The HST referendum result might signal a greater political shift, something beyond a tax revolt or anger over an arrogant, untrusted government.
The idea of class-based politics, for want of a better term, after being considered largely irrelevant for the last 60 years, could matter once again.
The HST went down to a significant defeat, with 55 per cent of those who voted rejecting the tax and 45 per cent backing it. A majority of voters in 60 ridings voted to dump the tax; in 25, they supported the HST.
The new tax won the strongest support in three ritzy Vancouver ridings. West Vancouver-Capilano, average household income more than $140,000, topped the list.
The vote to reject was strongest in three lower-income Mainland ridings. Voters in Surrey-Green Timbers, where the average household income is about $70,000, were keenest on dumping the HST.
Broadly, the higher the income in the riding, the more people supported the HST. The lower, the more likely they were to oppose the tax. The trend was consistent across the province.
No matter how you analyze those results, there is a significant division between the way people perceive their interests, based on their income levels.
Canadian elections haven�t reflected that divide for a long time, perhaps since the Second World War. Certainly lower-income voters, particularly with union jobs, have been more likely to support the NDP. But voters from all income levels have found homes in different parties at different times.
Voters, broadly, have considered themselves middle class and voted accordingly. Even if they were, objectively, earning much less than others, people expected their lot in life to improve, and their children�s lives to be better still.
They voted to advance the interests of the people they expected to be. Aspirational voting, you might say.
Until the referendum. People now seem, once again, to be picking sides � by class or income, or simply based on the divide between those who are doing well and those who are being left behind.
Which suggests that more people are losing hope that they, or their children, will cross over into the solidly middle class.
That�s not surprising. My grandparents, British immigrants with limited skills and education, bought a house in Toronto for $500 after they had been in the country for a few years and he was working for General Electric. When I was five, my parents bought a house in the new Toronto suburbs, sprawling out to accommodate the post-war baby boom. I bought a house in Alberta for $67,500 after a relatively short stint in the workforce. We all expected home ownership, opportunity and a better life for our children.
Now the average price of a detached home in Vancouver is more than $1 million. The jobs that once provided steady, good incomes for people in mills and manufacturing are gone.
And with them, the expectations of a better life have vanished for many British Columbians. They can no longer see themselves as middle class.
It�s a significant shift. Canadians have shared the expectation that they would do well. Vote Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Socred � they offered different approaches to a common, better future. Now, many have lost the hope that underpinned those votes.
An Ipsos Reid poll released Tuesday supports that view. It found that 49 per cent of those surveyed thought scrapping the HST would have a negative impact on the B.C. economy, while only 17 per cent thought it would be positive.
But 43 per cent thought axing the tax would be good for their families, while only 25 per cent thought it would be bad for them.
Voters have rated the economy highly as an issue for the last few decades. Parties judged to be good at improving the economy won support across all income groups, because people believed they and their families would benefit.
But not this time.
That�s a significant development, especially for the provincial Liberals. Their message in the next election campaign, whenever it comes, will be that an NDP government would be bad for business.
The HST result suggests voters might be less convinced about putting the economy first, and more concerned with whether the next government would be good for them.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
After the HST, government needs a clear plan
OK, the HST is gone. Now it�s time to get things back on track.
For more than two years, things have been a mess in B.C.
Politically, we�ve had a citizens� revolt, the resurrection of Bill Vander Zalm and the ouster of Gordon Campbell.
Economically, we�ve been a mess. Tax policy has been made up on the fly. Campbell promised a 15-per-cent income tax cut, then the government reneged once he quit. The government cut corporate taxes, then Premier Christy Clark said she would increase them again if the HST survived. The Liberals said the HST was not in the plans during the 2009 campaign, introduced it, then watched as it grew increasingly doomed.
All at a time when the economy was already fragile.
Businesses, and individuals, adapt to different tax regimes. But they like certainty. If a corporation is going to invest $100 million in a mill, it wants to know that the taxes won�t suddenly change once the doors are open. If a family is going to spend $10,000 on a new roof, they want to know that waiting for the result of the HST referendum wouldn�t save them $400.
That�s been missing.
And, despite the referendum result, certainty is still missing.
No one knows what happens next.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has said the government doesn�t have to bring back the old provincial sales tax, with all the exemptions were in place in 2009. He said the tax could be more like the HST, applied to more goods and services, to increase revenue.
Health Minister MIke de Jong has taken the opposite view. He told Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province that the petition and referendum questions were clear.
�The choice is the HST as it exists today, or the PST as it existed previously,� he said. �If people opt to get rid of the HST and go back to the PST as it existed in 2009, that�s what the government is going to do.�
De Jong is right. But until the government is clear, the tax uncertainty continues. And so does the risk of another taxpayer revolt, if the government tries to weasel on the referendum result.
Falcon appears, in the aftermath of the vote, to accepted that reality.
That�s just one issue in the post-referendum world.
Falcon has said that rejecting the HST would mean big changes for B.C.�s budget.
It�s time for the government to lay those out for British Columbians.
