Yet, with the HST referendum weeks away, Ipsos-Reid now tells us that a narrow majority of British Columbians now support keeping the HST, rather than going back to the old PST + GST system. This development coincides with a series of government-sponsored HST Forums being held at universities and colleges across the province. The event held last night at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) in Kamloops provides some insight into why the movement to keep the HST is gaining momentum, while Vander Zalm’s FightHST is sputtering to a seeming halt.

The HST Forum at TRU featured, on the pro-HST side, a Vancouver tax lawyer named David Robertson; Sue Porter, an accountant with KPMG in Kamloops; and Judy Guichon, a local rancher. Meanwhile, the anti-HST camp was represented by Vander Zalm himself, along with Fight HST spokesperson and BC First party organizer Chris Delaney.

Throughout their campaign against the HST, Vander Zalm and Delaney have pushed a narrative about a tax that’s bad for consumers, and good for big business. This is a fundamentally flawed argument, since large corporations aren’t even eligible for input tax credits, which instead go to benefit small- and medium-sized businesses. But that hasn’t stopped Vander Zalm and Delaney from presenting their struggle as a fight for the little guy against a big, bad government with its hand permanently in our pockets.

This narrative is hard to maintain in a debate where a tax expert and two trusted, local businesspeople are put up against a smooth but disgraced ex-premier and a party-jumping political operative. At the Kamloops forum, a pattern was quickly established where Vander Zalm or Delaney would loudly recite a populist, simplistic attack against the HST, then be countered by Robertson or one of his colleagues with often-overlooked facts. Delaney, for instance, blasted the notion that the government is taking our money from us, then condescending to give some of us a little bit back in the form of rebates for low-income earners and seniors – to his mind, a ludicrous notion. In response, Robertson patiently explained the virtues of charging everyone the same sales tax at the till, then using some of the revenue to offset costs to those who can least afford them. This back-and-forth of populist rhetoric followed by common-sense explanation became very familiar over the course of the evening.

The strangest moments of the debate, though, undoubtedly came from Bill Vander Zalm – not surprising, perhaps, from a premier who was forced to resign over financial irregularities involving his “Fantasy Gardens” theme park. In his opening statement, Vander Zalm complained that the government’s $250,000 in funding to Fight HST doesn’t go far enough – strange, coming from somebody who argues that government is over-taxing us. He made several wild claims about the HST in other jurisdictions, claiming, for example, that value-added taxes are responsible for “millions of people suffering” across Europe, and even for the Greek financial crisis. (These are not his strangest arguments to date – Les Leyne of the Victoria Times-Colonist quotes Vander Zalm warning in Prince George that the HST is a plot of the “New World Order”). When he considered it necessary, he issued dire warnings about the influence of various forces from the European Union to China to the province of Quebec. When his back was truly the wall, he lashed out at Robertson, dismissing him as “a lawyer with a nice six-figure salary” – much as he dismissed the onerous paperwork small businesses faced under the PST as “not a big deal”. The technical aspects of the HST, and its actual effect on the economy compared to PST+GST, did not appear to interest him at all. Vander Zalm conveyed, at times, the impression that he was not participating in the same debate as the others on the stage.

There were many who murmured darkly at the outset of the anti-HST campaign that Vander Zalm was in this for himself – to regain the spotlight that has shunned him for so long, and to redeem himself from a scandalous tenure in government. These criticisms were easy to dismiss while his grassroots movement was fanned out across the province, collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures against a hated change to the tax system. Today, however, those who oppose the HST on legitimate grounds need to ask themselves if Vander Zalm, and cohorts like Delaney, are the right people to be speaking for them. British Columbians deserve a factual, reality-based debate on the HST – and these two populist politicians are ill-equipped for that contest. The dramatic shift in public opinion in favour of the HST makes this very clear.

Image: Bill Vander Zalm screen capture from his appearance on JoyTV’s The Standard on 30 September 2009.

© Emile Scheffel for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: BC Politics, Bill Vander Zalm, Chris Delaney, David Robertson, FightHST, HST Referendum, Judy Guichon, Kamloops, Sue Porter, Thompson Rivers University

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

“Public policies are driving the rapid expansion of BC’s unconventional gas sector, particularly in shale formations in the Peace Region,” said Vicki Huntington, the Independent MLA for Delta South, “It is incumbent on the government to ensure it fully understands the cumulative impacts associated with developing this resource.”

With a depressed natural gas market, BC is increasingly being pushed to offer more incentives to the industry in order to develop these resources. Huntington and Simpson are urging the government to fully examine the economic, environmental and health and safety implications before further expansion is encouraged.

