On dubious partners

I've mostly avoided commenting on the federal Libs' leadership race based on the need for the party's own membership (and supportership in this case) to decide on a future direction for itself. But with one of the candidates explicitly running on a platform of cross-party dealings, I'd think there's some room to analyze whether she has much prospect of reaching out to other parties.

Which brings us to this:

With one lonely exception, the top tier of contenders for the Liberal helm has veered sharply to the right, much to the private consternation of some of the stalwarts of the party's once-influential left wing.

"All I'm hearing is we're going down the Reagan/Thatcher slipstream," despairs one prominent veteran Liberal.

"I don't believe that the way you're going to offer an alternative (to the Harper Conservatives) is to be a pseudo-Tory."
...
Among the top tier contenders, so far only Vancouver MP Joyce Murray has staked out turf on the left. She's an ardent environmentalist, favours a carbon tax, opposes pipelines through B.C. and supports full legalization of marijuana. She also advocates co-operation with the NDP and Greens in the next election in ridings where a united progressive front could defeat the Conservatives.

So what's wrong with this picture? Well, I'll point out a couple of obvious concerns with Murray as a standard-bearer for left-leaning and pro-cooperation Lib supporters.

Murray's first political involvement came at the provincial level in British Columbia - where she was apparently perfectly comfortable teaming up with federal Conservatives in Gordon Campbell's "free enterprise coalition" for the purpose of defeating the NDP. Which means any claim that she's now committed to joining with the NDP to defeat Conservatives would represent a complete turnaround from her values when she first entered politics.

And before she was elected as an MP in Vancouver Quadra, Murray first took a run at New Westminster-Coquitlam - a riding where the Libs stood in third place even as they clung to power nationally, and where a slightly more successful attempt to pursue progressive votes on her part might well have allowed Con MP Paul Forseth to hold onto the seat against an ultimately successful challenge from the NDP's Dawn Black.

Moreover, during her stint in B.C.'s cabinet, Murray formed part of the Campbell government which  passed multiple unconstitutional laws to attack workers and slashed the public sector, while at the same time running up the provincial debt in order to hand tax goodies to high-income individuals and the corporate sector based on the false promise that economic benefits would result. So she doesn't have much basis to claim principled disagreement with the Harper Cons on the economic policy front. And her own record as the minister who was happy to eliminate "environment" from her own title doesn't exactly serve as a source of confidence either.

In summary, one could hardly design a candidate with less claim to have practiced what Murray is now preaching: her past political choices are utterly antithetical to the theme of cooperation to defeat the right, and her stint in provincial government makes for a better fit with the Tea Party than a progressive party. And Lib leadership voters wanting to see cross-party cooperation may want to look for an alternative candidate who won't be quite so toxic to potential progressive allies.

New column day

Here, on how the evolution of labour rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be traced directly to anti-labour overreach by right-wing governments - and how Brad Wall seems determined to push the limits yet again even as his first effort proved unconstitutional.

For further reading...
- The two cases discussed in the column are here (warning: PDF) and here.
- The Wall government's bizarre response to having been found to have acted unconstitutionally is here.
- Again, Murray Mandryk discussed the effect the decision will have on Wall's always-sketchy claim to moderation. And the Star-Phoenix muses about hard cases making bad law, while conspicuously refusing to suggest Wall bears any substantial responsibility for the case that developed.

[Edit: fixed link.]

Good riddance

At long last, B.C.'s HST has met its end. Vaughn Palmer reminds us why, while Iglika Ivanova looks at what comes next.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- In case anybody held out hope that the Harper Cons might follow up on their residential school apology with some concrete action to change First Nations relations for the better, here's the predictable result: a gratuitous ultimatum on land claims which seeks to force First Nations to take whatever is on the table now or risk being left with next to nothing.