The defeat of the HST means about $360 million less in annual revenue, according to the analysis by the government�s independent panel. The federal government�s $1.6 billion incentive payment to encourage the province to adopt the tax has to be repaid over time. The PST tax office has to be restored.
So what�s the plan? Will taxes rise, and if so, who will pay more? Will spending be cut, and who will lose out? Or will the government borrow more to repay the federal government, and accept the interest costs?
They are all legitimate responses. What�s needed is a clear, multi-year government plan, so everyone, businesses and investors particularly, know the rules.
And so voters can decide whether it makes sense.
A serious government would be setting out its plan, accepting the public� verdict.
Instead, it seems the Clark government is still considering a quick election.
That�s just irresponsible. There is no clear election issue. The Clark government hasn�t set out an agenda, or a prudent budget based on the HST referendum results.
Clark has a chance to set out her government�s plans and priorities, supported by a new budget in February. That would let voters make an informed choice.
It�s been a more than two years of stumbling government and slapdash fiscal policy in British Columbia.
Clark needs to show what alternative her government has to offer before Britisn Columbians go to the polls.
Four lessons from Barry Penner's departure
Four thoughts on Barry Penner's resignation as attorney general and retirement from politics.
First, there's something wrong with any system that expects politicians - or anyone - to work constantly.
Penner said he's leaving politics because he wants to spend time with his wife and six-month-old daughter, and a cabinet post makes that impossible. "I was supposed to be on holiday the last two weeks," he said. "And I think I got maybe one-and-a-half days . because of urgent issues in the ministry that had to be attended to."
BlackBerries are always buzzing and crises emerging.
Really, a cabinet minister should be able to go away for two weeks, and even take most weekends off. Real emergencies are rare. Most decisions don't have to be made instantly, and perhaps shouldn't be. Not every political issue demands immediate action.
But organizations can easily slip into phony crisis mode, where people compete to be busiest.
For example, if an article troubling to the government appears in the Times Colonist on a Saturday, the offended ministry often springs into action and fires off an email letter to the editor, supposedly from the minister, the same day or on Sunday. At least a few people's weekends are ruined.
But it's pointless. No one at the newspaper looks at emailed letters to the editor until Monday morning.
There isn't a newspaper until Tuesday.
There is no reason for the panic or the weekend work, except a desire to look busy or important.
Worse, it's unlikely we get good decisions from ministers constantly frazzled and overloaded and rushing from meeting to meeting, half-listening to staff while they scroll through emails. It's tough to think, or read, or pause for a thoughtful response when you're crushed in busy work.
It's also unlikely that we get the diversity we need in cabinet, and government. Anyone not prepared to put up with being on call 18 hours a day, seven days a week, has less chance of advancing to the top jobs.
Surely, among the driven workaholics, we want people at the cabinet table who value time with their children, or to read or make music. People who think reflection or going to a friend's house for dinner - without checking a BlackBerry surreptitiously under the table throughout the meal - are important. (I write as a reformed workaholic.)
Some politicians do maintain balance. But Penner's resignation suggests the pressures, self-imposed and external, to keep on working.
Second, while Penner certainly did not criticize Premier Christy Clark, neither did he show much support.
He resigned as attorney general now, Penner said, because Clark and the party are pushing MLAs to set up campaign teams in case she decides on a fall election. Penner felt it would be wrong to recruit campaign staff if he wasn't going to run in the next election (which, legally, is to be in 2013) and wrong to stay in cabinet if he's not running. Without the pressure to declare, he might have stayed in cabinet, he said.
And Penner made his own announcement; the premier's office didn't get the chance to manage the news.
The third point is a little complicated. I think well of Penner. I don't believe he's lied to me. He's not a jerk in the legislature. He always seems to enjoy representing the people in his riding, seeing it as a serious job and an honour. He doesn't run from issues. Sometimes, his sincerity seemed like it might be a liability in his party. I rate him highly.
But when you think about it, rating a politician highly for those reasons alone seems a little sad.
And fourth and finally, Penner's departure shows Clark is still seriously considering a fall election. The HST referendum results will be released in the next few days - Thursday is the target. Clark and the Liberal strategists have a narrow window to decide whether to call a vote, likely in October in advance of municipal elections.
Footnote: Clark's continued interest in a fall election might not be wellreceived in caucus. MLAs would have almost two years left in their terms under the fixed election date law, but face tough battles - and possibly defeats - if the vote is held this year.
Others fear the practical problems of raising money and recruiting volunteers when many political activists are already looking to the November municipal elections.
Riots, rubbish and the decline of Britain
A remarkable amount of rubbish has been spoken and written about Britain�s riots.
Start with Prime Minister David Cameron. �These riots were not about poverty,� he said this week. �That insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.�
The beleaguered prime minister might wish poverty was not a factor, but he can�t possibly know it wasn�t.
In fact, The Guardian, in a fine piece of journalism, gathered the addresses of 1,100 people charged in the riots and plotted them against a map showing neighbourhoods� official measures of �multiple deprivation.�
The majority of areas where suspects lived were deprived, and two-thirds of them had got poorer between 2007 and 2010. More than 40 per cent of the suspects lived in the bottom 10 per cent of communities on the deprivation index.