“The rapid expansion of this industry, and the potential for it to continue to expand with the aid of incremental government assistance, has led to serious public policy questions being raised by more and more individuals and organizations,” said Bob Simpson, the Independent MLA for Cariboo North.

The two MLAs noted a range of public concerns including:
- Economists asking if we are developing gas resources at the wrong time in the market cycle
- Peace residents and the Northern Health Authority calling for a public inquiry into the health and safety implications of oil and gas development
- The amount of fresh water used in hydraulic fracturing operations and the disposal of the large amounts of toxic wastewater subsequently produced.
- The significant additional carbon emissions associated with the industry.
- Failure to address First Nations rights and title issues
- Other jurisdictions such as Quebec and New York State taking a more precautionary approach to unconventional gas developments, while BC developments continue and cumulative impacts on the environment, public health and safety, water utilization, and seismic activity increase.

“We believe in light of numerous concerns expressed by the public that it is time for a thorough, non-partisan review to be conducted into the widespread application of hydraulic fracturing and the accelerated development of BC’s unconventional gas resources, and that a Special Committee of the Legislature should be convened to conduct a comprehensive inquiry,” the two MLAs say in a letter to the Premier.

Numerous organizations, including First Nations, supported the MLAs request for a public investigation into unconventional gas development through the use of a Special Legislative Committee.

Image: Paul / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

© admin for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: BC Politics, bob simpson MLA, Christy Clark, hydraulic fracturing, Vicki Huntington

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The current first past the post (FPTP) system creates majority governments despite the fact the majority of voters do not vote for the winning party, and it denies seats to political parties that gain significant popular support at the ballot box.

In this past federal election, the Conservatives won 54% of the seats in Parliament with the support of less than 40% of voters (only 26% of the registered voters). The 60% majority of Canadians who did not want a Conservative government are left with only the hope that Prime Minister Harper will honour their vote by incorporating some of the Opposition’s ideas into his agenda.

In the 1996 BC election, the NDP won government despite the fact the BC Liberals got the majority of votes, causing the BC Liberals to become advocates for electoral reform.

In 2001, the NDP were reduced to 2 seats in the Legislature, despite still obtaining 22% of the vote. With a proportional voting system, the 2001 election would have resulted in the NDP winning 17 seats and the Green Party 9 seats.

Enter the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform – a result, really, of both parties having experienced the distorted outcomes of the FPTP system in back-to-back elections. The Assembly recommended that BC adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which would allow voters to rank multiple candidates on election day (a preferential ballot), require successful candidates to get over 50% to win a seat, and ensure everyone’s vote counted.

The 2005 and 2009 BC Referendums on STV were unsuccessful – however, in 2005 British Columbians clearly signalled they wanted a change in their voting system.

Recently, both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals used a preferential ballot during their leadership contests. The Liberals even used a weighting system to balance the rural/urban vote and required their members to select a minimum of two candidates in order for their ballot to be accepted.

If you believe all British Columbians should be allowed to mark preferential ballots, that we need to finish the conversation the Citizens’ Assembly started, please get engaged in this week’s day of action for electoral reform. Visit my website for more information on how to have your voice heard: www.bobsimpsonmla.ca

Bob’s Column also appears weekly in the Quesnel Observer, Williams Lake Tribune and Welcome to Williams Lake. Reprinted with permission.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: bob simpson MLA, British Columbia Politics, electoral reform, federal election 2011, first past the post, national day of action, STV

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Christy Clark endorsed proportional representation during the 2009 election campaign, and her premiership may change the outlook for electoral reform in BC. She could find support on the other side of the aisle: the NDP platform includes a commitment to electoral reform. New Democrats Mike Farnworth, John Horgan, and Nicholas Simons endorsed proportional representation during their recent leadership bids.

There are numerous avenues for democratic renewal, which the panelists will be discussing on Saturday. Bob Simpson has been an outspoken advocate of reforming the ineffectual committee system, and Jane Sterk’s Green
Party supports proportional representation. Dennis Pilon, author of The Politics of Voting, offers a realistic take on the prospects for reform. All three recognize that there are both opportunities and roadblocks to
change.

This free panel discussion, which will include a question and answer session, will run from 1:30 to 3:30 on Saturday, April 30th, in room A110 of the Social Sciences and Mathematics building at UVic.

