Photo: Stephen Hui, Georgia Straight

David Schreck summed it up quite well in the Tyee yesterday when he suggested that Gordon Campbell is asking voters in B.C. to believe a paradoxical statement from the Liberals:

The Gord giveth and the Gord taketh away. In the legislature Wednesday, the Premier stated: “Let me reiterate that during the election campaign we had no intention of dealing with the HST… There’s no question that the HST is going to strengthen our economy. One of the things that we were clear about during the campaign is that we had every intention to strengthen our economy as it came out of this economic downturn.”

In case you missed it, you were supposed to read Gordon Campbell’s mind and understand that when he said he would “strengthen our economy” he meant that he would introduce the HST even though he said he wouldn’t do that.

You were also supposed to infer from his statement that when the Liberals said they were not exploring the HST during the election, that they actually meant they would be implementing it shortly afterward. If we’re to believe Gordon Campbell’s tortured logic, even though they said they had no intention of visiting the HST, we should have realized that the government had the intention to “strengthen” the economy by doing exactly that.

As Vaughn Palmer writes in the Vancouver Sun, Gordon Campbell has given the NDP their new slogan: “What’s he hiding from you this time?” There is a serious deficit issue with the Liberals here in B.C., and it isn’t just the fiscal outlook.

The main argument the Liberals are forwarding now appears to be that the taxes are a shift into consumption. As companies save $1.9 billion from the HST simplification method, the savings are supposed to be passed onto consumers. As David Schreck writes, the problem with that theory is that most consumers don’t purchase products from the beneficiaries of the HST: forestry, mining and construction.

If it were true that the tax changes represented a shift from income to consumption [the main argument behind the revenue neutral carbon tax in B.C.], then the Liberals would enact rebates and exemptions in the way that Ontario has done. Finance Minister Colin Hansen wrote a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist which was published November 21, which explained that B.C. has lower taxes than Ontario does, and that’s why Ontario is able to offer the kind of rebates it is.

I generally support consumption taxes, but they have to come in conjunction with income tax reductions or other tax shifts which do not put undue burden on the population for basic necessities. Since the BC Liberals haven’t yet offered anything like this [or even released anything detailing exactly how they expect it to work], we can assume that this province will have a much more difficult time adapting than our cousins in Ontario.

I was listening to an interview with Mike de Jong, a Liberal MLA in British Columbia, while driving to the store a few minutes ago. After speaking with the radio host he took some calls from some very irate people. They called the Liberals “liars”, and “thieves”, and “criminals”, and pretty much every other adjective you can think of that derives from stealing. Mr. de Jong responded with patronizing and soothing tones, while calling them NDP partisans and suggested if they could run the province better, they should put a platform together and notify Carole James.

The thing that got to me, I suppose, was that in listening to Mr. de Jong, it struck me how empty and hollow his words are. He isn’t the one faced with difficult choices resulting from high provincial unemployment. He isn’t the one who will face any backlash from the HST, the carbon tax, the BC Rail scandal, or any other number of ridiculous things the Liberals have done over the past 8 years.

No matter what happens from now until the Liberals face their next test in an election in 2013, the jobs of every single Liberal MLA are secure. Insulated as they are from any of the choices they make, how can they possibly make comments about the “difficulties facing British Columbians”?

It doesn’t really matter if the politician loses his job eventually anyway. The mere act of being elected becomes a bona fide gold star on the resume of the politician, who can then go into high paying jobs in the private sector, or as management in public sector crown corporations.

Look at the career of one NDP leader Bob Rae. So universally hated in Ontario over his Premiership there from 1990 until he was ousted by the Progressive Conservatives in 1995, that his name remains a legendary memory of fiscal incompetence and hated and failed public policies. Yet Mr.Rae is today a sitting MP for the Liberal Party enjoying a six-figure salary, also insulated from any recession, job demand fluctuations, or anything else that the ordinary people who work for a living have to face.

I suppose it must be easy to make decisions that don’t really affect you personally. I think insulated is a fitting word to use. Indeed, our silver-spoon elected leaders are insulated from almost everything that might otherwise qualify them from understanding what life is like for the average Joe. They have expense accounts for everything from office supplies to airplane tickets; they often have use of a chauffeur or other publicly funded transportation for their exclusive use; and then there’s the fully indexed government pensions.

The connections that the elected politician makes during their term is also an insulation from facing any hard reality after they leave office. Indeed, running a province, or a country for that matter, into the ground, seems to have little personal repercussions. Imagine if all working people had such immunity from their personal actions. Do you think that the Liberal MLA has to pay for the consequences of the own carbon tax when the people are buying their gasoline?

Let’s face it. Going into “public service” is a ticket to the good life, regardless of how much you happen to service the public. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre’s pension at 31-years-old is a fairly good example of how steeped in the politician’s favour the system is. Accountability is a beautiful concept that exists on the same plane as Harry Potter and his petrificus totalis spell.

I openly wonder what life might be like for politicians if they were paid at the rate of the median working class Canadian. Would a straight $60,000 annual salary without any expense account or publicly funded transportation alter their decisions at all? Could they possibly learn to better understand what it might be like to be on the receiving end of decisions made that affect the people this way?

Politics is both alluring and repelling to me. Alluring because it is an inspiration to all the imagination of great things we aspire to achieve as a society. Repelling because all idealism falls by the wayside of corrupted power and the inevitable consequences that are felt by the common man. Is there any wonder that cynicism has reduced our democracy to something which now goes through the motions with the participation of less than half the eligible voting population?

The truly disturbing part in all of this is despite whatever politicians like Gordon Campbell may do, he’ll likely retire to a very comfortable post-political life, or else become involved in a top ranking position in a company that benefited from their close ties to his office. No matter what happens to B.C., Gordon Campbell will be just fine.

It must be a great comfort to know that you will never have to the face the consequences of your own actions.

James Moore with North Vancouver MP Andrew Saxton

James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and the Member of Parliament for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, was on hand in Vancouver today to announce a new $21 million refurbishment of the roof and “iconic” sails of Canada Place in downtown Vancouver. According to the press release, the tensioned fabric roof of Canada Place is long overdue for replacement, having been built back in 1985 in time for Expo 86. The outer roof fabric will be replaced with material of “current technology.”

“Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, our Government is focused on creating jobs and stimulating the economy,” said Minister Moore. “By investing in the Canada Place roof, we are creating local jobs and ensuring that this building remains a world-recognized Canadian landmark for decades to come.”

Exactly how it will stimulate the economy, or how many jobs it will specifically create, there is no official word as of yet. This construction won’t be completed until March of 2011, and so it falls under the federal Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.

What you might not know from reading the press release, however, is that North Vancouver MP for the Conservative Party Andrew Saxton was on hand as well. Since this specific infrastructure spending falls under the riding of Liberal Hedy Fry, it’s unusual that the news release doesn’t mention whether she was present for the announcement, or why Mr.Saxton was on hand. Nor is there any information on her website about it, or any news involving her off the wires.

When I expressed surprise at the cost of $21 million to repair a roof, James Moore responded via Twitter:

“That’s what it costs. The facility generates over $1 billion in economic activity per year. The new roof will last 30 years.”

Given the confusion over whether this is a Liberal riding infrastructure spending announcement, or a Conservative one, I think this Rick Mercer skit is a nice segué into the comments section:

The scene of juxtaposition:

The CBC wants to make sure they report all the “relevant” aspects of current news involving climate change. Which brings me to this little video:

Robert Werner takes it a step further to it’s logical conclusion.

Meanwhile our Conservative government is on board with a $10 billion wealth redistribution scheme to “fight” climate change.

Bonus irony: Commonwealth cuts AIDS funding to make way for the new hot hip thing.

According to the Tyee, the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have declined to distribute a children’s book because they say it’s “racist” and “promotes stereotypes of First Nations people.” The book, which is written by former ChickaDEE magazine editor Lizann Flatt and illustrated by Scot Ritchie, is called “Let’s Go! The Story of Getting from There to Here”.