That does not justify rioting or theft or any other crime. But it does suggest it is stupid, if the goal is understanding and prevention, to pretend poverty, joblessness and deprivation are not factors.
Then move on to consider the moral outrage of politicians of all stripes, who spoke as if the rioters were aliens who had emerged, to everyone�s shock, on British streets.
Peter Oborne, the chief political commentator for the Daily Telegraph, a staunchly conservative newspaper, laid that to rest brilliantly.
There was something �very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in Parliament,� he wrote. �MPs spoke about the week�s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.�
�I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society,� he wrote. �The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.�
Sir Richard Branson, he wrote, was considering moving his Virgin operations to Switzerland to avoid taxes. A report said that might be a blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer � the finance minister � because it would mean less government revenue.
�In a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor,� Oborne wrote. �People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted.� People who have become rich in part because of the structures of British society � schools, roads, police � no longer wish to pay their share.
MPs stood in Parliament to deplore the looters� theft of TVs and designer clothes, Oborne wrote. But the same politicians greedily grabbed whatever they could under their lax expense provisions until they were exposed. Can a Labour MP who made taxpayers pay for a $14,000 Bang & Olufsen television really claim to be much different from a looter lugging a flat-screen TV out of a shop?
�The prime minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday�s Commons debate,� Oborne wrote. �He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor ... He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.�
I visited England four years ago, for the first time in years.
The greatest shock was the drunken louts, obnoxious and threatening. They weren�t all young, and it wasn�t a matter of being in the bar zone at night. They were in Exeter, a quiet university town, at night, and on trains at midday. They seemed a symptom of a decaying society.
As do the riots.
I don�t want to add to the rubbish. But any society that restricts upward mobility, cuts supports to those on the bottom who have become dependent on them over generations and not only accepts a perpetually uneducated, unemployed underclass, but tolerates lawless acts by some of its members, is going to face big problems.
If it increasingly celebrates the gap between the rich and the rest � winners and losers under the system set up by the winners � those problems will be more dramatic.
And no amount of politicians� pronouncements, policing or moralizing are going to change the reality.
Canada is, of course, much different. But we should, perhaps, think about just how much different.
Start with Prime Minister David Cameron. �These riots were not about poverty,� he said this week. �That insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.�
The beleaguered prime minister might wish poverty was not a factor, but he can�t possibly know it wasn�t.
In fact, The Guardian, in a fine piece of journalism, gathered the addresses of 1,100 people charged in the riots and plotted them against a map showing neighbourhoods� official measures of �multiple deprivation.�
The majority of areas where suspects lived were deprived, and two-thirds of them had got poorer between 2007 and 2010. More than 40 per cent of the suspects lived in the bottom 10 per cent of communities on the deprivation index.
That does not justify rioting or theft or any other crime. But it does suggest it is stupid, if the goal is understanding and prevention, to pretend poverty, joblessness and deprivation are not factors.
Then move on to consider the moral outrage of politicians of all stripes, who spoke as if the rioters were aliens who had emerged, to everyone�s shock, on British streets.
Peter Oborne, the chief political commentator for the Daily Telegraph, a staunchly conservative newspaper, laid that to rest brilliantly.
There was something �very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in Parliament,� he wrote. �MPs spoke about the week�s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.�
�I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society,� he wrote. �The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.�
Sir Richard Branson, he wrote, was considering moving his Virgin operations to Switzerland to avoid taxes. A report said that might be a blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer � the finance minister � because it would mean less government revenue.
�In a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor,� Oborne wrote. �People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted.� People who have become rich in part because of the structures of British society � schools, roads, police � no longer wish to pay their share.
MPs stood in Parliament to deplore the looters� theft of TVs and designer clothes, Oborne wrote. But the same politicians greedily grabbed whatever they could under their lax expense provisions until they were exposed. Can a Labour MP who made taxpayers pay for a $14,000 Bang & Olufsen television really claim to be much different from a looter lugging a flat-screen TV out of a shop?
�The prime minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday�s Commons debate,� Oborne wrote. �He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor ... He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.�
I visited England four years ago, for the first time in years.
The greatest shock was the drunken louts, obnoxious and threatening. They weren�t all young, and it wasn�t a matter of being in the bar zone at night. They were in Exeter, a quiet university town, at night, and on trains at midday. They seemed a symptom of a decaying society.
As do the riots.
I don�t want to add to the rubbish. But any society that restricts upward mobility, cuts supports to those on the bottom who have become dependent on them over generations and not only accepts a perpetually uneducated, unemployed underclass, but tolerates lawless acts by some of its members, is going to face big problems.
If it increasingly celebrates the gap between the rich and the rest � winners and losers under the system set up by the winners � those problems will be more dramatic.
And no amount of politicians� pronouncements, policing or moralizing are going to change the reality.
Canada is, of course, much different. But we should, perhaps, think about just how much different.
CLBC service cuts hurt most vulnerable
It's understandable that Social Development Minister Harry Bloy is ashamed of cruel cuts to services for some of B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens.