Contact: Wendy Bergerud 250-384-0666; 250-886-1974

Fair Vote Canada, Greater Victoria Chapter

www.fairvote.ca

© admin for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Bob Simpson, british columbia electoral reform, Christy Clark, dennis pilon, electoral reform, fair vote canada, fair vote victoria, jane sterk, victoria political event

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Both Mr. Harris and I were asked to respond to a question from the floor about what we were doing to advance the multi-centre proposal.

In Mr. Harris’ initial answer he spoke about the lack of a specific “program” that would enable him to try and secure Federal dollars for the $30 million initiative. He also explained that the province generally takes the lead role in determining what projects get funded.

I stated I had no issue with Mr. Harris’ accurate reflection of how the current one-third arrangement works and the critical role the province plays, but pointed out that it is the “program” approach to funding community projects that is the problem.

Why do we have to wait for “senior” levels of government to design a program that we must then adapt our needs to in order to get our tax money back? Why can’t we simply get projects funded that meet our needs based on a good business case and proposal?

I also restated my argument that we should get more fully funded projects in our region – just like Vancouver got a fully funded convention centre and a new roof over BC place.

Mr. Harris’ response was that the Federal government couldn’t fund $10 million here without a program — because lots of other communities would want the same and suddenly the Federal government would be spending a billion dollars on community projects all over Canada.

But, he presented this argument as if spending a billion on community projects would be fiscally irresponsible — that’s what got my dander up!

I pointed out that I felt it was fiscally irresponsible to spend $1.2 billion plus on the G8/G20 summits. Rather than a fake lake and over-the-top security for politicians to wring their hands about the sorry state of the global economy (mostly as a result of their poor leadership I might add) I’d sooner see that billion dollars go to community projects all over Canada, especially rural Canada!

The priorities of both the Federal and Provincial governments are skewed to urban, global and corporate interests to the detriment of taxpayers and rural communities. It’s time they stopped spending money on mega-projects and photo ops and started focusing on good public services and community development – which is what we pay taxes for in the first place.

Reprinted with permission from Bob Simpson’s blog.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: BC, bob simpson MLA, British Columbia Politics, Dick Harris MP, Northern BC politics, Quesnel, Quesnel politics, Quesnel’s multi-centre project

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

During the Liberal leadership contest Kevin Falcon stated he believed the carbon tax put BC at a competitive disadvantage. He also appeared to agree with the strong lobby by the business community which wants BC to “pause and reset” it’s climate change goals.

As a leadership candidate, George Abbott said he thought British Columbians should have a say in the future of the carbon tax, suggesting it should be included in the HST referendum. A suggestion Christy Clark dismissed, while failing to give any real sense of her own climate change agenda.

Like the HST, it would have been more democratic if British Columbians had been given an opportunity to have a say in the carbon tax and GHG reduction targets prior to establishing them in law. But, like most new initiatives by former Premier Campbell, the work leading up to BC legislating targets and a carbon tax was done in secret.

Just as we need clarity on the future of HST, we need certainty on the future of the carbon tax. We also need to know what Premier Clark is going do to about the laudable, but unattainable and unrealistic GHG targets Mr. Campbell entrenched in law.

All provincial government agencies had to be carbon neutral by 2010 – they now divert money from their limited funding to the Pacific Carbon Trust to support private sector GHG reduction projects.

The province, by law, must still reduce total GHG emissions below 2007 levels: by 6% in 2012, 18% in 2016, 33% in 2020, and 80% in 2050.

Meanwhile, the provincial government subsidizes fracking deep shale gas in the Peace, a process which emits massive amounts of GHGs. It allows the burning of huge piles of wood waste in our public forests. Supports for GHG reductions at the household level have been cancelled, in large part as a result of the HST. And, public transit is grossly underfunded.

Government activities are clearly at cross-purposes with its legal requirement to reduce GHGs.

NDP leadership candidate Nicholas Simons has suggested we need a Citizen’s Assembly on Climate Change. If we are going to “pause and reset” BC’s climate change agenda, then a Citizen’s Assembly may be the most democratic way to engage all British Columbians in this critical work.

Reprinted with permission from Bob Simpson’s blog.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: bc ndp climate change, BC Politics, bob simpson MLA, climate change agenda, George Abbott, greenhouse gases bc, Kevin Falcon

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I thought it was funny too. So did my wife, my staff, and people I spoke with about it. Then I began to ponder what this reaction to a personal attack ad may mean.

Generally, people don’t like personal attack ads. Most politicians also cringe at the thought of launching them, but get convinced by their political advisers to use them “because they work.”

