The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that laws around the sex trade targeting soliciting, bawdy houses and living off the avails are unconstitutional. They create added dangers for people - mostly women - in prostitution business, which is legal in Canada, the court found. And they have no offsetting broader public benefits.
Jody Paterson spent several years with PEERS, a non-profit supporting sex workers in Victoria. She set out why this is important in a fine column in the Times Colonist today.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Oppal a wretched choice for Pickton inquiry
The appointment of Wally Oppal to head the Pickton inquiry demonstrates this government's combination of arrogance and ineptitude.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Bringing market forces into the hospital
I headed into the local hospital for a quick day treatment in a clinic last week.
Two doctors were waiting to see a cluster of us. But the nurse who usually worked that clinic room was on holidays, which had been scheduled for some time.
The hospital hadn't arranged a replacement nurse. One doctor decided he couldn't work without nurse support. So half the patients were sent home to be scheduled for an appointment in another month or two.
That's a good example of the kind of problem the government hopes to fix with "patient-focused funding."
It makes sense. Now, the Health Ministry sets a budget and provides funds for the health authority. The authority allocates the money to different services, including hospitals, and decides how many surgeries, for example, it can do with the cash.
So there are no consequences for cancelling treatments because someone in the hospital didn't arrange a replacement nurse. The patients still have to come back. The hospital doesn't lose any funding.
Under patient-focused funding, that changes. The government holds back more of the block funding it once sent to health authorities. Hospitals and health authorities get paid a set amount per treatment on a per-patient basis.
Under that approach, the failure to get a nurse would be costly. Those cancelled treatments would mean lost revenue. So there would be an incentive to solve the problem.
Just as there would be an incentive to do things faster and at less cost, bringing in more revenue.
A hospital might decide to set up two adjacent operating rooms to do the same procedure, for example. While one patient is being operated on, another can be prepped for surgery. As soon as they're done, the teams switch places and the process starts again.
That would mean lower costs per patient. If the government were paying a set fee, the hospital or authority would have extra money for other projects.
It could even ask hospitals to bid for right to provide hip surgeries, for example, and pick the most cost-efficient.
There are catches, of course. The most obvious is the risk that corners will be cut. The B.C. Medical Association supports the idea, but wants safeguards to make sure cheap and fast doesn't take priority over patients' health and safety.
And the incentives, so far, aren't individual. It's hard to say if the person who didn't line up a replacement nurse would be motivated to act differently by the promise that the hospital would get more money as a result.
The bigger problem is likely that there are no real rewards for success.
The government is still rationing services. So even if a hospital is brilliant at some surgery, getting better results at a much lower cost, the Health Ministry will tell it to stop when the quota is done for the year.
Everyone involved can do great work, with no real reward.
There are solutions. The government, for example, could provide guarantees to medical service plan clients. Hip surgery in six months, or we fly to you to Seattle for the operation and pick up all the bills. Hospitals would know it was worth getting really good at hip replacement, because the ministry wouldn't want to fly patients to the U.S.
The whole initiative is just getting going. The government has set up a Health Services Purchasing Organization, headed by Dr. Les Vertesi (who is also Gordon Campbell's brother-in-law) to manage the process and is looking to have a large share of health spending managed this way.
By next year, the government hopes about $170 million will be taken out of health authority budgets to be spent by the purchasing organization.
There is another issue in all this, large enough to warrant a second column. Vertesi has been a strong advocate of a allowing a private health care alternative for people who can pay more for speedier treatment. And the patient-focused funding, Health Minister Kevin Falcon, could be used to buy services from private clinics.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does raise some serious questions, which I will look at in a future column.
Footnote: Falcon announced an extra $23 million in "patient-focused funding" for tests and surgeries. Up to 33,000 patients would benefit, he said. Which means the $800,000 the government spent on the pro-HST flyer it tossed in the garbage would have helped 1,150 patients on waiting lists.
Two doctors were waiting to see a cluster of us. But the nurse who usually worked that clinic room was on holidays, which had been scheduled for some time.
The hospital hadn't arranged a replacement nurse. One doctor decided he couldn't work without nurse support. So half the patients were sent home to be scheduled for an appointment in another month or two.
That's a good example of the kind of problem the government hopes to fix with "patient-focused funding."
It makes sense. Now, the Health Ministry sets a budget and provides funds for the health authority. The authority allocates the money to different services, including hospitals, and decides how many surgeries, for example, it can do with the cash.
So there are no consequences for cancelling treatments because someone in the hospital didn't arrange a replacement nurse. The patients still have to come back. The hospital doesn't lose any funding.
Under patient-focused funding, that changes. The government holds back more of the block funding it once sent to health authorities. Hospitals and health authorities get paid a set amount per treatment on a per-patient basis.
Under that approach, the failure to get a nurse would be costly. Those cancelled treatments would mean lost revenue. So there would be an incentive to solve the problem.
Just as there would be an incentive to do things faster and at less cost, bringing in more revenue.
A hospital might decide to set up two adjacent operating rooms to do the same procedure, for example. While one patient is being operated on, another can be prepped for surgery. As soon as they're done, the teams switch places and the process starts again.
That would mean lower costs per patient. If the government were paying a set fee, the hospital or authority would have extra money for other projects.
It could even ask hospitals to bid for right to provide hip surgeries, for example, and pick the most cost-efficient.
There are catches, of course. The most obvious is the risk that corners will be cut. The B.C. Medical Association supports the idea, but wants safeguards to make sure cheap and fast doesn't take priority over patients' health and safety.
And the incentives, so far, aren't individual. It's hard to say if the person who didn't line up a replacement nurse would be motivated to act differently by the promise that the hospital would get more money as a result.
The bigger problem is likely that there are no real rewards for success.
The government is still rationing services. So even if a hospital is brilliant at some surgery, getting better results at a much lower cost, the Health Ministry will tell it to stop when the quota is done for the year.
Everyone involved can do great work, with no real reward.
There are solutions. The government, for example, could provide guarantees to medical service plan clients. Hip surgery in six months, or we fly to you to Seattle for the operation and pick up all the bills. Hospitals would know it was worth getting really good at hip replacement, because the ministry wouldn't want to fly patients to the U.S.
The whole initiative is just getting going. The government has set up a Health Services Purchasing Organization, headed by Dr. Les Vertesi (who is also Gordon Campbell's brother-in-law) to manage the process and is looking to have a large share of health spending managed this way.
By next year, the government hopes about $170 million will be taken out of health authority budgets to be spent by the purchasing organization.
There is another issue in all this, large enough to warrant a second column. Vertesi has been a strong advocate of a allowing a private health care alternative for people who can pay more for speedier treatment. And the patient-focused funding, Health Minister Kevin Falcon, could be used to buy services from private clinics.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does raise some serious questions, which I will look at in a future column.
Footnote: Falcon announced an extra $23 million in "patient-focused funding" for tests and surgeries. Up to 33,000 patients would benefit, he said. Which means the $800,000 the government spent on the pro-HST flyer it tossed in the garbage would have helped 1,150 patients on waiting lists.
Honouring Sindi Hawkins
Former Liberal MLA Sindi Hawkins died today after a long battle with cancer, which she turned into an opportunity to raise awareness and money for cancer research and treatment.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
When did the government really decide to sell B.C. rail?
Interesting post (as is often the case) at pacificgazette.blogspot.com on the timing of the decision to sell B.C. Rail and, more specifically, on conflicts in the government's claims.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
How Campbell can ease recall's sting
Recall campaigns are ugly.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
Those B.C. Rail Canucks' tickets
It was probably just a sideshow in terms of the B.C. Rail trial.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
The cloud over Elections B.C.
The Times Colonist on Elections B.C.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
Campbell gambles with an HST flipflop
The twists and turns on the HST roller coaster are getting dizzying.
Premier Gordon Campbell delivered the latest sudden change of direction this week.
After insisting the harmonized sales tax is critical to the province�s future and maintaining that he was prepared to pay the political price for bringing it in, Campbell abruptly abandoned that tack.
The Liberals on the legislative committee considering the anti-HST petition rejected an NDP proposal to send the bill to the legislature immediately, one of two options allowed under the act.
Instead, it will go to a referendum next Sept. 24.
The Liberals had signalled they were leaning toward that option.
That appeared to mean the anti-HST effort was doomed.
Under the initiative act, a majority of all registered voters would have to vote to kill the tax for the initiative to go ahead - not a majority of those who voted.
That means some 1.5 million people would have to vote to axe the tax - more than the number who voted for the Liberals and New Democrats together in 2009.
And in the tiny event that the initiative passed, it would not be binding.
The tax, it seemed, was here to stay.
But hours after the committee made its decision, Campbell changed everything. "If people decide they want to get rid of the HST next September, then I guess we'll get rid of the HST next September," he said.
Campbell was more specific. If a simple majority of those who vote in the referendum next oppose the tax a year from now, his government will repeal it.
It�s a remarkable flip-flop and a significant gamble.
What prompted the change? Perhaps Liberals inside and outside caucus convinced Campbell that the party�s bungled handling of the tax - especially its insistence that voters were just to dim to know what was good for them - was doing massive damage.
Perhaps he�s looking to stall recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs by arguing that the public will get a say on the tax.
Certainly Campbell is counting on being able to sell the benefits of the HST - and the complications of removing it - over the next 12 months.
That�s not a sure thing. The Liberals� actions in bringing in the tax won�t soon be forgotten.
And there is a risk that the effort to sell the tax - with taxpayers� money or the support of business groups - will backfire.
Meanwhile, expect the political squabbling to continue. Bill Vander Zalm, the anti-HST champion, wants Campbell to bring back the legislature and give his commitments the force of law by amending the initiatives act.
Concerns are already being raised about the referendum question and whether Elections B.C. or cabinet gets to draft it. It�s unclear whether a mail ballot - cost about $12 million - or a polling station approach - cost about $30 million - will be used.
Economically, the uncertainty is bad news. Will a homeowner considering a major renovation start the work next spring or put it off to see if the HST is defeated, cutting the cost significantly?
Companies considering an investment now have no way of knowing what taxes they would pay in the province.
And all this will keep the damaging issue front and centre for another year, taking the Liberals that much closer to the 2013 election.
The change of position on the HST smacks of desperation. But that�s not surprising. Campbell and the Liberals are desperate.
And many are likely realizing how much of this damage is self-inflicted. Rejecting the tax in the election campaign, starting work on introducing it days after the vote, failing to consult anyone, wasting $800,000 on pro-HST flyers and then throwing them in the garbage - it�s been a gong show.
The referendum might buy the Liberals some time. It�s not likely to write them a happy ending to this story.
Footnote: The government got $1.6 billion from the federal government to bring in the HST, which would have to be returned if the tax is killed. About $1.4 billion is budgeted for this year and next. The government would be prudent to remove that money from its budget plans until after the referendum, especially given projections of a smaller-than-expected deficit.
Premier Gordon Campbell delivered the latest sudden change of direction this week.
After insisting the harmonized sales tax is critical to the province�s future and maintaining that he was prepared to pay the political price for bringing it in, Campbell abruptly abandoned that tack.
The Liberals on the legislative committee considering the anti-HST petition rejected an NDP proposal to send the bill to the legislature immediately, one of two options allowed under the act.
Instead, it will go to a referendum next Sept. 24.
The Liberals had signalled they were leaning toward that option.
That appeared to mean the anti-HST effort was doomed.
Under the initiative act, a majority of all registered voters would have to vote to kill the tax for the initiative to go ahead - not a majority of those who voted.
That means some 1.5 million people would have to vote to axe the tax - more than the number who voted for the Liberals and New Democrats together in 2009.
And in the tiny event that the initiative passed, it would not be binding.
The tax, it seemed, was here to stay.
But hours after the committee made its decision, Campbell changed everything. "If people decide they want to get rid of the HST next September, then I guess we'll get rid of the HST next September," he said.
Campbell was more specific. If a simple majority of those who vote in the referendum next oppose the tax a year from now, his government will repeal it.
It�s a remarkable flip-flop and a significant gamble.
What prompted the change? Perhaps Liberals inside and outside caucus convinced Campbell that the party�s bungled handling of the tax - especially its insistence that voters were just to dim to know what was good for them - was doing massive damage.
Perhaps he�s looking to stall recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs by arguing that the public will get a say on the tax.
Certainly Campbell is counting on being able to sell the benefits of the HST - and the complications of removing it - over the next 12 months.
That�s not a sure thing. The Liberals� actions in bringing in the tax won�t soon be forgotten.
And there is a risk that the effort to sell the tax - with taxpayers� money or the support of business groups - will backfire.
Meanwhile, expect the political squabbling to continue. Bill Vander Zalm, the anti-HST champion, wants Campbell to bring back the legislature and give his commitments the force of law by amending the initiatives act.
Concerns are already being raised about the referendum question and whether Elections B.C. or cabinet gets to draft it. It�s unclear whether a mail ballot - cost about $12 million - or a polling station approach - cost about $30 million - will be used.
Economically, the uncertainty is bad news. Will a homeowner considering a major renovation start the work next spring or put it off to see if the HST is defeated, cutting the cost significantly?
Companies considering an investment now have no way of knowing what taxes they would pay in the province.
And all this will keep the damaging issue front and centre for another year, taking the Liberals that much closer to the 2013 election.
The change of position on the HST smacks of desperation. But that�s not surprising. Campbell and the Liberals are desperate.
And many are likely realizing how much of this damage is self-inflicted. Rejecting the tax in the election campaign, starting work on introducing it days after the vote, failing to consult anyone, wasting $800,000 on pro-HST flyers and then throwing them in the garbage - it�s been a gong show.
The referendum might buy the Liberals some time. It�s not likely to write them a happy ending to this story.
Footnote: The government got $1.6 billion from the federal government to bring in the HST, which would have to be returned if the tax is killed. About $1.4 billion is budgeted for this year and next. The government would be prudent to remove that money from its budget plans until after the referendum, especially given projections of a smaller-than-expected deficit.
Nine years after 9/11
And I think the column I wrote on the first anniversary stands up.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
A licence to extend the state's power
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attack on the World Trade Centre one year ago.
Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.
And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state - and even war.
It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Centre was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died too.
The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.
Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.
Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always.
And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.
The state - Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq - always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier - surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.
For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.
Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But after last Sept. 11 Ottawa introduced a $24-per-ticket security surcharge, taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and wounding regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone will be enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.
The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.
And now the U.S. government is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)
Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells). Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches - all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.
Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may someday do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.
Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.
We will betray our past and our future if instead we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
A licence to extend the state's power
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attack on the World Trade Centre one year ago.
Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.
And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state - and even war.
It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Centre was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died too.
The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.
Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.
Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always.
And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.
The state - Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq - always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier - surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.
For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.
Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But after last Sept. 11 Ottawa introduced a $24-per-ticket security surcharge, taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and wounding regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone will be enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.
The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.
And now the U.S. government is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)
Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells). Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches - all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.
Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may someday do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.
Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.
We will betray our past and our future if instead we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.
Liberals might risk HST referendum
It actually appears the Liberals are seriously considering sending the anti-HST initiative to a provincewide vote next year.
And that seems a remarkably dangerous way to handle an issue that has already done such damage.
The initiative, with its bill to rescind the harmonized sales tax, has made it to the legislative initiatives committee.
The committee - composed of six Liberal and four New Democrat MLAs - has two choices. They can send the bill to the legislature or send it to a provincewide vote Sept. 24, 2011.
In either case, the government doesn't have to actually repeal the tax or even call a vote on the bill. The provincial vote on the tax wouldn't be binding. The bill to eliminate the HST could be left on the order paper or, if the government chose, voted down.
The committee met for the first time Wednesday, in what appeared to be a fairly bumbling start to the process.
The New Democrats were quick to move the bill be sent to the legislature for consideration this fall.
The Liberals said the motion was too hasty. They needed more information on the options, especially on a referendum, the Liberals said.
What would it cost? Could other questions be added to the ballot.
And they proposed compiling a list of questions which the committee's clerk would ask Elections B.C. She would then report on the answers.
The New Democrats thought that inefficient. What if the response raised other questions, they asked?
They proposed just inviting acting Chief Electoral Officer Craig James to answer questions at the next meeting.
Liberal Terry Lake, elected to chair the group, wasn't sure if the committee was allowed to do that. After about 45 minutes of confusion, it was agreed the committee could indeed invite James. (That does seem like the kind of basic question that could have been sorted out in advance.)
That suggested the Liberals believe a referendum might be a good idea. Lake reinforced that view in comments outside the committee room. The anti-HST petition was only signed by 19 per cent of registered voters, he said, and many were misled into supporting the initiative. A referendum might reflect the public will more accurately. (Finance Minister Colin Hansen later used the same talking points.)
It's a risky argument. After all, the Liberals were elected with the support of 26 per cent of registered voters. And the referendum is certain to irk many of the 575,000 people who signed the petitions.
The thinking, according to those in the Liberal camp, is that by the time the referendum is held the anger over the HST will have eased and people will have come to understand the tax is good for them.
And to kill the tax, the anti-HST side would have to get the support of 50 per cent of registered voters - close to 1.5 million votes, or about twice the number the Liberals got in 2009.
So the vote would fail and people would accept the HST and move on.
That could be a serious miscalculation. The anger is not directed just at the tax. Many people believe the government has been arrogant and dishonest in implementing it.
A referendum - at a cost of at least $10 million and likely significantly more - isn't going to reduce that anger. Rather, it will help fuel it as the 2013 election grows closer.
And in the meantime, recall campaigns will likely begin against some Liberal MLAs in November. The Liberals know how disruptive and distracting those campaigns are, based on Kevin Falcon's "Total recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999.
The committee is to meet Monday, hopefully with a representative from Elections B.C., to consider options.
There is no good way for the Liberals to escape this morass.
But keeping the anger alive for another year, through recall efforts and a referendum campaign, seems like a very bad choice.
Footnote: Liberal cabinet ministers all offered great support for Premier Gordon Campbell on their way into a meeting last week. But cracks are starting to appear in the party's base. The skill - or lack of it - in handling the issue in committee will be a factor in quieting or fuelling calls for a change at the top.
And that seems a remarkably dangerous way to handle an issue that has already done such damage.
The initiative, with its bill to rescind the harmonized sales tax, has made it to the legislative initiatives committee.
The committee - composed of six Liberal and four New Democrat MLAs - has two choices. They can send the bill to the legislature or send it to a provincewide vote Sept. 24, 2011.
In either case, the government doesn't have to actually repeal the tax or even call a vote on the bill. The provincial vote on the tax wouldn't be binding. The bill to eliminate the HST could be left on the order paper or, if the government chose, voted down.
The committee met for the first time Wednesday, in what appeared to be a fairly bumbling start to the process.
The New Democrats were quick to move the bill be sent to the legislature for consideration this fall.
The Liberals said the motion was too hasty. They needed more information on the options, especially on a referendum, the Liberals said.
What would it cost? Could other questions be added to the ballot.
And they proposed compiling a list of questions which the committee's clerk would ask Elections B.C. She would then report on the answers.
The New Democrats thought that inefficient. What if the response raised other questions, they asked?
They proposed just inviting acting Chief Electoral Officer Craig James to answer questions at the next meeting.
Liberal Terry Lake, elected to chair the group, wasn't sure if the committee was allowed to do that. After about 45 minutes of confusion, it was agreed the committee could indeed invite James. (That does seem like the kind of basic question that could have been sorted out in advance.)
That suggested the Liberals believe a referendum might be a good idea. Lake reinforced that view in comments outside the committee room. The anti-HST petition was only signed by 19 per cent of registered voters, he said, and many were misled into supporting the initiative. A referendum might reflect the public will more accurately. (Finance Minister Colin Hansen later used the same talking points.)
It's a risky argument. After all, the Liberals were elected with the support of 26 per cent of registered voters. And the referendum is certain to irk many of the 575,000 people who signed the petitions.
The thinking, according to those in the Liberal camp, is that by the time the referendum is held the anger over the HST will have eased and people will have come to understand the tax is good for them.
And to kill the tax, the anti-HST side would have to get the support of 50 per cent of registered voters - close to 1.5 million votes, or about twice the number the Liberals got in 2009.
So the vote would fail and people would accept the HST and move on.
That could be a serious miscalculation. The anger is not directed just at the tax. Many people believe the government has been arrogant and dishonest in implementing it.
A referendum - at a cost of at least $10 million and likely significantly more - isn't going to reduce that anger. Rather, it will help fuel it as the 2013 election grows closer.
And in the meantime, recall campaigns will likely begin against some Liberal MLAs in November. The Liberals know how disruptive and distracting those campaigns are, based on Kevin Falcon's "Total recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999.
The committee is to meet Monday, hopefully with a representative from Elections B.C., to consider options.
There is no good way for the Liberals to escape this morass.
But keeping the anger alive for another year, through recall efforts and a referendum campaign, seems like a very bad choice.
Footnote: Liberal cabinet ministers all offered great support for Premier Gordon Campbell on their way into a meeting last week. But cracks are starting to appear in the party's base. The skill - or lack of it - in handling the issue in committee will be a factor in quieting or fuelling calls for a change at the top.
The RCMP is betting $1 billion against a move to a provincial police force
The government's major project inventory report is a useful look at big capital projects being built or considered.
The news releases always go a little overboard - the latest one celebrates $198 billion in projects "planned or underway." Planned is a bit of overstatement; the list includes, for example, a gravel quarry near Port Alberni that has been counted in the inventory since 2004 without moving out of the planned category.
Still, it's a valuable snapshot.
The latest release also notes that the largest project underway is the "the $966-million RCMP E-Division Headquarters in Surrey." The building is a private-public partnership. The private partners get almost $1 billion and agree to build the centre and maintain it for 25 years.
But the RCMP wouldn't need 2,700 people in its B.C. headquarters if it wasn't delivering municipal and regional police services across the province. Which suggests the force is very confident the the government will sign another 20-year contract when the current agreement expires in 2012
The news releases always go a little overboard - the latest one celebrates $198 billion in projects "planned or underway." Planned is a bit of overstatement; the list includes, for example, a gravel quarry near Port Alberni that has been counted in the inventory since 2004 without moving out of the planned category.
Still, it's a valuable snapshot.
The latest release also notes that the largest project underway is the "the $966-million RCMP E-Division Headquarters in Surrey." The building is a private-public partnership. The private partners get almost $1 billion and agree to build the centre and maintain it for 25 years.
But the RCMP wouldn't need 2,700 people in its B.C. headquarters if it wasn't delivering municipal and regional police services across the province. Which suggests the force is very confident the the government will sign another 20-year contract when the current agreement expires in 2012
The HST debacle wouldn't happen in a functioning democracy
It would be useful if the HST debacle convinced all parties to question giving their leaders so much power.
Some Liberals are now publicly saying Premier Gordon Campbell has to go quickly. A mandatory leadership vote, now underway at meetings of Liberal riding associations, might add to the pressure.
Campbell has said he might try to lead the Liberals into the next election in 2013.
But his time is over, thanks mainly to the HST and the way it was introduced. And the Liberal party's future is bleak.
I wonder it this could have been avoided if so much power wasn't concentrated in the premier's office.
The first step toward the HST came when the Liberals tabled a pre-election budget forecasting a $495-million deficit.
It was never credible. And it was a huge leap from past conservative budgets.
But Campbell, through the election campaign, insisted the deficit would not rise above that projection. (Although Finance Ministry officials warned him during the campaign that the budget was unravelling.)
There is a lot of experience and knowledge shared among the 48 Liberal MLAs. Given a chance, some of them might have suggested it would be a mistake to campaign on dubious deficit projection. They might have raised good questions about revenue forecasts.
It doesn't work that way.
After the election, Campbell accepted reality. But he maintains he was still shocked and sent Finance Ministry officials to find ways to reduce the growing deficit.
And they came up with signing for the HST and getting $1.6 billion from Ottawa as an incentive.
Great, Campbell said.
Sure, the party had said it would not introduce a harmonized sales tax during the election campaign. It had reports suggesting long-term benefits, but warning of job and wage losses for more than five years.
And the ministry briefing noted that the tax could be controversial. The HST shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families. That's the equivalent of a 28-per-cent across the board personal income tax increase.
Again, if Campbell had submitted the new tax idea to the other 47 Liberal MLAs for discussion, perhaps some concerns would be raised. They might suggest their constituents wouldn't be so keen on the tax. That perhaps it would be best to do some consultations and analysis before plunging ahead.
That, as Hansen said during the election campaign, "it's clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on."
But the MLAs never had the chance to raise those concerns. Campbell told the caucus the government was imposing the HST on July 21 - less than 48 hours before the public was told.
The MLAs, representing voters across the province, weren't asked what they thought or given time to consider how the new tax would affect the ridings.
They were told the decision had been made and their job was to defend it. Trust in the wisdom and experience of your leaders.
Good luck, little campers.
And so the Liberal MLAs marched out into an angry public backlash and the threat of recall to defend a tax policy they had absolutely role in introducing.
Leave aside the HST for the moment.
There is something wrong when any major, controversial policy can be imposed without a meaningful discussion involving those elected to represent the public.
No taxation without representation, the British colonists complained in the 18th century, before the American Revolution. No taxes or levies unless they were approved by elected representatives of the people who would pay.
Some 250 years later, British Columbians might have the same complaint. The HST was not really imposed with the consent of those elected to represent the people.
The premier decided. The Liberal MLAs voted as instructed. The New Democrats MLAs all voted no.
Such a waste of peoples' talents and judgment. Such a waste of a democratic system that could offer so much more.
Footnote: Liberal MLAs are apparently happy with Campbell's leadership. But others in the party are suggesting the premier should announce he's stepping down before the Liberal convention in Pentiction Nov. 19-20, in part to avoid getting bad news from a leadership confidence vote being held by constituency associations at pre-convention meetings. (The party's constitution requires the vote.)
Some Liberals are now publicly saying Premier Gordon Campbell has to go quickly. A mandatory leadership vote, now underway at meetings of Liberal riding associations, might add to the pressure.
Campbell has said he might try to lead the Liberals into the next election in 2013.
But his time is over, thanks mainly to the HST and the way it was introduced. And the Liberal party's future is bleak.
I wonder it this could have been avoided if so much power wasn't concentrated in the premier's office.
The first step toward the HST came when the Liberals tabled a pre-election budget forecasting a $495-million deficit.
It was never credible. And it was a huge leap from past conservative budgets.
But Campbell, through the election campaign, insisted the deficit would not rise above that projection. (Although Finance Ministry officials warned him during the campaign that the budget was unravelling.)
There is a lot of experience and knowledge shared among the 48 Liberal MLAs. Given a chance, some of them might have suggested it would be a mistake to campaign on dubious deficit projection. They might have raised good questions about revenue forecasts.
It doesn't work that way.
After the election, Campbell accepted reality. But he maintains he was still shocked and sent Finance Ministry officials to find ways to reduce the growing deficit.
And they came up with signing for the HST and getting $1.6 billion from Ottawa as an incentive.
Great, Campbell said.
Sure, the party had said it would not introduce a harmonized sales tax during the election campaign. It had reports suggesting long-term benefits, but warning of job and wage losses for more than five years.
And the ministry briefing noted that the tax could be controversial. The HST shifts $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals and families. That's the equivalent of a 28-per-cent across the board personal income tax increase.
Again, if Campbell had submitted the new tax idea to the other 47 Liberal MLAs for discussion, perhaps some concerns would be raised. They might suggest their constituents wouldn't be so keen on the tax. That perhaps it would be best to do some consultations and analysis before plunging ahead.