But his refusal to acknowledge the reality and his flat-out false statements are insulting to people with developmental disabilities and their often exhausted and frightened families.
"Developmental disabilities" is a clunky term. Many of the adults supported by Bloy's ministry are what we once called mentally handicapped. Some have severe autism or fetal alcohol syndrome; many have major physical and mental health problems as well. Some need round-the-clock medical care and constant supervision for their own safety, and the safety of others.
Much of that care has been provided through group homes. To save money, the government has been closing group homes and pushing people into cheaper arrangements.
And, based on the evidence, the government and Community Living B.C. know this is wrong. Bloy has insisted no people have been forced to move against their will and families have been consulted. Families say both claims are false.
Connie and Ken Greenway told Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines they were given little warning and no say in a decision to close the group home where their 46-year-old disabled son Darrin has lived for 15 years.
CLBC, the Crown corporation created by the government to provide services to the developmentally disabled, wanted the company operating the group home to sign a new contract with a deep funding cut. The company refused.
So the home will close and residents will be forced to move.
Remember, we are talking about fragile, vulnerable people with serious problems and great difficulty in dealing with change. Many, like Darrin, have spent years in the same home. It is, for them, like being ripped from family and sent into the unknown.
For their families, the changes bring a whole new set of fears. All parents fret about their children's future. But the fears are much more real as aging parents confront the reality that their vulnerable children will continue to be at risk after they die or are incapable of providing support and advocacy.
The closures aren't isolated. Community Living B.C. closed more than 40 group homes last year, forcing the residents to move and - often - reducing they support they received.
And the closures are not driven by revelations of waste, or innovations in support.
This is about cutting costs. The government has chosen not to put these families first.
According to CLBC, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created by the Liberals six years ago, under Christy Clark's watch as children's minister.
In 2006-07, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. And by 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.
If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006.
The effect of the cost-cutting goes far beyond group home closures. People who have, with extensive support, lived full and rich lives are seeing that ripped away, condemned to spend their days alone in a room.
And parents whose children are turning 19 face a special nightmare. Services for developmentally disabled youth are provided by the Ministry of Children and Families. Strong school programs offer opportunities.
On the day clients turn 19, those supports are ripped away. CLBC assumes responsibility, and parents find their children's lives are dramatically worse. Programs are unavailable, waiting lists are long and growing. Even when CLBC's own assessments say supports are needed for safety reasons, help is not provided.
This is not a case of families or interest groups demanding more, or better, support and care.
They just want the levels that have been in place for years to be maintained.
They want assurances that an adult child, unable to fend for herself, will not be put in danger, or forced to live a needlessly diminished life.
Hydro report raps corporation, government
The government�s review of B.C. Hydro and power rates was grim reading.
The initial attention was focused on inefficiency within the Crown corporation.
The review panel � John Dyble, Premier Christy Clark�s deputy minister, Peter Milbrun, deputy minister of finance, and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, acting deputy minister of advanced education � found B.C. Hydro paid too little attention to controlling expenses.
Hydro has an admirable commitment to quality, reliability and safety. But it has been paying a high premium to achieve those goals, and passing the cost on to its customers.
The result, the panel said, has included overstaffing. It suggested about 20 per cent of the 6,000-person workforce could be eliminated. Compensation had not been properly managed � 99 per cent of eligible employees received performance bonuses � and the corporation had missed opportunities for savings in dealing with suppliers.
The frank, independent look was welcome, though it raises questions about the attentiveness of B.C. Hydro directors � five of the 10 have been on the board for more than two years � and past energy ministers.
The report also suggested the government�s policy orders to B.C. Hydro have resulted in large and unnecessary rate increases.
Gordon Campbell, for example, said B.C. Hydro must make the province self-sufficient in electrical by 2016. It was ordered to have enough capacity to meet the entire power needs of the province even in a year of record low water � and to build a big buffer on top of that.
That has proved an expensive, wasteful order. B.C. Hydro had to ramp up staffing to achieve the goal.
And because the power was to be acquired by contracting with private producers, the public corporation had to commit to costly, long-term contracts for electricity that might never be needed.
B.C. Hydro estimates its current round of power from private producers will cost $124 MWh, for example. That�s more than twice as much as the market price, and one-third more than power from a Site C dam would be.
Because of the government�s order, B.C. Hydro faces the real risk of buying expensive power from private producers and selling it at a loss on the open market.
There is little risk in adopting a more conservative approach in adding capacity; in a crunch, B.C. can buy power from U.S. or Alberta producers, as it has in the past.
There�s another major policy issue. The report indicates that the government has been, effectively, using B.C. Hydro to bring in hidden tax revenue.
B.C. Hydro pays government for water rights � the use of rivers and streams across the province. It charges twice as much as other Canadian governments charge power companies, the report found.
If B.C. charged rates in line with Manitoba and Quebec, then B.C. Hydro�s costs would fall by $150 million a year, the panel noted. That would result in an immediate rate cut of at least four per cent.
And the government also claims a larger share of B.C. Hydro�s revenue as a dividend than comparable utilities � more than $600 million this year.