- Ellen Russell comments on how the corporate right has turned financial crisis into a way of life for its own benefit:

Because the appetite for risk is so pervasive (#4), financial instruments and practices are so complex (#5), regulations are so inadequate (#6), and markets are so interdependent (#7), the "contagion effects" of a panic in one market or country can spread to far-flung and unexpected places. Thus the problems in Greece may spread to other EU countries, to the banks and other investors holding the debt of eurozone countries, to those exposed directly or indirectly to these banks and other investors, to any entity that provided financial "insurance" on anything sucked into the crisis, and anywhere else that financial panic touches down.

Awareness is growing that the arcane workings of financial markets have big impacts on their lives. No one is exempt from the devastation once a financial tsunami gathers momentum -- especially since economic contractions and government downsizing often follow closely behind the financial wreckage.

Financial crisis do not have to become a way of life. Ultimately, financial crisis is a political problem. It will take a massive shift in political mobilization to counter the current hegemony of financial interests.

Democratic financial reform must be a cornerstone for all of our agendas for economic change. Since we ultimately bail out these financial titans when crisis hits, we are entitled to make sure that finance is serving the public interest. Neoliberalism has made financial crisis a way of life. To move beyond neoliberalism, we need crack down on the financial sector so that a different way of life is possible.

- Yes, the shift to an HST model is all about benefitting the well-connected. But it's quite thoughtful of the B.C. Libs to serve up Exhibit M just in time for the referendum.

- Which offers all the more reason to answer "Absolutely!" to Rafe Mair's rhetorical question.

- Finally, Digby reminds us of the dangers of cult conservatism.

Harmonic convergence

It's never been much of a secret that the HST has been at the centre of the NDP's message to defeat Harper Cons in British Columbia. But with the party having just released a new ad on the subject, it's worth noting that for all the frustration over the tax itself, the greatest impact of any discussion of the HST may be to turn the tide against the Cons on their choice of ballot question.

Keep in mind that the decision to impose the HST was made after an election campaign where Gordon Campbell ran as a steady-hand economic manager, promising no nasty surprises for the province while trying to portray the alternative as too risky to justify public support. Sound familiar?

Needless to say, it took approximately .5 nanoseconds for Campbell to decide that his majority in the Legislature meant all previous promises - including his commitment not to impose an HST - were inoperative. And so B.C. was plunged into the political chaos and public outrage that's marked the last two years.

Now, Harper is trying to win a majority off of exactly the same message that proved so dishonest and destructive the last time B.C. voters heard and accepted it. And reminding voters about the HST serves two strong purposes in helping to avoid that outcome: not only does it direct anger over the HST itself toward one of the parties responsible, but it also serves as Exhibit A as to why it's dangerous to hand a majority mandate to a government which has proven that it can't be trusted.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous items of interest...

- A couple of pieces deserve attention on the Cons' declaration that they plan to leave up to 1,000 troops in Afghanistan after they'd agreed to remove them. First, here's pogge:

If you look down the left hand column at the main page of National Newswatch this morning you'll see quite a few of the pundits who normally appear there weighing in on the subject. That's the public debate. Or as close to it as we're going to get. If you want to get in on it, move quickly because it will be over soon. And it won't change a thing. It would appear that Harper took the public statements by Ignatieff and Rae as all the indication of support he really needed for an extended military mission "behind the wire." With the NATO Summit only two weeks away, he's allowed a revised mission profile that will make our allies ecstatic to be leaked to the media and now he's sitting back and letting everybody at home fume about it.
...
I haven't read all the material on this that I've bookmarked over the last few days but I'd like to note this Canadian Press piece. It describes a three month long "diplomatic charm offensive" by representatives from the U.S., Britain and NATO and quotes an unnamed diplomat:

"We recognize politically this is not the world's greatest vote winner," said the diplomat, adding the hope that "behind the scenes, the opposition and the government could work something out on this."

In other words, they know perfectly well that they're encouraging a government to act contrary to the wishes of its citizens. They don't particularly care as long they can work "behind the scenes" and get what they want.

We're staying in Afghanistan so we can help to bring them a democracy just like ours. Did you enjoy the debate?

- And Chris Selley laments the absurdity of the Cons' sudden decision to declare void all previous statements about bringing Canadian troops home:

Couple of problems, though. One, just because the government says it’s a training role doesn’t mean it’s true. (How can we train troops exclusively behind the wire?) Almost nothing Stephen Harper or his lickspittles-with-portfolio have said about the mission in recent months has been true. Indeed, as Martin notes, they went miles out of their way to convince Canadians there would be no military role in Afghanistan whatsoever after 2011 — and “nobody raised the bar on those expectations higher than [Mr. Harper], who was so adamant about unilaterally leaving the war zone by the end of 2011, he insisted in a National Post interview that the only remaining soldiers would be a few privates guarding the Canadian embassy.”

“It was never clear why the Conservatives perpetuated the misconception that [the government] was bound to remove every soldier from the country in 2011,” says the Globe. Yeah, golly, what a mystery. Please. What the Globe’s Lawrence Martin describes as political “ambidexterity” — i.e., guilefully stealing Michael Ignatieff’s plan for troops to stay on as trainers — is in fact just an example of the government’s golden rule. Its only rule, maybe: In every situation, without exception, do or say the thing that’s easiest to do or say, and let the communications guys figure out any ensuing contradictions. Or give them the night off. It’s not like anyone cares.

- Carl Mortished points out that the supposed purpose of workfare programs doesn't have much to do with the actual result:

We don’t know how many cheat the welfare system. I suspect the real cheats (rather than those who are chronically idle) are few in number but extremely clever. The British government reforms will not catch the big cheats who will delight in finding ways to continue claiming multiple benefits without picking up litter. Instead, it will employ contractors at large expense to drag up and down the street squads of depressed, irritable and resentful people clad in ill-fitting overalls.

Will “scroungers” acquire a work ethic picking up litter? They will acquire an urgent need to avoid loss of income but that is different to an ethic. Governments in Europe worry about a diminishing spirit of enterprise among the young. They think they see a work ethic in China but we know that many Chinese have family memories of gut-wrenching hardship. If Chinese work harder than British or Canadians, it is out of fear and the acquisitiveness of those desperate for a way out of poverty. The Chinese are not better people; they are just more desperate. If you don’t think that is true, ask yourself whether the employees who committed suicide at Foxconn’s Chinese factory lacked a work ethic or had just lost hope that their lives would get better.

We cannot change people’s attitudes to work by taking away benefits. A tougher regime that might turn us all into a “Chinese” work force is politically impossible. All we can do is tip the balance of fear and greed temporarily in favour of turning up for a day with the dust cart.

- Finally, the Tyee is doing yeoman's work in countering the apparent media effort to redefine Gordon Campbell after his resignation, with Will McMartin's piece doing a particularly good job comparing Campbell's promises to what he actually did.

Try again

Chrystal unfortunately misses a rather important point in Gordon Campbell's attempt to buy his way back into favour with B.C.'s anti-tax crowd:

Carole James has this to say:

I believe in a competitive tax environment but this is a ridiculous way to set tax policy... Fiscal irresponsibility and a government trying to buy back public support is the only thing I saw with this tax cut... It's unclear where the money will come from.

Might it not be from the HST that you and your party have been campaigning so fiercely against?

Needless to say, the answer is: no, it mightn't.

After all, the extra money being paid by consumers is balanced out by $1.9 billion in tax breaks for corporations in what's intended to be a revenue neutral shift in government income. And that's without even mentioning the shiny baubles offered alongside the HST to try to make it more palatable to B.C.'s voters in the first place.

Mind you, it's not hard to see why Campbell did what he did. After all, the move to keep slashing taxes even further should at least help him to break the anti-HST movement into its constituent parts and bring part of the Vander Zalm wing back into the Libs' fold - perhaps staving off the prospect of another right-wing party annihilating the Libs in 2013 or sooner.

But for the NDP and others whose concern all along has been Campbell's combination of fiscal mismanagement and desire to benefit the corporate sector at the expense of working-class British Columbians, the move only makes matters worse. And that should offer all the more reason to ensure that the Libs don't stay in power any longer than can be avoided.

Tuesday Morning Links

A few items that have come to my attention...

- this magazine points out seven private members' bills that deserve to be enacted - and the list is well worth a read. But let's not forget what may be the most significant private members' bill currently in the pipeline: the Climate Change Accountability Act, which has already managed to pass among Canada's elected representatives but at last notice was being held up by Cons in the Senate.

- Unfortunately, Murray Dobbin's proposed Police State Watch looks like it's sorely needed based on his stark examples of how peaceful dissent is being treated as a matter of criminality or even pathology.

- If anybody thought B.C.'s anti-HST movement would slow down now that Gordon Campbell has offered a vote somewhere down the road on the Libs' preferred terms, that notion has been put to rest. Instead, the recall campaign looks to be moving at full speed ahead - and even having some fun in deciding which MLAs will bear the brunt of citizens' frustration with the Campbell government.

- Brian Topp points out how the PC Trust Fund controversy fits into Brad Wall's wider problems:

(T)he increasingly successful New Democratic opposition, led by former deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, have been handed a useful prop to demonstrate the direct link between Mr. Wall's government and Mr. Devine's former administration and record.

Mr. Wall seems to have a problem with money. His government made a $2-billion mistake estimating the province's revenues this year, patched over through a set of desperate expedients. He must be tempted to take the $3-million in that fund and burn it in the parking lot in front of the Legislature -- not unlike what he has done to the provincial finances. Instead, the fund is doing a slow burn inside the "Saskatchewan Party's" carefully-reconstructed brand.

- Finally, the Cons offer yet another example of what they believe deserves funding ahead of democratic diversity - spending a record $130 million to advertise themselves at public expense in 2009. (Which, for those keeping track at home, is four times the amount they want to axe in per-vote funding to political parties as being unnecessary for political promotion.)

On spillover effects

There's been some discussion about how the HST will influence votes over the next few years - with Dalton McGuinty looking to have it considered solely as part of his party's body of work in the 2011 Ontario election, while the B.C. Libs hope to spread their province's even greater anger over a period starting with the recall window this fall and not ending until the 2013 trip to the polls. But it's worth keeping in mind that it's not only on the provincial level that voters will have a chance to express their anger.

That's particularly so in B.C., where the argument about the supposed "benefits" of the HST is largely coming down to Gordon Campbell's plea that province can't afford to give back the federal Cons' bribe money (and will take back the money that handed to voters to try to buy their silence).

Of course, it seems clear that the province's citizens were less than happy with the deal to begin with, and thus won't have much compunction about voting to undo it. But the more Campbell talks about the federal role as an excuse to keep the HST, the more the Cons figure to be dragged down as well as the debate plays out. And to the extent Campbell claims the province can't afford to lose the money involved, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see the anti-HST forces challenge whether the Harper Cons want to punish the province for the Libs' mistakes.

As a result, a federal election in the midst of an HST referendum could serve as one more outlet for voters to replace a government looking out primarily for corporate interests with one that actually takes their concerns into account.

The situation may be different in Ontario, as the McGuinty government has chosen a strategy of taking somewhat more responsibility and engaging in correspondingly less finger-pointing. But it's anybody's guess as to whether that will hold up, particularly as the federal role gets discussed in the context of the B.C. campaigns. And while the Libs and Cons may be able to do little more than bash each other to a draw when it comes time to assign blame for the HST, there's one party that can stand above the fray.

All of which means that the HST is far from done with as an issue at either the provincial or the federal level. And there's a strong chance that the Campbell Libs' attempt to delay facing the music will only ensure that all of the governments responsible will end up paying a well-deserved price.

On damage control

So let's get this straight: after refusing to countenance budging on the HST either before implementing it or in the wake of an unprecedented petition campaign, the Campbell government is now claiming it's willing to reverse course based on a majority vote in a 2011 referendum.

Now, the move makes some sense from a survival standpoint as a means of delaying the recall campaign anticipated to start as soon as this fall. (And it'll be interesting to see whether the anti-HST movement pushes forward rather than holding off until Campbell's preferred timeline for a vote.)

But the province figures to be worse off on multiple fronts for the Libs having refused to pay any attention to the public until the last possible moment - then chosen to delay matters rather than reversing the HST immediately. And it's hard to see how they'll gain much in the long term either, given that the move ensures that the HST will remain a live issue long after they tried to proclaim it dead.

On responsible governments

The Harper Cons have long claimed that the HST is a provincial matter. So surely they couldn't have imposed it.

But the Campbell Liberals are now arguing that it's purely a federal matter which can't be reversed by the province.

Which leads to only one possible conclusion: the HST hasn't been imposed by either government with the authority to do so. So anybody in B.C. or Ontario who thinks they're paying more sales tax since July 1 must be mistaken.

On narrow interests

Gary Mason slams the B.C. business community's decision to attack the province's HST petition through the courts only after a massive proportion of the province has already made its opposition clear:

For most of his nine years in office, Mr. Campbell has taken criticism for a policy agenda perceived to strongly favour business over unions. The business community has mostly rewarded that loyalty by donating generously to Mr. Campbell’s Liberals, helping to ensure they remain in power.
...
Now that the anti-HST campaign appears to have more than enough signatures on its petition to get a bill calling for the tax to be repealed introduced in the legislature, the business community has decided to enter the fray. With friends like that…

A coalition of business groups has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to rule the petition drive unconstitutional. The group’s argument is that B.C. does not have the right to quash the federally created HST.
...
There is a time and place for court challenges. But coming so late in the game, as this one does, looks cheap and undemocratic. It’s moves like this, quite frankly, that give business a bad name. Business leaders were too lazy to get off their duffs and do something when they should have, so now they are going to dig into their bloated wallets and take the easy way out. By going to court.

At this point the move is only going to make matters worse for Mr. Campbell – if that’s possible. The public will look at what the business coalition is doing as an attempt to thwart the will of the people on behalf of a governing party it has always supported.

On rationalizations

Bill Tieleman's response to Gordon Campbell's HST op-ed is definitely worth a read. But for those of us in Saskatchewan, it's part of Campbell's excuse after the fact that bears particular attention based on the spin currently emanating from our own premier:

Although you may not have seen much media coverage before last summer, combining the PST and GST to create a harmonized sales tax is something that has been discussed publicly for many years.

Federal governments - past and present - and business organizations - large and small across the province - repeatedly asked us to harmonize the PST with the GST...

Each time we were asked, we said we would not consider it for two primary reasons. First, it would eliminate B.C.'s ability to set our own tax rate.

And it still does - BC has given up its tax sovereignty to Ottawa for the most part.

Second, we wanted to be able to shape our tax regime with flexibility that would allow us to exempt certain goods and services from being taxable. It wasn't until last year that kind of flexibility was available.

So the fact that harmonization had been discussed in some circles before - even having been rejected by Campbell's own government at the time - is being put forward as justification for not bothering to consider how the province might react to the HST, whether by consulting with voters, or even by taking their interests into account. Which looks to offer yet another parallel between Campbell's modus operandi and Brad Wall's - and serves as all the more reason to distrust Wall when he claims that we shouldn't worry about his making the same move in Saskatchewan.

Extra fireworks

In addition to Canada Day, let's not forget that two provinces are getting to celebrate Prostrate Yourselves Before Your Corporate Overlords Day as well. And while the general theme is one of rightful frustration, at least some people seem disturbingly enthusiastic about the prospect.

On familiar tactics

For those wondering whether Brad Wall's HST letter in the Star-Phoenix should offer any comfort to Saskatchewan citizens who don't want to see the province's tax structure altered to benefit corporations at their expense, let's take a look at what he has to say:

(A harmonized sales tax) would extend the PST tax base to a broad range of goods and services that are presently exempt from the provincial sales tax...

Such items that are currently PST-exempt include energy-efficient appliances, membership fees for clubs and gyms, newspapers and magazines, taxi fares, restaurant food and the professional services of architects and accountants. This is a major concern.

The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales tax rates, which reduces flexibility. In short, a harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform.

Oops, wrong HST response. But it still says plenty about how seriously we should take Wall's words:

Our government is not of the orthodoxy that the HST must be the No. 1 priority in a jurisdiction that needs to do more work on competitive personal and corporate tax rates, as well as lower property taxes.

Moreover, the discord fomented over HST implementation and all the attendant exemptions, credits and tinkering to make it politically palatable highlight the comparative efficacy of tax reform in other areas.

The discord and tax burden shift resulting from an HST do not fit with (the Sask Party government's) objectives.

If anything, one can find far more of a principled objection to the HST in the B.C. Libs' campaign statement (which was of course fully inoperative within a matter of weeks). Wall doesn't say for a second that he disagrees with the principle of making citizens pay more for the benefit of corporations - only that he doesn't want to deal with the political consequences of pushing it through, and figures he can do as much to make the tax system more regressive in other ways without the same backlash.

What's more, if Wall's lone reason for not harmonizing immediately is the question of whether it's "politically palatable", then it's worth keeping in mind that the political calculations involved might change radically by December 2011 if he figures that any anger will die down by the following election. And even though Campbell's similar conclusion has proven to be spectacularly wrong, it's entirely plausible that Wall might still figure that he can get away with the HST in the absence of the petition and recall processes that have kept the issue alive in British Columbia.

In sum, Wall's letter looks to be just one more example of his slightly tweaking the Campbell playbook to get to the same end result, rather than representing any reason for optimism that he'll avoid imposing harmonization on a province that's already definitively rejected it once before. And unlike their B.C. counterparts, Saskatchewan voters will have only one chance to send the message that they're not about to accept an HST.

Total recall

There's been no lack of talk about Blair Lekstrom's resignation from the B.C. Libs over the HST. But it's worth noting exactly how Lekstrom has framed his departure, and what it means for his former caucus-mates:

"It is clear to me that the residents of Peace River South are opposed to the harmonized sales tax and are unhappy with the way in which our government moved forward with this policy," he said in a statement released Friday morning.

"This is not about being right or wrong; in fact, I firmly believe that government is making a decision they believe will help the province, but as we have been unable to bring the public along, I acknowledge there is a need to re-evaluate this decision," he said.

"In light of the widespread opposition to the HST, I believe it would be prudent to bring the move toward the HST to a halt and immediately engage British Columbians in a dialogue about our taxation policy.

"This is a major tax policy shift, and it is time to engage British Columbians with a series of discussions about our province's future."
...
Lekstrom, who was a key leader in Premier Gordon Campbell's cabinet, also said he was quitting the Liberal caucus but will stay on as the MLA for Peace River South in northeastern B.C.

He has yet to say whether he plans to sit as an Independent or perhaps even join the rising B.C. Conservative Party as the fringe party's first MLA in decades.

So what's noticeably missing from Lekstrom's message? Strikingly, he isn't actually criticizing the HST in substance, or substantially contradicting the B.C. Libs' party line as to how it came to be - which looks to distinguish Lekstrom from politicians whose resignations from cabinet or party have been based on actual disagreements in principle.

Rather, Lekstrom is merely refusing to vote for the HST in the next little while pending future "discussions". And that suggests to me that his goal isn't to serve as the face of the B.C. Conservatives or otherwise take a front-and-centre role fighting against harmonization. Instead, his resignation looks to be aimed primarily at allowing himself to vote against the HST for the short term - presumably avoiding becoming one of the first victims of this fall's expected recall petitions in the process - while leaving the door open for a return to the Libs' fold after the HST storm passes.

Of course, only so many MLAs can get away with that type of move without costing the Campbell government its legislative majority. And now that Lekstrom has set the precedent, it'll be interesting to see who's next in line to try to avoid an immediate recall at the expense of their standing in caucus.

Grassroots growing

In case there was any doubt that it's still possible to get large numbers of people involved in a political effort, the B.C. HST petition should put that to rest - having reached the required threshold of obtaining signatures from 10 per cent of the voters in every single one of B.C.'s provincial ridings with over a month to spare.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the petition will manage to force a near-term change in policy, government or both. But the fact that it's cleared what was once seen as an insurmountable hurdle should signal that it's not a good idea to bet against the anti-HST movement - and provide a positive example for efforts to get citizens engaged on other issues as well.

Still in issue

While the initial legislative debates about the HST in both Ontario and B.C. are done, the issue isn't dying down in either province. So let's note the most interesting developments on both fronts.

In Ontario, there doesn't seem to be much talk of stopping or reversing the move toward benefiting corporations at the expense of citizens. But it's worth highlighting the effort of one Lib constituency association to try to counter public disgust at having the HST applied to a wide swath of consumer purchases - by countering with a list of some of the areas that are mercifully unaffected. Which strikes me as functionally equivalent to BP declaring we should all be grateful for its Gulf of Mexico spill by naming areas of coastline elsewhere around the globe that won't end up covered in oil.

Meanwhile, in B.C. the conventional wisdom appears to have changed from "the Libs will ride it out" to "the Libs are doomed whatever they do" - and not without reason given the remarkable strength of the province's petition campaign. And it doesn't figure to be much of a leap from that stance to the view that Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen may have to back down from their stubborn insistence on imposing the tax.

Still digging

I'd wondered how it was that the Campbell government could ignore the funding rules under B.C.'s initiative legislation to plan a publicly-funded ad blitz trying to sell its much-despised HST to make up for the complete lack of anybody else willing to defend it. And it looks like the question is about to be investigated:

Organizers of the anti-HST campaign in British Columbia plan to complain to both the RCMP and Elections BC if the provincial government goes ahead with an advertising blitz aimed at their initiative.

Finance Minister Colin Hansen told reporters last week that the government plans to send out information to British Columbians defending its harmonized sales tax.

Chris Delaney of Fight HST says they believe the mailing campaign violates the Initiative Act, which requires that opponents or proponents register with Elections BC, either as an official opponent or advertising sponsor -- something the province hasn't done.

Now, it seems entirely possible that the ad campaign will backfire, both by raising public awareness of the petition drive at a time when it's HST opponents who face a barrier which requires massive public attention to the issue, and by adding a new reason for concern about the misuse of public resources. And the possibility of an investigation which might dog the B.C. Libs long after the petition drive is over should only add to the latter possibility.

Of course, yet another misstep shouldn't come as much surprise considering that virtually everything else about the Campbell government's decision to force the HST onto the province has similarly been made up of equal parts tone-deafness and contempt for B.C. citizens. And just as the B.C. Libs have seemed to be shocked at every turn as they've dug themselves into a deeper pit, it doesn't seem likely that they'll even consider the possibility that a woefully unpopular government might not want to keep using what little political capital its has left on a futile effort to sell a thoroughly-despised tax until they've damaged their reputation - and boosted the anti-HST cause - even further.

Tuesday Morning Links

A few notes for your weekday reading...

- I'll echo those pointing out Open Parliament as a handy way to keep tabs on the goings-on in the House of Commons in a somewhat more convenient form than is available on the official Parliament of Canada site. But I'll also remind readers of How'd They Vote, which is a particularly useful resource to decipher how MPs have handled their most direct influence over public policy.

- After the unfortunate demise of the Sasquatch, its sibling publication Briarpatch is now putting out a call for support. And if you need some political motivation, here's part of why the publication is looking for help:

There have also been cuts to federal funding for magazines, and what we see as a dangerous politicization of Canadian cultural policy: Briarpatch Magazine...was denied grant funding from the Canada Magazine Fund for the past two years running for what we see as specious reasons. (In one case, our grant was recommended for approval by Canada Magazine Fund staff, and then rejected by the Conservative Minister of Culture!)

- Meanwhile, before the Sasquatch shuts down entirely, Jennipher Karst's piece on the need for a food system that will actually encourage small-scale farming is well worth a read.

- While I don't have much to add to what Michael Geist has been writing about the global ACTA copyright treaty negotiations, it's well worth following along to see how any comsumer interests in content are being bargained away in secret.

- Finally, Bill Tieleman nicely summarizes the current state of B.C.'s HST fight.