But, how do they work? Do they grow interest in our democracy? Do they inform debate? Do they attract voters to the electoral process and the ballot box? No, essentially they motivate a party’s base to remember why they “hate” the targeted person or party while sowing seeds of doubt in the target’s own base.

The Christy Crunch ad is specifically designed to link Premier Clark to Mr. Campbell, particularly to his “meanness.” While it’s very early days yet, as Premier, Ms. Clark has, so far, not acted mean: she appears serious about putting families first, raised the minimum wage, restored a portion of the gaming grants, and has delayed BC Hydro rate increases.

She’s also given the BC Liberals a bump in the polls; hence, the BC NDP’s new ad links Ms. Clark back to a Premier whose actions took the BC Liberals to the proverbial basement of public opinion. Normative politics.

What troubles me is that it feels like the Christy Crunch ad is setting a new benchmark: personal attack ads are okay if they’re bright and funny. If this is true, I fear political debate will deteriorate even further as political parties try to tickle our funny bones to make attack ads more entertaining and, therefore, more acceptable.

But, personal attack ads, even funny ones, erode our democracy because, simply put, they don’t appeal to our best instincts and don’t foster the collaboration we desperately need if we’re to obtain the type of governance we require to address issues that are, quite frankly, critical to our survival.

No matter how funny, how bright, or how much they may entertain us, personal attack ads will always undermine our ability to get to good government — which is what politics is supposed to be about.

Reprinted with permission from Bob Simpson’s blog.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Whatever happened to former Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett’s rallying cry of “not a dime without debate?”

In recent years, the federal government’s budget has become a focal point for political posturing and electioneering rather than an attempt to achieve a collaborative vision for Canada which elected members of Parliament and the people of Canada can rally around.

In previous years, the political brinkmanship surrounding the budget has merely led to deeper ill-will between the political parties to the detriment of good government for Canadians. This year it looks like the budget will take us over the edge into a costly election that will likely lead to a Parliament which isn’t much different than it is now – meaning future federal budgets will involve more posturing and more brinkmanship.

A minority Parliament should be a clear signal to all federal political parties that none of them have a mandate from the people of Canada to govern independent of the others. The federal budget should therefore be viewed as the best opportunity to collaborate with the best interests of all Canadians in mind, not as an opportunity to engage in one-upmanship and crass partisanship.

On the provincial scene, we haven’t had a real budget since before the 2009 election and the introduction of the HST after that election. With our fixed election date established in May, every fourth year the provincial budget is used as an election platform for the governing party, which can also go to the polls without the books for the previous fiscal year being balanced and independently assessed by the Auditor General.

The provincial situation can be remedied by changing the province’s fixed election date to the fall, thereby forcing the governing party to introduce a real budget in the spring of each election year. The people of BC will then also have the benefit of the Auditor General’s independent assessment of the government’s finances in the June prior to a fall election.

Budgets are too important to be used as political footballs. As citizens we must demand all politicians and political parties stop using them as such.

Reprinted with permission from Bob Simpson’s blog, Indie Voice.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Bob Simpson, British Columbia Politics, federal budget, provincial budget

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

What inspires Vicki Huntington?

I am inspired by the beauty of the surrounding area. We are blessed with the beauty of the mountains, the magnificence of the ocean and the fertile farmlands of the Fraser River delta. This area is truly a jewel and I can understand why people travel here from all over the world, just to see what we are able to enjoy every day.

What are three things you love about Delta South?

1.) The people of Delta South – this community is blessed with more than its share of passionate, caring and involved citizens. On many occasions, in the past few years, people have responded to the trials and issues of our community (and there have been many – the Power lines, the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), Port expansion, Ladner harbour dredging) by stepping up and working together to propose solutions that we can live with. I am grateful for this passion and this dedication as my successful election is a testament to people not settling for the status quo when they believe that there is a better way.

2.) Delta South is the part of the Pacific Flyway, where every year millions of birds visit on their Northern and Southern migrations. A field covered in snow geese, a blue heron perched by the road side, or a majestic eagle flying from its nest high in our cedars – these are common sites. We are fortunate to have Burns Bog, OWL and Reifel Bird Sanctuary contributing to the preservation of these amazing birds.