Energy Minister Rich Coleman said that�s not likely to change. The government is running a deficit; it needs the revenue from water rights.
But it�s an inefficient and unfair way to collect revenue. Taxes, generally, are imposed based on some principles, with a primary one being that they are progressive � the amount paid rises with income or wealth.
Raising revenue through electricity bills doesn�t work that way. A low-income family with an older house � perhaps heating with electricity � would pay a larger share than an wealthy couple in an expensive condo.
And this approach to taxation also imposes larger costs on energy-dependent industries, reducing what should be a competitive advantage on attracting investment.
B.C. Hydro has some work ahead in improving its efficiency and cutting costs. But the government has an even larger role in fixing flawed policies.
Footnote: The review panel looked at the smart meter program and concluded it was justified based on future savings, although it urged B.C. Hydro to seek ways of cutting the $930 million cost. The panel also notes that unless the corporation introduces differential rates to discourage power use at peak periods, some potential savings under the smart meter program won�t be achieved. Government policy has rejected differential rates; that too should be reviewed.
The initial attention was focused on inefficiency within the Crown corporation.
The review panel � John Dyble, Premier Christy Clark�s deputy minister, Peter Milbrun, deputy minister of finance, and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, acting deputy minister of advanced education � found B.C. Hydro paid too little attention to controlling expenses.
Hydro has an admirable commitment to quality, reliability and safety. But it has been paying a high premium to achieve those goals, and passing the cost on to its customers.
The result, the panel said, has included overstaffing. It suggested about 20 per cent of the 6,000-person workforce could be eliminated. Compensation had not been properly managed � 99 per cent of eligible employees received performance bonuses � and the corporation had missed opportunities for savings in dealing with suppliers.
The frank, independent look was welcome, though it raises questions about the attentiveness of B.C. Hydro directors � five of the 10 have been on the board for more than two years � and past energy ministers.
The report also suggested the government�s policy orders to B.C. Hydro have resulted in large and unnecessary rate increases.
Gordon Campbell, for example, said B.C. Hydro must make the province self-sufficient in electrical by 2016. It was ordered to have enough capacity to meet the entire power needs of the province even in a year of record low water � and to build a big buffer on top of that.
That has proved an expensive, wasteful order. B.C. Hydro had to ramp up staffing to achieve the goal.
And because the power was to be acquired by contracting with private producers, the public corporation had to commit to costly, long-term contracts for electricity that might never be needed.
B.C. Hydro estimates its current round of power from private producers will cost $124 MWh, for example. That�s more than twice as much as the market price, and one-third more than power from a Site C dam would be.
Because of the government�s order, B.C. Hydro faces the real risk of buying expensive power from private producers and selling it at a loss on the open market.
There is little risk in adopting a more conservative approach in adding capacity; in a crunch, B.C. can buy power from U.S. or Alberta producers, as it has in the past.
There�s another major policy issue. The report indicates that the government has been, effectively, using B.C. Hydro to bring in hidden tax revenue.
B.C. Hydro pays government for water rights � the use of rivers and streams across the province. It charges twice as much as other Canadian governments charge power companies, the report found.
If B.C. charged rates in line with Manitoba and Quebec, then B.C. Hydro�s costs would fall by $150 million a year, the panel noted. That would result in an immediate rate cut of at least four per cent.
And the government also claims a larger share of B.C. Hydro�s revenue as a dividend than comparable utilities � more than $600 million this year.
Energy Minister Rich Coleman said that�s not likely to change. The government is running a deficit; it needs the revenue from water rights.
But it�s an inefficient and unfair way to collect revenue. Taxes, generally, are imposed based on some principles, with a primary one being that they are progressive � the amount paid rises with income or wealth.
Raising revenue through electricity bills doesn�t work that way. A low-income family with an older house � perhaps heating with electricity � would pay a larger share than an wealthy couple in an expensive condo.
And this approach to taxation also imposes larger costs on energy-dependent industries, reducing what should be a competitive advantage on attracting investment.
B.C. Hydro has some work ahead in improving its efficiency and cutting costs. But the government has an even larger role in fixing flawed policies.
Footnote: The review panel looked at the smart meter program and concluded it was justified based on future savings, although it urged B.C. Hydro to seek ways of cutting the $930 million cost. The panel also notes that unless the corporation introduces differential rates to discourage power use at peak periods, some potential savings under the smart meter program won�t be achieved. Government policy has rejected differential rates; that too should be reviewed.
The first five thoughts on the BC Hydro review
Five early thoughts on the BC Hydro review.
1) Where were the board, ministers responsible and government as BC Hydro, apparently, was mismanaged and staff soared 20 per cent over the levels needed over a period of years?
2) The government now should explain the huge amounts of money wasted by its discredited policy directives that BC Hydro use IPP purchases in pursuit of a foolish goal of electricity self-sufficiency.
3) The government has to explain its decision to use BC Hydro rates as a vehicle for tax increases. The review found, for example, that the government charges Hydro excessive rates for water rights, which are passed on to customers in the former of higher electricity bills. That's a regressive tax, and potentially destructive to industry in the province, encouraging investment elsewhere.