“The representations of aboriginal people are stereotypes — everyone looks the same — and they are all depicted in the past, with feathers on their heads,” the paper quoted the province’s Department of Education saying. “The aboriginal peoples are represented in passive roles, waiting for ‘progress’ to come and ‘better’ them.”

A ministry official was also quoted saying Europe is depicted as “heavenly” with a castle and a sunburst behind it while the First Nations people look generic.

The actual story is based on transportation, beginning with people who walked or canoed, and leading into the modern era where people drive and fly. The stereotype, they argue, is that First Nations people were technologically behind the Europeans.

Well, weren’t they? Is there anybody on Earth who denies the European civilization did not meet the aboriginal peoples here in a state of different technological evolution? The Europeans met the people of this continent in a state of neolithic kinship-based culture, something which the Europeans passed through thousands of years ago. There isn’t anything wrong with being in different stages of development; it just happens to be the historical truth.

The book actually just completed a book tour, which took place from November 14 to 21. The 32nd annual TD Canadian Children’s Book Week, sponsored by TD Bank Financial Group and the Canadian Children’s Book Centre provided more than 500,000 copies of Let’s Go! The Story of Getting from There to Here to grade one students across Canada.

“Because of TD’s generous support, we can use this wonderful story to start a conversation with children that is not only about the importance of reading, but also about where we’ve been and where we’re going,” said Charlotte Teeple, Executive Director, Canadian Children’s Book Centre. “We hope that Let’s Go captures the imaginations of Canadian children and starts them on the path to a life-long love of literature.”

Responding by email to a query about the current controversy, illustrator Scot Ritchie wrote, “We’ve just returned from our tour and the teachers, librarians and kids all loved the book.

“For me one of the best things about this give-away program is knowing that for some kids this is the first book they’ll ever own. As for the interpretations of the book I’m going to echo Charlotte Teeple’s comments. I don’t see what people disapprove of. I think they are wrong but that is their choice. One comment caught my eye regarding First Nations people; “they are all depicted… with feathers on their heads.” I had to check my artwork again because I remember being conscious of that. There’s one feather.”

Of course there’s an easier explanation for this. Social engineering doesn’t have to make sense, which is why it’s difficult to explain complicated subjects such as the historical implications of the Europeans meeting the First Peoples here in North America, and put it into context with a children’s book that describes how people get around. If it were an encyclopedia pictorial for adults, one might understand the offence at childish cartoons showing feathers in the hair of Indians, or all looking generic and bland. But that isn’t what the book is meant to be about, and so the critics should focus on more meaningful expressions of their social agendas, rather than attempt to foist them onto grade one student reading material.

Another week has come and gone, although it’s a little frightening how quickly it went. This was sort of my one-week “grace period” of unemployment since my pay was staggered to always be one week late. But beginning next Monday I’ll have no income coming in, so the job hunt is going to have go into overdrive. I did find some work, but it’s in Alberta. Banff and Edmonton, while I’m sure have their own charms, aren’t places I want to visit in December.

But we’ll see. If you have any inside tips on helping me find a job [my primary occupation is glazier], feel free to drop me a line. In fact, feel encouraged to do so.

1. Finland. Photograph by Jorma Luhta

2. Jesien, Poland

3. Photograph by Robert Styrahinjic

4. Photograph by Michal Ostrowski

5. A fish restaurant on a rocky outcrop in Zanzibar

6. Untitled

7. Torres del Paine, by Carlos Pinto

8. Photograph by Alexandre Deschaumes

Amy Goodman, host of the American public radio show Democracy Now, was detained with her producers at the Canadian border and interrogated for more than an hour. The reason, according to her, is that border agents were afraid she was visiting to criticize the 2010 Olympic Games.

She was actually visiting Canada to promote a new book about health care, global warming, the economic meltdown and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She says that border agents didn’t believe she wasn’t visiting Canada to speak negatively about the Olympic Games, and searched her car and laptops.

“It really disturbs me that when you start questioning a journalist, it certainly has a chilling effect,” she said. “It sends a message that we’re being monitored, watched.”

The story would be more surprising if it wasn’t already a hot news topic here in Vancouver. There have been heavy indications from the province and the city of Vancouver that dissent and criticism of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games here will not be tolerated.

Some “temporary changes” being proposed by the City of Vancouver in a revised 2010 Olympic Winter Games bylaw that will go before city council Tuesday, would allow for adjustments to 10 city bylaws for the duration of the Olympics. These include some normal moves, like relaxing noise laws, keeping bars open longer, but it would also allow to crack down on “illegal” advertising.

The main problem here stems from what might be considered illegal advertising. The new legislation is being amended to exclude non-commercial signs [for instance one saying "IOC go home"], which can still be removed under the existing bylaws, but would take up to 30 days.

The city has assured people here that it will not be enforcing compliance on signs expressing political dissent to the Olympics, but civil rights groups don’t believe it. These groups are concerned that the demands of the International Olympic Committee, under the so-called “security agenda”, and as dictated by the multinational sponsors of the Olympics, will supersede the rights of people living in Vancouver.

Activist for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association David Eby raises a good point:

When talking about accountability, what am I to say to representatives of VANOC, an organization that is funded by government, the majority of whose board is appointed by government, whose business plan is directed by government, and who, despite this, spent at least tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars convincing a court that they were exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Now of course I realize that the B.C.C.L.A. and Amy Goodman are mainly proponents of the leftwing, anti-war movement, two agendas for which I’m not either a fan, or a follower. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to criticize and express their views, both about civil rights and the Olympic Games [or in the case of Ms.Goodman, her new book]. Those rights will be put to the test in February when the world’s eyes focus on Vancouver.

Former Premier Bill Vander Zalm speaks out against the HST at a rally besdide the Vancouver Convention Centre Saturday.
Photograph by: Arlen Redekop, Canwest News Service

The media have been circulating a story since last night that the Conservative Party intends to introduce legislation next week that would put the issue of the tax harmonization between British Columbia, Ontario, and the federal government to rest. At least in federal circles. Reuters originally released a document revealing that the Conservatives want to test the Liberal Party resolve over the HST issue.

Parliament would be asked to confirm the right of provinces to enter into such a contract with the government, and if the opposition votes it down, then the HST would die. But if the Liberals back the legislation it could be a “problematic” situation for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

“Parliament’s decision on the framework legislation will be certain and final,” according to the document. “This legislation will have the support of the Official Opposition or it will not. If it does, we expect the bill to win approval before the Christmas recess.

“If the framework legislation is rejected before Christmas, we will not revisit the issue. Not next year. Not after the next election.”

The media has cynically framed this as an ultimatum made to the Liberals in order to either have the opposition accept the legislation, or else humiliate Michael Ignatieff for being forced to take a stand on the HST. This is because Mr.Ignatieff has been confusing in his statements about the HST, referring to it as the “Harper Sales Tax”, but also promising not to repeal the tax if his party gained power.

Not so fast, says Macleans columnist Paul Wells, via his blog. The Conservatives have released a statement to their caucus, which mysteriously found it’s way forwarded to the media, saying that this move is not politically motivated:

Dear Caucus Members:

A front-page story in the Globe and Mail [the one quoted above] gives an unfortunate and inaccurate impression of our tax-harmonization framework policy.

The Government will introduce a tax-harmonization framework in order to respect provincial decision-making and to honour commitments made to Premiers McGuinty and Campbell.

Contrary to what the story implies, we are not proceeding in this manner to embarrass, box in or gain an advantage over the federal Liberals.[...]

So there you have it. The Conservatives are bringing the HST debate out into the open, but not for crass political gain, as so many pundits have surmised. This recent denial by the Conservatives is, of course, also subject to skepticism and debate.