3.) The diversity of the community – Delta is made up of several distinct communities: the vital and exciting towns of Tsawwassen and Ladner, the farming community, the fishing community, and Tilbury Industrial park. Ladner is a lovely historic town with a history of fishing and farming. The small harbour which gives way to the Fraser River, is home to active fisherman. Surrounding Ladner on all sides, are acres of fertile farmland – fields of corn, potatoes, cabbage, beans, strawberries, blueberries, and cranberries; green houses filled with cucumbers, tomatoes, and peppers; and ranches of dairy cows, llamas and sheep. Tsawwassen is a vital, exciting community that sits on the US border and at the entrance to the Lower Mainland via the Ferries. Tilbury is a productive and high growth industrial park, bordering the Fraser River. We have something here for everyone!

If you could change one thing about the way democracy functions in British Columbia what would it be?

I believe that there are actually three broken elements in our way of doing politics here in BC. One is the centralization of power and influence and the resulting failure to respond to and respect the people; a second is the manner in which the legislature does its business; and the third is the structure of the party system itself. I think that all three need to be dealt with if we are to hope for a change in the way our government works.

The first one, however, is the area where democracy has surely lost its grip. The real power in BC has been in the cabinet and in the Premier’s office. The majority of MLA’s cannot really represent their constituency if the views of the constituency are out of line with the government’s position. We saw this clearly illustrated with the HST movement. In a democracy, we have not only the right to express our opinions but also the right to disagree. It is no longer a democracy if our voice is not heard.

You’re an independent MLA. Critics would argue that an independent MLA has no ability to serve constituents and is unable to influence affairs in the Legislature. How would you respond to those critics?

I have heard this criticism and I must say it is proving to be untrue. Many government backbenchers may be well-meaning, but they are unwilling to step outside their party structure. What they are told is what they believe. They toe the party line. In some ways I am more effective in representing my riding, even though I don’t have the power to move mountains. I can ask the tough questions and raise issues on behalf of my constituents – and still keep to my principals. I’m in office today because the B.C. government failed to listen to the people of Delta South on some very significant issues.

Your father Ron Huntington was elected to the Canadian House of Commons three times as a Progressive Conservative, in 1974, 1979, and 1980, representing the electoral district of Capilano. In 1979, he served as minister of state for small business in the government of Joe Clark. Do politics run in your family?

You could say that. I admired my father a great deal. He was a member of Canada’s Parliament for 10 years and represented the people of North Vancouver diligently and passionately. That dedication and his hard work definitely inspired me to pursue my career.

© admin for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: BC Politics, British Columbia, delta, Delta South, Independent, MLA Q+A, Ron Huntington, South Fraser Perimeter Road, Vicki Huntington

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

From BC’s first Parliament in 1871 until 1929, MLAs appointed to the Executive Council were required to resign their seat and run in a by-election. This requirement to be “doubly elected” included the position of Premier. In some instances the newly appointed Cabinet Minister lost their seat in the by-election.

So, how did we go from initially requiring our Premier to be twice elected to having an unelected Premier today?

In short, it’s because we now allow political parties to exercise too much control over our legislative system.

The first BC election fought along party lines was held in 1903, but it was not until 1940 that candidates were required to declare their political affiliation on official ballots. However, political affiliation to that point was loosely defined; MLAs could freely move between “parties” because party discipline, as it is now practiced, was non-existent.

For example, one of the Cariboo’s first MLAs, “Boomer” Walkem, served in the Executive Council of two different governments because Cabinet Ministers didn’t have to follow a defeated Premier to the Opposition benches after an election defeat. Mr. Walkem wasn’t punished for what would now be considered “disloyalty.” In fact, he subsequently ended up serving as Premier — twice.

Even after party status had to be declared on the ballot, from 1941 to 1952 BC was governed by a coalition which saw political parties working together and the Executive Council consisting of people from different political persuasions.

It wasn’t until the 1950s that the current two party system became entrenched in BC. Until very recently, however, MLAs would still act independently of their party if they believed the party was not serving the best interests of their constituents. The Cariboo’s Alex Fraser is celebrated to this day for putting his constituents’ interests first, ahead of his party.

Over the past few decades, though, political parties have been able to gain complete control over our legislative system; diminishing the role of elected MLAs who are often forced to put party interests ahead of their constituents’ needs.

In short, we have an unelected Premier today because our legislative system was not designed with political parties in mind. Its founders never imagined the possibility that British Columbians would ever allow an unelected person to become Premier simply because they were the leader of a political party. On the contrary, they believed the entire Executive Council, including the Premier, should achieve a double mandate before earning the right to govern this province.

Reprinted with permission from Bob Simpson’s blog, Indie Voice.

© Bob Simpson MLA for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Alex Fraser, BC Liberal, Bob Simpson, Boomer Walkem, Cariboo, Christy Clark, Executive Council

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh