BC Conservative infighting continues

Posted June 30, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Other Parties

The BC Conservatives sent out a press release stating that due to continued in-fighting, that most of their directors and party leader Wilf Hanni has resigned.

I had previously posted that I had thought these internal squabbles were resolved after they received a court ruling certifying Wilf Hanni and his supporters on the board as the true directors as the BC Conservative party, but this obviously wasn’t completely rectified.

According to the press release, it appears that legal fees, approximately $30,000, is hindering the party. As directors could potentially be liable for such fees, they resigned to likely avoid facing future liability.

The BC Conservative party currently has only one asset – its name is strikingly similar to a federal party that happens to be in government. If it was not for this, the party would be non-existent. If the people that left the party think they can continue in politics as a different name and have a feasible chance of being elected in the legislature, they will be kidding themselves. They need to look at the BC Refederation Party’s results, which had some of the lowest vote counts in the entire province.

At least the ex-directors of the BC Conservative Party can enjoy Canada Day knowing that they likely will not be personally liable for the party’s liabilities.

4 Comments

Failing to vet the candidates

Posted May 7, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Other Parties, Scandal

BC Conservative candidate for Abbotsford South, Gurcharan Dhaliwal allegedly was convicted of possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, i.e. drug running.

I am surprised it took this long for one of the minor party candidates to surface as having a track record. My guess is that the BC Liberals held this in the bag as late as possible to try to discredit the BC Conservative Party. My other guess is that the BC Liberals and NDP have dirt on some of the 85 Green candidates (some of whom were hastily nominated to finish the complete provincial slate), but they’ve decided not to bother getting it to the media to reduce exposure to the party.

At this point, the BC Conservative party has one thing alone – their name – that they are riding the coattails of the federal Conservative Party of Canada with. If it wasn’t for this, they would be a complete non-entity.

3 Comments

Convention Centre springs a leak

Posted April 28, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: BC Liberals, Economy

The biggest costing failure of the government of the past four years has been the downtown Vancouver convention centre – the original budget was $495 million (mysteriously like the projected 2009 BC Budget deficit!), while the actuals have come around $880 million.

The government was probably breathing a sigh of relief when it finally opened to the public in early April – even though the project was massively over budget, it was a done deal, and would be out of the public spotlight during election time.

Unfortunately during a convention of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a water main leak sprung and the centre had to be evacuated. According to the Province:

Convention-centre general manager Ken Cretney said the damage was limited to water damage and he doesn’t expect costs to be excessive.

“There’s no injuries or permanent damage, just a lot of cleanup,” he said.

Cretney said the leak was not due to shoddy construction. “It can happen anywhere, anytime, new or old buildings.”

Whether “it can happen anywhere, anytime, new or old” could be true. Or it could be not. In terms of public optics, however, the easy inference to make was that there might be something wrong with the construction.

I truly hope this was a one-off incident, but the timing of this has just been very unfortunate for the BC Liberal government, since it was anticipated that the budgetary failure of the Vancouver convention centre would have been a footnote of this campaign.

Comments Off

In defence of John van Dongen and a discussion on speeding

Posted April 27, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Analysis, BC Liberals

The NDP are making full use of the resignation of John van Dongen’s position as Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety today; they will have all of Monday to make as much as they can about this before it will die Tuesday and beyond. If the NDP try pushing it for longer, they will not stand to politically profit as much.

The reaction from the third parties, however, have been less than coherent. In particular, there was a special interest group against street racing that chided van Dongen for his behaviour, especially when they quoted van Dongen as saying (paraphrasing from memory) “he would do everything to stop speeders on our streets”.

The fact is that van Dongen wasn’t caught street racing; he was caught speeding.

Discussion on Speeding

It is a fact that a great deal of automobile injuries are caused by fast-moving vehicles. However, there is a huge difference between going 141km/h on the stretch of Highway 1 from Langley to Hope, and going down Knight Street at 91km/h; or down Front Street in New Westminster at 71km/h; the three are equivalently “dangerous driving” under the law (Section 148 of the Motor Vehicle Act), but one is inherently more safe than the others.

A perfect law would define “dangerous driving” as such, and let the police target such drivers. Unfortunately, the measurement of “dangerous” is not easy to nail down in court, and because of this ambiguity, politicians decided to target speed as a proxy for dangerous driving. Speed is measurable, and such measurement can be easily submitted as evidence in court, once it is proven that the speed limit was violated.

Ever since the history of driving speeding has always contributed to injuries; however, bad driver decisions (including high speed) are what inevitably cause accidents, not solely speed itself.

One of the first things the BC Liberal government did in 2001 was removing photo radar; this was a political decision, but it also was smart public policy in that it effectively amounted on a tax on unobservant (and usually non-local) drivers where the photo radar van was usually parked, and it was very difficult to manipulate statistics to “prove” that photo radar saved lives (which it did not). The government is to be commended on sticking to its guns with this decision, and not falling into the trap of other jurisdictions of letting photo radar becoming a source of revenue.

Advocates of strict speed measures state that removal of speed limits would cause more fatalities; contrary to this belief, the state of Montana in the past removed all speed limits on highways between 1995 to 1999, and discovered that fatalities did not increase during this time period. It turns out that, not surprisingly, people drive at speeds they feel comfortable with.

Only when there is an artificial enforcement of speed that you have two tiers of traffic appearing – people that want to drive at the ‘natural speed’ that is safe for the road, and another tier of people that want to drive at the ‘legal’ speed. Having all drivers on the road that drive at 10km/h over the speed limit is much safer than having half the drivers driving at the legal speed limit, and the other half driving 10km/h over.

Speeding also consumes an amount of police resources which could be better allocated to other divisions of traffic safety (e.g. truck maintenance inspections). Speeding also consumes a huge amount of court resources.

Finally, the government’s own report (Ministry of Transportation) from Spring 2003, Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia, concluded that the speed limits in a lot of areas of BC (mainly rural) should be increased. The government took no further action with respect to this report.

If anything is to be learned from this incident, it is that after the election, the province should take a hard look at Section 146 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and consider delegating this down to municipalities to enforce within municipal boundaries, and let the municipalities decide whether they want to consume their police resources enforcing speeding.

9 Comments

John van Dongen hands in his resignation papers

Posted April 27, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Analysis, BC Liberals

John van Dongen resigned as Solicitor General over the speeding ticket flap. I had thought that he would lose his cabinet position after the election, but apparently the BC Liberal party thought that preemptively doing it would mitigate any future election attacks on behalf of the NDP.

During the television debate one can imagine Carole James talking about how the BC Liberals can talk about crime but can’t even keep their solicitor generals in office. This resignation will not change things, but the party can now claim that they were accountable for their actions.

Resignation was a smart political decision which will save the party a bit of brief and make their position a bit more defensible for the duration of the campaign.

Attached is his resignation:

Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and BC Liberal candidate for Abbotsford South John van Dongen released the following statement today:

“Last Friday, I released a statement confirming my request to have the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles removed from my ministerial responsibly after I had been informed by the OSMV that they were implementing a prohibition on my driver’s license due to recent tickets I had received for speeding.

Over the weekend I have reflected on my actions. I have heard from those who have rightly criticized my driving record that has undermined their confidence in my role as Solicitor General. I do understand how my conduct in this respect has reflected poorly on the credibility of the office. In no way do I wish to allow my actions to distract from the tremendous work and ongoing contributions of the people who are working so hard to build confidence in our law enforcement system and in our efforts to improve public safety, particularly surrounding gangs and gun violence.

I have worked hard as Solicitor General. Over the course of the last year, I have met with people who have lost family members because of speeding and other illegal driving behaviour. I have let them down and I have let down my constituents who depend on me to set the highest public example. For that I am deeply sorry.

I hold the office of the Solicitor General in the highest regard. It carries with it a significant responsibility to reflect the policies necessary to make our communities safe.

This is why I informed the Premier this morning that I am resigning immediately from my duties as Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I will continue to run in the upcoming election as a candidate for the BC Liberal Party in the riding of Abbotsford South and I will work hard to earn the votes and confidence of my constituents.

As I stated last week, I fully recognize the importance of public safety and compliance with the laws of our roads. I apologize to those I have let down with these latest actions, and it remains my hope that the public will continue to have confidence in the office of the Solicitor General.”

Previous analysis – Scandal hits the BC Liberals – John van Dongen.

Comments Off

Two more parties nominate candidates – Communist Party, Your Political Party of BC

Posted April 21, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Other Parties

The Communist Party of BC has filed election papers for two candidates – Zachary Crispin in Kootenay West and Peter Marcus in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Both ridings are currently heavily NDP.

James Filippelli has also been nominated as a Your Political Party of BC candidate in Port Moody-Coquitlam.

Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the Communist Party’s website (assuming there is one), but I have linked to Your Political Party above. According to the Communist Party’s Wikipedia page, the party is against the BC-STV system (my guess for the reason: there isn’t enough distribution between the votes and the seats allocated, and that the election results are not centrally planned by the government).

Subsequent note: James Filippelli gave me a phone call, and would like me to clarify to the rest of the readers out there that there is no relationship whatsoever between Your Political Party of BC and the Communist Party of BC. In addition, I have corrected the web link to Your Political Party.

6 Comments

BC Conservatives release their 2009 election platform

Posted April 21, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: Other Parties

The BC Conservatives have released their 2009 election platform (link, local copy).

There isn’t anything “surprising” about their platform – examples include calling for “performance based health care solutions” to stem the increase in health care expenditures (but with no concrete plans on how to do it); opposing the upcoming Recognition and Reconciliation act (which will be a vote-getter off-reserves) and eliminating the carbon tax.

On page 7, they did mention the following about “selling lakes and rivers” –

Selling off our rivers, streams and lakes to long term foreign control is unconscionable. BC Conservative MLAs will protect these resources for the long term benefit of all our citizens. Commercialization opportunities should be provided only through limited time lease agreements rather than outright sales agreements.

It doesn’t look like the BC Conservatives did their research – right now the maximum lease you can get on a river, assuming you pass all other regulatory authority, is 40 years. That said, the province did do a deal with CN Rail in 2003 to “lease off” the majority of BC Rail’s assets and trackage rights, for renewable periods of up to 990 years, which did not constitute a “sale”. However, 40 years is certainly a lot shorter than 990 years.

Page 8 calls for a 1% reduction in PST; assuming spending levels remain the same, this would result in a $730 million tax reduction in the 2009-2010 fiscal year. They also call for “PST tax credits” and investigating harmonizing the PST with the GST, which suggests that the BC Conservatives haven’t learned too much from Ontario’s experience with harmonization so far.

Page 9 calls for the elimination of the property transfer tax which is another $685 million line item for the 2009-2010 year.

Page 13 calls for the recommendation of rejecting BC-STV. I guess they didn’t learn from Adriane Carr’s experience in 2005.

All in all, this document is not going to make or break the party. They do have a huge funding gap with the tax reductions they have proposed (about $2 billion) which they haven’t really addressed – do they plan on running deficits? But for a small fringe party, missing details like this are to be expected.

2 Comments

Raising the carbon tax

Posted April 21, 2009 by Sacha Peter
Category: BC Greens, Economy, Environment

The Green Party sent out a press releasing calling for an increase to the carbon tax (Media Release).

Victoria, BC –– The Green Party of BC is calling on British Columbians to support an increased tax shift on green house gas emissions from $10/tonne to $50/tonne.

The $10/tonne (now $15) shift by the BC Liberals is a start, but BC Greens would shift more sooner — starting with $50/tonne,” said Jane Sterk, Leader of the Green Party of BC.

“Since revenues from the tax will be used to reduce payroll and income taxes, most British Columbians who have choosen alternates to burning hydrocarbons have already increased their overall revenues. Along with the GST rebate and lowered personal taxes, some low income, northern and rural dwellers have also seen reduced expenses.”

The press release looks rushed and not researched properly.

The second paragraph states that the carbon tax is levied at $10 per tonne, but then states it is now $15 – it is not. It will be $15 as of July 1, 2009, and $20 as of July 1, 2010, and $25 as of July 1, 2011, and then the last legislated increase is $30 as of July 1, 2012. Presumably this legislation will be extended if the BC Liberals are re-elected.

The third paragraph is badly worded and is plainly incorrect. Revenues from the carbon tax cannot be used to decrease payroll taxes (CPP and EI) mainly because these are federal jurisdiction items. The provincial government cannot directly reduce these payroll taxes. Saying that the carbon tax, from an individual perspective “increases overall revenues” is also incorrect phrasing; “reducing expenses” is proper. Finally, the GST rebate (another federal jurisdiction matter) has nothing to do with the provincial carbon tax.

This isn’t the first time the provincial Green party has mixed provincial and federal jurisdiction matters; in their original platform document, they stated they would accelerate capital cost allowance rates for “green” capital expenditures; and also permanently put in place the oil drilling moratorium – both of which are federal matters.

Politically, calling for a carbon tax increase is not going to win mainstream voters for the Green party; especially since this release does not explain in a concrete fashion (i.e. dollars that are planning on being spent for various initiatives) on how the revenues from such a tax increase would be utilized – there is reference to “Initially money would be directed toward programs in rural and northern communities”, but somehow I doubt those communities will be thrilled about this. The press release also implies that the “revenue neutral” aspect of the carbon tax (i.e. every dollar collected from carbon taxation will no longer be applied to tax reductions elsewhere) will no longer be adhered to.

The impact of a $50/tonne carbon tax, assuming a 10% reduction in consumption of fossil fuels over projected 2009-2010 levels, would be a $1.42 billion dollar per year tax increase over and above the 2009-2010 budgeted amount (of $546 million). A $50/tonne carbon tax would represent a 11.7 cent tax per litre of unleaded gasoline.

Finally, keep in mind the title of the press release was “Green Tax Shifting Reduces Emissions Without Increasing Taxes”, which is completely inconsistent with what the rest of the press release stated since the tax increase would be approximately $1.42 billion, assuming fossil fuel consumption is reduced by 10%.

2 Comments