According to the Globe and Mail article so reviled by the Conservatives in their email to “Caucus Members”, the Bloc Quebecois have signalled they would defeat the HST legislation, and since we already know where Jack Layton’s heart lies, that would leave the Liberals with the final say.

Not according to a recent article in Bloomberg today, which says that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has worked out a deal with the separatists that would allow for the legislation to pass.

“The Bloc will support the motion,” Pierre Paquette, who leads the party’s day-to-day operations in Parliament, told the press. Of course it’s purely based on self-interest, as usual. Quebec would receive financial compensation from the feds, just like Ontario and B.C. if the HST goes through. Since it already harmonized with Ottawa, it hasn’t received financial compensation.

So to those people living in Ontario and British Columbia: How do you like decisions made about your province being decided by a political party with no interest in being in Canada?

Cabinet member Ben Stewart
Photograph by: Files, Times Colonist

The first few bureaucrats have been thrown under the bus by MLA Ben Stewart in the wake of documents being discovered in the house of a government employee by the RCMP. Now the question on everyone’s mind is: what took you so long to do it?

We already know that one of the government employees who have now been fired, remained on the job for seven months after the police searched his Victoria home and found the personal information of 1,400 people on government income-assistance.

What we don’t know, thanks to the reticent BC government to volunteer self-incriminating information to the public, is what the employee’s job was and how he or she was able to access such sensitive information. It wasn’t until a month ago that the employee was even suspended when Citizen’s Services Minister Ben Stewart says that he was finally informed by his staff of the security breach.

But at this point Mr.Stewart is faced with an uncomfortable choice of explanation for the public: was it incompetence in government that led to the delay in informing people of the security breach, or was it a willful attempt to coverup the matter from the public?

The RCMP showed the documents to the government as early as May, leading to the question of whether the government sat on the information so that it could gain reelection. And if it did so, why did it wait an extra five months after securing that reelection?

What’s even more ironic about all of this, as pointed out by Les Leyne in the Victoria Times, is that while it was a privacy breach on the residents of this province that has led to this scandal, the government is citing “privacy” as the reason we can’t know who, exactly, is behind these alleged stolen or misplaced documents.

In a comedy of errors, the minister also sent an apology to those affected by the breach telling them that the government is working on the problem. But some letters were sent to the wrong people, so the government had to issue letters to ask those people to destroy those letters. Very reassuring.

This isn’t the first time the government has gone to great lengths not to inform the public about things that the RCMP already uncovered. Government bureaucrat Ron Danderfer remained working as assistant deputy health minister until 2007 when an investigation began looking into possible breach of trust and corruption. But it wasn’t until October of this year that the government acknowledged the investigation publicly, or admitted that it knew about the case a long time ago and did not tell the public.

Add into the mix the deleted emails to the BC Rail case, and you have a recipe for a government which constantly appears to act in self-interest first, and public interest second. Although the Liberals have managed to escape tight spots before, they are slowly building on a legacy that they can’t be trusted. When you consider that both the deficit and the HST were only announced after their reelection, it makes it even more difficult to believe anything they have to say about what they did or did not know about missing documents.

A Liberal party survey takes offence to the fact that, in general, political groups which obsess on pay equity and affirmative action quotas [like the Liberal Party] are “left-wing” fringe movements. So to fight fire with more fire, they call the Conservative Party the “Reform-Conservatives”. It’s as though they actually believe that using the word “Reform” in the name will frighten and confuse people into thinking the current government consists of one part Reform Party members, and one part Progressive Conservative Party members.

But where’s the checkbox for eliminating the Status of Women Canada altogether? Also known appropriately as the SoW, this ministry costs us $25.3 million a year to promote “gender equality and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada.”

I particularly like question number four in the survey. “Who do you trust more to advocate for the rights of women in Canada and abroad?” Well, I certainly don’t trust the Liberal Party to advocate for the rights of women abroad. They are the main reason we’re leaving Afghanistan in 2011.

At any rate, I think this short survey should be completed and sent to Liberal Party headquarters [hey, they asked for it].