4) The review read much like something that would be done after a new party was elected to government and set out about fixing - and highlighting - the errors of the previous administration. Christy Clark deserves credit for the hard look (although there are political advantages to distancing herself from Gordon Campbell). But not all Liberals might agree - Bill Bennett and Blair Lekstrom, for example, were briefly energy ministers during the problem years. Half the B.C. Hydro board have been in place for more than two years, and the report raises serious questions about their effectiveness.
5) The report suggests failures of government policy and management. It is good to bring them into the light, but does raise questions about other areas of government.
Full post to come.
Banishment our way of treating mental illness
Donovan Seward�s banishment from Saltspring Island is a nice metaphor for the way we deal with mental illness.
Seward was ordered off the Island by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing. He faced several charges, including a dine and dash and assaulting an RCMP officer during his arrest. He was also a nuisance since joining the local homeless community.
So he was banished. Problem solved, at least for Saltspring residents.
But not really.
Seward is 31. He�s suffered from mental illness since childhood, says his mother, Myrna Seward. He�s had past brushes with the law, stints in hospitals and a suicide attempt. He�s tormented by voices in his head sometimes, she says, and if he quits taking his medication, he lives in a fantasy world. �He�s completely delusional,� she told the Times Colonist. �He thinks he�s John Lennon half the time.�
The bail conditions didn�t include a requirement that he get medical help or supervision. The officers didn�t take him to emergency for assessment, a possibility under the Mental Health Act.
Really, the problem has just been pushed along from Saltspring to wherever Seward lands next.
Don�t criticize the justice of the peace, the police or the people of Saltspring. Our whole approach to mental illness is based on pushing people away so they become someone else�s problem if things go wrong. (It�s important to note that most people with mental illness manage quite well, as do most people with diabetes or any other disease.)
The health care system shortchanges people with mental illness. There are always other priorities, usually with more skilful advocates. Boomers demanding timely hip replacements are more likely to be heard than someone struggling with unmanaged schizophrenia.
Alan Campbell, who retired last year as director of mental health and addictions for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said B.C. and Canada lag. �For every one of the five years I�ve been doing this job, we�ve put forward strong, well-reasoned cases for more funding,� he said. �My understanding is that our requests are given real consideration, but they just don�t fare well in the end.�
The health system manages its costs by denying or rationing treatment. But it�s actually banishing troubled patients, just as Saltspring did.
Sometimes families or social service agencies are forced to pick up the pieces. Communities deal with the fallout, as people who are not treated fall to the streets.
And often, the police, courts and jails take on the responsibility the health care system shunned - as they did in Seward�s case.
Police spend their days dealing with people who are addicted, intoxicated or mentally ill. They face challenges, and sometimes danger, acting as social workers and counsellors.
Officers know that because the root problems aren�t being addressed, they�ll deal with the same people and the same behaviors the next day.
When the problems become serious enough, or annoying enough to the community, then people with unmanaged mental illness end up in court and, far too often, in prison.
Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, who oversees the federal correctional system�s operations, estimates that 36 per cent of men in federal prisons, and 50 per cent of women, have some form of mental illness. The figures are similar for provincial jails.
There is a cruel irony in all that. Governments closed down large residential mental health facilities, partly to save money and partly because they were considered inhumane. But they failed to deliver the promised health care, housing and community support, with the result that people with mental illness ended up in prisons, which are far more inhumane, and offer no effective treatment.
There is no universal, simple solution. People with mental illness have rights, including the right to refuse treatment. Seward had been living in subsidized housing, with support, in Victoria, but decided to move to Vancouver.
But the current approach is a shambles. And rather than dealing with the issue and providing the health care and community support needed to allow people to deal with their illnesses, we are, like Saltspring, just pushing them along to become someone else�s problem.
Seward was ordered off the Island by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing. He faced several charges, including a dine and dash and assaulting an RCMP officer during his arrest. He was also a nuisance since joining the local homeless community.
So he was banished. Problem solved, at least for Saltspring residents.
But not really.
Seward is 31. He�s suffered from mental illness since childhood, says his mother, Myrna Seward. He�s had past brushes with the law, stints in hospitals and a suicide attempt. He�s tormented by voices in his head sometimes, she says, and if he quits taking his medication, he lives in a fantasy world. �He�s completely delusional,� she told the Times Colonist. �He thinks he�s John Lennon half the time.�
The bail conditions didn�t include a requirement that he get medical help or supervision. The officers didn�t take him to emergency for assessment, a possibility under the Mental Health Act.
Really, the problem has just been pushed along from Saltspring to wherever Seward lands next.
Don�t criticize the justice of the peace, the police or the people of Saltspring. Our whole approach to mental illness is based on pushing people away so they become someone else�s problem if things go wrong. (It�s important to note that most people with mental illness manage quite well, as do most people with diabetes or any other disease.)
The health care system shortchanges people with mental illness. There are always other priorities, usually with more skilful advocates. Boomers demanding timely hip replacements are more likely to be heard than someone struggling with unmanaged schizophrenia.
Alan Campbell, who retired last year as director of mental health and addictions for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said B.C. and Canada lag. �For every one of the five years I�ve been doing this job, we�ve put forward strong, well-reasoned cases for more funding,� he said. �My understanding is that our requests are given real consideration, but they just don�t fare well in the end.�
The health system manages its costs by denying or rationing treatment. But it�s actually banishing troubled patients, just as Saltspring did.
Sometimes families or social service agencies are forced to pick up the pieces. Communities deal with the fallout, as people who are not treated fall to the streets.
And often, the police, courts and jails take on the responsibility the health care system shunned - as they did in Seward�s case.
Police spend their days dealing with people who are addicted, intoxicated or mentally ill. They face challenges, and sometimes danger, acting as social workers and counsellors.
Officers know that because the root problems aren�t being addressed, they�ll deal with the same people and the same behaviors the next day.
When the problems become serious enough, or annoying enough to the community, then people with unmanaged mental illness end up in court and, far too often, in prison.
Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, who oversees the federal correctional system�s operations, estimates that 36 per cent of men in federal prisons, and 50 per cent of women, have some form of mental illness. The figures are similar for provincial jails.
There is a cruel irony in all that. Governments closed down large residential mental health facilities, partly to save money and partly because they were considered inhumane. But they failed to deliver the promised health care, housing and community support, with the result that people with mental illness ended up in prisons, which are far more inhumane, and offer no effective treatment.
There is no universal, simple solution. People with mental illness have rights, including the right to refuse treatment. Seward had been living in subsidized housing, with support, in Victoria, but decided to move to Vancouver.
But the current approach is a shambles. And rather than dealing with the issue and providing the health care and community support needed to allow people to deal with their illnesses, we are, like Saltspring, just pushing them along to become someone else�s problem.
Cuts to B.C. human trafficking office
The B.C. government has cut funding for an office dedicated to dealing with human trafficking.
Which does not displease Jody Paterson, who argues the money could be spent much more effectively on more pressing issues.
"We spent $2.25 million on this office in the last four years, apparently to help 100 people. It kills me to think how that money could have been used for real needs rather than for chasing ghosts.
You'd think that with all the sex workers I'd met over the years in B.C., I might have met one who'd been trafficked at some point in her life. Nope."
You can read the rest here.
Which does not displease Jody Paterson, who argues the money could be spent much more effectively on more pressing issues.
"We spent $2.25 million on this office in the last four years, apparently to help 100 people. It kills me to think how that money could have been used for real needs rather than for chasing ghosts.
You'd think that with all the sex workers I'd met over the years in B.C., I might have met one who'd been trafficked at some point in her life. Nope."
You can read the rest here.
More on solving America's debt crisis
I wrote last week that the U.S. could go a long way toward solving its debt crisis simply by being a bit more like Canada and raising taxes to our level.
"The U.S. collects taxes equal to 24 per cent of its GDP. If the take was increased to 31 per cent - the amount collected in Canada - the current year's deficit would fall from $1.5 trillion to $500 billion....
In fact, if the Americans increased overall tax revenue as a share of GDP to the average for OECD countries - 34.8 per cent - they could have a balanced budget immediately, without cutting anything from spending."
(You can read the post here.)
The New York Times makes the same point in an editorial today.
Lessons from a swim in the Gorge
It was just a swim. And it was more. Because even 15 years ago, I wouldn't have ventured into the questionable Gorge waters.
The swim was a reminder that even when things are truly wrecked, we can fix them.
All it takes is one person with the will to start.
The Gorge is an urban waterway that extends inland from Victoria's harbour until it widens into Portage Inlet.
There are a few creeks feeding into the inlet and the Gorge, but the big influence is tidal. Water surges in, and out. The rapids under the Tillicum bridge run one way, then the other.
In the last 120 years, the Gorge has gone full circle. Its heyday was the late 19th and early 20th century, although First Nations had fished for herring and salmon and used it as a gathering place for centuries.
Victorians travelled in boats and by wagon and streetcar to the Gorge narrows to picnic, enjoy the natural setting and listen to concerts.
In 1911, as Dennis Minaker noted in his book, The Gorge of Summers Gone, the British Columbia Railway Company built its own version of Coney Island at the narrows to encourage more people to use the streetcar line. There was a roller-coaster and an early version of Splash Mountain that sent terrified customers down a steep ramp in small boats that plunged into the Gorge.
The water was always central to the activities. People swam and boated and gathered clams. There were races and exhibitions and bathhouses. Promoters built towers and staged diving shows - until, in 1922, 19-year-old Billy Muir was paralysed in a 110-foot dive. He died three years later.
But a few decades into the 20th century, the Gorge waterway was too polluted for anyone but the foolhardy to go swimming.
Residential development all along its length and around Portage Inlet meant increasing runoff, often with storm water and sewage spilling into the waters. Industry along the harbour and Gorge had added its own toxic legacies over Victoria's early years. And the Gorge had become a dumping ground for unwanted items large and small.
It was fine for boaters, but its attractiveness for swimmers - and its once-rich environment - seemed to be lost forever.
But John Roe didn't think so. In 1994, he and his nine-year-old son started spending their days hauling stuff out of the water - shopping carts, rusted metal, car tires.
It seemed, frankly, nutty - a classicly quixotic exercise in the impossible. The Gorge seemed too far gone for any effort to succeed, let alone one driven by one man and a boy in their spare time.
But individual efforts can have a powerful effect.
Other people started helping haul stuff from the water or contributed money. Scuba divers volunteered to pull up the junk Roe couldn't reach.
Business and governments offered support.
Roe, who had covered all the initial expenses, led the formation of the Veins of Life Watershed Society.
Grants and donations paid for equipment and bigger workforces. The cleanup efforts moved beyond pulling junk from the water and started focusing on stopping the flow of pollutants.
And at some point, there was a transformation. It was no longer accepted as an inevitable that the Gorge would remain unusable.
Instead, its recovery was seen as the imperative.
By 2000, a symbolic milestone Roe had set was reached. The Gorge was the site, for the first time in 65 years, of a swimming race.
Today, the transformation is remarkable. Salmon have returned, cormorants and eagles perch in trees along the waterway and herons and kingfishers haunt the shoreline. Emerald green eelgrass beds wave in the tides and otters and seals fish in the water.
And all because one man and a boy took a look at the state of the Gorge and decided to do something about it.
It's worth remembering, in these days of problems that seem too large or complex to yield to our efforts.
And pondering - perhaps as you enjoy a swim in the Gorge on a sunny afternoon.
U.S. could fix debt crisis by being more like us
Americans could fix their giant deficit/debt crisis relatively painlessly. All they have to do is become more like Canadians.
Specifically, they just have to pay the same level of taxes that Canadians do.
U.S. politicians have spent the last few weeks in a destructive exercise in brinkmanship over raising the country's debt limit. Republicans said they wouldn't allow more debt without a plan to reduce the deficit, and the plan couldn't include any tax increases.
Democrats didn't want the deep spending cuts that would be required. Failing to raise the limit could mean the U.S. couldn't borrow the money to pay its bills, causing all sorts of international economic problems.
A last-minute deal appears to have put off the crisis for a while.
Basically, the problem is simple. The U.S. spends much more than it takes in. The Tea Party politicians pretend it's feasible to cut spending by 40 per cent to deal with the gap. It's not.
But there is a solution. The U.S. collects taxes equal to 24 per cent of its GDP. If the take was increased to 31 per cent - the amount collected in Canada - the current year's deficit would fall from $1.5 trillion to $500 billion. (Instead, the compromise deal imagines spending cuts that would reduce the deficit by about $200 billion.)
Canada manages with that level of taxation. Our economy is stronger than the U.S. economy. Our society, arguably, functions better. Creativity and entrepreneurship aren't strangled. We grumble, but the tax burden isn't really onerous - people aren't fleeing for tax havens so they can pay less.
But a large chunk of Americans have bought into the dual notions that they are heavily taxed, and that all taxes are bad.
Neither is true. In fact, if the Americans increased overall tax revenue as a share of GDP to the average for OECD countries - 34.8 per cent - they could have a balanced budget immediately, without cutting anything from spending. No more mounting debt for future generations to repay, no risks of default or massive interest costs on rising borrowing.
Most of us grumble about paying taxes, especially when governments do goofy things with our money - like spending on fast ferries or stadium roofs or submarines that don't work.
But the current level of taxation in Canada isn't obviously punitive. We share the costs of services like schools and health care and police and get obvious value for much of the money we send off to government.
OECD countries function well, for the most part, with their levels of taxation. Even Germany, with tax revenue at 39 per cent of GDP, seems to manage.
It's not like the money disappears. Seniors get pensions and spend the money in their communities. The navy employs a few thousand people in Victoria, and buys services from scores of companies. We drive on the roads that our tax dollars pay for, and call the police when we need them. And the police, in turn, spend their salaries in the community.
It irks some that the payments are compulsory. I can boycott stores I don't like, but I have to send a cheque off to Revenue Canada. People without kids pay for schools, and those who oppose the war in Afghanistan pay for bigger military budgets.
But that's the price of living in a democratic society. It's pretty good value.
We can and should go wild when governments waste our money. We shouldn't pretend that paying for the things we need and use is somehow a bad thing.
Many Americans, and their politicians, seem trapped in a dangerous fantasyland.
And there is a real risk that the blind anti-tax fervour, fed by some elements of the media, will catch hold in Canada. To some extent, it already has. The Campbell Liberals treated taxes as inherently bad. And at least some of the anti-HST sentiment comes from people who oppose all taxes.
The consequences of the American tax delusion are on display. Let's hope we learn from them.
Footnote: There are still serious questions about how taxes should be collected. The initial HST opposition, for example, came in large part because it was supposed to shift $1.9 billion in taxes from companies to families. That's been a trend in B.C.
Since 2001, the share of government revenues derived from direct corporate taxes and royalties of various kinds has fallen by more than 50 per cent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
