This strong progressive voice in Parliament coming from Quebec was a distinct voice and Harper’s recognition of that distinctiveness was responding to this.

The NDP, as Quebec’s voice in Parliament, is not going to be able to fill the space that the BQ had on progressive issues. I fear Quebec will be simply not be part of the equation whenever social policy is at stake. Harper will simply reject the NDP voice on these issues as socialist programs we can’t afford and since no other opposition party will have the political credibility the BQ had, Harper will be free to do his worst.

But looking at the numbers, it was actually quite close: the BC Liberals got 45.7% of the popular vote, compared to 42.2% for the NDP. This slim margin validates the Angus Reid polling camp, which came closest on estimating the popular vote, compared to a handful of others that put the Liberals ahead by 9-10% (I was leaning towards the Angus Reid polls mostly because they had much larger sample sizes of over 1,000 compared to just over 600 for the others, even though according to theory the gap should not change that much).

The Greens had 8.2% of the vote, enough for them to split the vote in enough ridings to make the difference (although it is not obvious that the second choice of Green voters is the NDP). Unlike the federal election, there was no talk of strategic voting in BC, perhaps because the NDP made the carbon tax its wedge issue. That backfired on them badly, with big swaths of the BC Interior and suburbs of Vancouver (those most opposed to the carbon tax) sticking Liberal. Just as Campbell did not know that after announcing the carbon tax, gas prices would shoot up by 40 cents a litre, James and the NDP did not know that those prices would fall so much when they chose to vigorously oppose the carbon tax last summer.

The election, like all Canadian elections that produce majority governments, is a winner-take-all for the Liberals, even though more than half of British Columbians voted against his party. Within the Liberals it is a winner-take-all for Campbell, due to the overly centralized power in the Premier’s office Many of the smiling faces we saw elected will not be seen again except as a backbench backdrop for cameras in the Legislature.

All of which underlines the irony that another opportunity to change the electoral system (to the Single Transferable Vote) went down in flames. Unlike the 2005 referendum, which came close to the 60% approval required to pass, this time it was not even close with 60% supporting the existing system. As several commentators have pointed out, the new Legislature looks a whole lot like the old Legislature, BC basically went for the status quo.

Attention will now turn back to the economy, with the Liberal narrative that they were the best managers through hard economic times. It is surprising that the NDP did not pick up on the string of economic bad news that flowed out of Statscan during the lead up and the campaign. They might have felt that doing so would only reinforce the Liberals’ economic manager frame.

Instead, the NDP ran an opposition campaign that offered no vision for the province other than ridding ourselves of Campbell. They hit the Liberals effectively by playing on a “crony capitalism” theme, manifested in the scandal over BC Rail privatization, and other privatization of new run-of-the-river electricity generation and certain public services. But ultimately their anti-Campbell yang lacked a yin that offered up some concrete changes that would improve the lives of British Columbians. Hopefully, this will provoke some soul searching within the party that leads to renewal.

Both parties were guilty of not being forthcoming about the impact of economic developments on the state of the BC budget. A small deficit tabled in February is surely much much larger, and it was not clear what either party would do if elected. So we will have to wait and see if the Liberals will let the deficit grow, or if they will attempt to cut spending to keep the lid on an ostensible half-billion dollar deficit. They seemed to leaning toward the latter during the election campaign but that was, well, the election campaign. If they wait until September before tabling a budget update, much of this will be easier to spin.

Another big question is where the Liberals now go on climate policy. They have received much praise for the first steps on climate action, including the carbon tax, but there was nothing in the platform that spoke of making the next steps. I seem to have been the only one in the campaign to have pointed out that the Liberals do not have a plan to meet their legislated 33% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. So getting that done would be a good start, but I’m doubtful that we will see much, although more oil and gas extraction is definitely in the works and that will be a huge hurdle to meeting the legislated target.

Most of the attention on climate policy is likely to turn to the international stage in the lead up to Copenhagen in December, which will attempt to carve out a new global deal on climate change (with a helpful US government, we can only hope). And BC will not want to move ahead too much with a North American cap-and-trade system in the works.

So looking foward to the next four years, it is not obvious at all what we are going to get from the third Campbell administration.

Late last week, the BC Poverty Reduction Committee released its analysis of the three main parties’ platforms with respect to the call. In summary, here’s where they have landed:

The BC Liberal Party does not commit to a poverty reduction plan with clear targets and timelines. The Premier has written, “the Province of British Columbia has made promising steps to address the challenges associated with poverty and we are working on additional measures to put together a comprehensive plan to continue moving forward.” The closest the Liberal platform comes to suggesting a real target is in the area of homelessness, in titling the one-page policy section on housing, “Ending homelessness with new solutions.” The section describes various initiatives to date (outlined below). But this goal of ending homelessness is not linked to clear timelines.