That, as Hansen said during the election campaign, "it's clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on."
But the MLAs never had the chance to raise those concerns. Campbell told the caucus the government was imposing the HST on July 21 - less than 48 hours before the public was told.
The MLAs, representing voters across the province, weren't asked what they thought or given time to consider how the new tax would affect the ridings.
They were told the decision had been made and their job was to defend it. Trust in the wisdom and experience of your leaders.
Good luck, little campers.
And so the Liberal MLAs marched out into an angry public backlash and the threat of recall to defend a tax policy they had absolutely role in introducing.
Leave aside the HST for the moment.
There is something wrong when any major, controversial policy can be imposed without a meaningful discussion involving those elected to represent the public.
No taxation without representation, the British colonists complained in the 18th century, before the American Revolution. No taxes or levies unless they were approved by elected representatives of the people who would pay.
Some 250 years later, British Columbians might have the same complaint. The HST was not really imposed with the consent of those elected to represent the people.
The premier decided. The Liberal MLAs voted as instructed. The New Democrats MLAs all voted no.
Such a waste of peoples' talents and judgment. Such a waste of a democratic system that could offer so much more.
Footnote: Liberal MLAs are apparently happy with Campbell's leadership. But others in the party are suggesting the premier should announce he's stepping down before the Liberal convention in Pentiction Nov. 19-20, in part to avoid getting bad news from a leadership confidence vote being held by constituency associations at pre-convention meetings. (The party's constitution requires the vote.)
Brian Peckford versus Gordon Campbell
This report is interesting.
Peckford is six years older than Gordon Campbell. He won two elections as Newfoundland premier, casting himself as a champion battling for the province's interests against a distant federal government. If he's serious about advising a provincial B.C. Conservative party, that's not good for the Liberals, or centre-right voters in the province.
Peckford is six years older than Gordon Campbell. He won two elections as Newfoundland premier, casting himself as a champion battling for the province's interests against a distant federal government. If he's serious about advising a provincial B.C. Conservative party, that's not good for the Liberals, or centre-right voters in the province.
HST saga gets still worse for the Liberals
No matter how much Finance Minister Colin Hansen and Premier Gordon Campbell protest, few British Columbians will believe their claims the harmonized sales tax was �not on our radar� in advance of the May 2009 election.
The latest blow comes from documents released this week under a Freedom of Information request.
Briefing notes for Hansen and reports and e-mails between Finance Ministry managers support one of two conclusions: Either the HST was on the government�s agenda before the campaign, or it so obviously should have been that their competence is doubtful.
The Liberals were asked about the HST during the campaign. They responded, in writing, that �a harmonized goods and services tax is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform.�
But within weeks of the election, Hansen was discussing an HST deal with the federal government.
Campbell and Hansen insist they only discovered the need for the HST in the days after they were elected.
Hansen said he hadn�t paid attention to Ontario�s decision to bring in the HST � first suggested in January and formally announced in the March 25 budget � because the election was looming. (He said later that Ontario�s adoption of the tax made it absolutely necessary for B.C. to do the same.)
But surely he didn�t quit paying attention to a major tax-competitveness issue months before the vote. Even the Ontario budget came eight weeks before B.C.�s election day and long before the Liberals assured concerned business groups they wouldn�t bring in the tax.
Especially since the FOI documents include a heavily censored briefing note on Ontario and the HST sent to Hansen March 12, two months before the election. That was followed by another briefing note after the Ontario budget.
Hansen said he might have glanced at the briefing notes, but didn�t register the significance of Ontario�s tax change. That�s surprising; Hansen has always been remarkably in command of the details of his portfolios.
The FOI documents raise other questions.
Campbell told the legislature that B.C. officials did not even discuss the HST with their federal counterparts until well after the election. Hansen said the same thing in answer to a specific NDP question. There was absolutely no contact of any kind between federal and B.C. officials until late May, he said.
But there was. The documents show discussions and e-mail exchanges between the B.C. officials long before the campaign began.
Hansen�s explanation is that he did not know any of this when he answered. Anyway, he said, officials should be talking to their federal counterparts about tax changes.
And the documents show the government was selective in releasing information on the impact of the tax. The documents support the contention that the $1.9-billion tax shift from businesses to individuals and families would bring growth in the long term.
But they also forecast a short-term loss of jobs and economic activity. It could take more than five years before wages and jobs recover, says a report from the C.D. Howe Institute.
Hansen says that information is out of date; changes negotiated in the HST implementation reduced the problems. The government has yet to release an analysis supporting that argument. Other reports, he notes, have been more positive.
Finally, the documents include a transcript of Hansen�s HST comments in a radio interview before the election campaign. �It�s clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on,� he said.
