert Bauman will decide the merits of the arguments.
But the Liberals have already been badly hurt, no matter what Bauman decides.
The government had decided people's anger was easing. That's why Finance Minister Colin Hansen took the heat for dumping 1.6 million pro-HST flyers in the garbage. Being criticized for waste was considered better than sending out brochures reminding people about the new tax.
But the legal challenges and resulting complications have fuelled new anger about the tax and the way it was introduced.
For starters, the business groups' lawsuit is a reminder that they're the big winners with the HST.
Companies get to pay $1.9 billion less in taxes. Families and individuals will pay an extra $1.9 billion to pay for the break for the business community.
And the case reinforces some voters' impression idea that the Liberals place the interests of companies ahead of the citizens. That suspicion is heightened by the six groups $380,000 in political contributions to the Liberals since 2001. (Their members have contributed millions more.)
Things got even worse for the government after Elections B.C.'s fumbled its handling of the anti-HST initiative. It finished a review of the petitions and concluded the opponents had the required signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in all 85 ridings.
But interim chief electoral officer Craig James decided he would not send the petition and proposed legislation to rescind the tax to a committee of MLAs, the next step in the process, until after the court cases are resolved.
Worse, James refused to provide a public explanation for the decision until this week, when he responded to a letter from NDP MLA Leonard Krog.
James said he sought independent legal advice. The lawyer for the business groups also urged him not to send the initiative to the legislative committee, he noted.
The delay wouldn't be long, James concluded, and it would be prudent to sit on the petition until after a court decision.
It's a defensible argument, but not compelling.
The committee would not likely have been in any rush to deal with the issues until after the court rulings anyway. Simply passing on the initiative - which Elections B.C. had already approved - wouldn't undermine the independence of the courts.
Right or wrong, the decision ramped up public anger. The anti-HST forces had succeeded in getting more than 700,000 names on the petitions, meeting a standard many considered impossible.
Then not only did big business launch a legal attack, but Elections B.C. wouldn't send the initiative to the committee.
For a lot of voters, this started to look like their legitimate efforts to exercise their democratic rights were being thwarted. The rhetoric about political interference was over the top, but it reflected real anger.
The court case is expected to finish this week. Bauman will then rule on whether the HST was never properly passed by the legislature, as the opponents allege, and whether the anti-HST initiative is fatally flaws, as the business groups claim.
In the meantime, voter anger over the tax, the way it was introduced and the government's response is aboil once again.
Footnote: If the initiative goes ahead after the court challenges, the committee of MLAs has 90 days to send the issue back to Elections B.C. for a non-binding referendum or to send the bill rescinding the tax to the legislature. In either case, the Liberal majority can ultimately vote to defeat the legislation and keep the tax.
Which would mean, though, conceding the next election to the NDP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