But the government didn�t seek any input. Even Liberal MLAs were kept out of the loop. There was no consultation or analysis. The option of delaying the tax for a year to allow those things was not considered.
And the Liberals are paying a huge price.
Footnote: The documents topped the news reports in all the major media in the province on Thursday, thanks to another government bungle. CBC Radio reporter Jeff Davies submitted the FOI request. The government said it would charge $800 to produce the material. Davies approached seven other news outlets to split the cost and all receive the documents at the same time. The result was an avalanche of bad news.
The latest blow comes from documents released this week under a Freedom of Information request.
Briefing notes for Hansen and reports and e-mails between Finance Ministry managers support one of two conclusions: Either the HST was on the government�s agenda before the campaign, or it so obviously should have been that their competence is doubtful.
The Liberals were asked about the HST during the campaign. They responded, in writing, that �a harmonized goods and services tax is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal election platform.�
But within weeks of the election, Hansen was discussing an HST deal with the federal government.
Campbell and Hansen insist they only discovered the need for the HST in the days after they were elected.
Hansen said he hadn�t paid attention to Ontario�s decision to bring in the HST � first suggested in January and formally announced in the March 25 budget � because the election was looming. (He said later that Ontario�s adoption of the tax made it absolutely necessary for B.C. to do the same.)
But surely he didn�t quit paying attention to a major tax-competitveness issue months before the vote. Even the Ontario budget came eight weeks before B.C.�s election day and long before the Liberals assured concerned business groups they wouldn�t bring in the tax.
Especially since the FOI documents include a heavily censored briefing note on Ontario and the HST sent to Hansen March 12, two months before the election. That was followed by another briefing note after the Ontario budget.
Hansen said he might have glanced at the briefing notes, but didn�t register the significance of Ontario�s tax change. That�s surprising; Hansen has always been remarkably in command of the details of his portfolios.
The FOI documents raise other questions.
Campbell told the legislature that B.C. officials did not even discuss the HST with their federal counterparts until well after the election. Hansen said the same thing in answer to a specific NDP question. There was absolutely no contact of any kind between federal and B.C. officials until late May, he said.
But there was. The documents show discussions and e-mail exchanges between the B.C. officials long before the campaign began.
Hansen�s explanation is that he did not know any of this when he answered. Anyway, he said, officials should be talking to their federal counterparts about tax changes.
And the documents show the government was selective in releasing information on the impact of the tax. The documents support the contention that the $1.9-billion tax shift from businesses to individuals and families would bring growth in the long term.
But they also forecast a short-term loss of jobs and economic activity. It could take more than five years before wages and jobs recover, says a report from the C.D. Howe Institute.
Hansen says that information is out of date; changes negotiated in the HST implementation reduced the problems. The government has yet to release an analysis supporting that argument. Other reports, he notes, have been more positive.
Finally, the documents include a transcript of Hansen�s HST comments in a radio interview before the election campaign. �It�s clearly a controversial move and one that we would certainly want to get a lot of input on,� he said.
But the government didn�t seek any input. Even Liberal MLAs were kept out of the loop. There was no consultation or analysis. The option of delaying the tax for a year to allow those things was not considered.
And the Liberals are paying a huge price.
Footnote: The documents topped the news reports in all the major media in the province on Thursday, thanks to another government bungle. CBC Radio reporter Jeff Davies submitted the FOI request. The government said it would charge $800 to produce the material. Davies approached seven other news outlets to split the cost and all receive the documents at the same time. The result was an avalanche of bad news.
The HST disaster continues for the Liberals
Check the websites for the major media this afternoon - the Times Colonist, Sun, Province, Globe and Mail, CBC - and you'll find coverage of documents released under FOI which challenge the Liberals' claims that the HST was "not on the radar" before the 2009 election and raise large doubts about their optimistic statements about the economic benefits of the tax.
As well as revealing big problems with the implementation of the HST, this qualifies, I'd say, as a great communications disaster. The government could have released the documents at any time. It could have waived the processing fee on the first FOI request.
Instead, it set an $800 fee for processing and releasing the public documents. The media apparently decided to share the costs and the documents, while developing their own reports based on the information - to be released at the same time.
Which was very bad for the Liberals.
The Times Colonist editorial here offers a useful perspective.
As well as revealing big problems with the implementation of the HST, this qualifies, I'd say, as a great communications disaster. The government could have released the documents at any time. It could have waived the processing fee on the first FOI request.
Instead, it set an $800 fee for processing and releasing the public documents. The media apparently decided to share the costs and the documents, while developing their own reports based on the information - to be released at the same time.
Which was very bad for the Liberals.
The Times Colonist editorial here offers a useful perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