The BC New Democratic Party platform does commit to “Developing a poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines that build on our initiatives that will raise the minimum wage, support jobs and skills training, increase affordable housing, improve child protection and change income assistance.” This is good news. However, the NDP plan does not specify what the poverty reduction targets and timelines should be (presumably this would be determined after the election), nor does it say if such targets and timelines would be legislated (which is key to accountability). The NDP commitment with respect to homelessness is more concrete. Their plan commits to “Ending the crisis in homelessness in 5 years.”

The Green Party has included poverty reduction as a priority in their platform, British Columbia’s Green Book: “The Green Party understands that immediate action is needed to ensure every British Columbian has a meaningful opportunity to share in the wealth of this province.” The key goals of their plan include ensuring British Columbians can all meet their basic needs, and “reversing the trend towards greater disparity between rich and poor.” Additionally, in the area of housing and homelessness, the Green Party has committed to “safe and affordable homes” for everyone living in BC. As the Green Party is not contesting government, they have not costed out their policies.

A more detailed analysis of the party platforms/positions with respect to the poverty reduction call can be found here.

Premier Campbell’s stubborn refusal to commit to poverty reduction targets has been particularly disappointing. During the election campaign, Premier Campbell has repeatedly been asked by reporters and citizens if a re-elected Liberal government would bring in a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines. On each occasion, he has refused to say yes. Instead, the premier has replied that his goal is “to have the lowest unemployment rate that we can,” because “a job is the best social program.” It is correct that job creation is important to poverty reduction. But most poor British Columbians are already employed in the low wage workforce (where they face a minimum wage that hasn’t moved since 2001), and record low unemployment over the past few years has not changed the fact that BC has the highest poverty rate in Canada. So clearly, a focus on employment is insufficient.

During last Sunday’s TV leaders debate, Steve Kerstetter asked (in a recorded question) what new initiatives the leaders would take to reduce child poverty. Notably, in his response, the premier did not mention any new initiatives, but rather, simply talked about things the province has already done.

Once again, the premier selectively noted that BC’s child poverty rate has declined by 15% since 2003. Why 2003? Because that’s when BC’s child poverty rate peaked at 19%. What the premier neglects to mention is that the latest BC child poverty rate of 16% remains 2 percentage points higher than it was in 2001 (when it stood at 14%).

What is surprising, however, is the lack of substantive discussion over the relative merits of each party’s proposed economic recovery policy, as stated in their platforms. Instead, we are repeatedly told that responsible economic stewardship involves keeping the business sector happy and anything that goes against the interest of “employers” (such as increasing the minimum wage, for example) is bad policy. The Liberals’ tactic seems to be to market themselves as friends of businesses while portraying the NDP as the employers’ enemy.

This tactic was used in the televised leaders’ debate last weekend, when Mr Campbell remarked:

“When you’re talking about the economy, I think it’s fair to ask the question: Why is there not one major employer group in British Columbia – in mining, in tourism, in forestry – that actually supports the New Democrats’ policies?”

Like most other over-simplified messages, this one is also incorrect. Good economic policy does not mean pandering to business-based interest groups. Yes, lowering business taxes and relaxing workers’ rights makes it easier for firms to reap higher profits, which encourages them to set up locally, creating jobs for the local population and increasing economic growth. However, economic growth alone is not a guarantee that everyone (or even most people) would benefit from the increased prosperity. In BC, we’ve seen this clearly over the last 25 years, when economic growth was strong yet poverty remained largely unchanged and income inequality increased substantially.

Where does this leave us? We need to keep in mind that the whole point of having a strong economy is to benefit society by improving the standard of living of people. We cannot continue to ignore our social and environmental problems in the name of having a strong economy. We need to balance the need of businesses to keep their costs low with the needs of workers to earn enough so that they are able to afford the basics like housing, child care, education to make sure we’re all set on the right path in life.

This does not mean that we have to completely ignore the interests of the business sector. Policy-making in a recession involves some trade offs for sure, but it’s not the all-or-nothing proposition that the BC Liberals are trying to make it.

US President Obama summed it up well on March 10th, when he revealed the first details of his education plan (quoted widely in the media, for example here):

I know there are some who believe we can only handle one challenge at a time [but] we don’t have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term.

It’s time for our policy-makers to recognize that tax dollars are not simply a drain of resources from individuals or businesses but can and should be used for productive investments that would make the economy stronger and more sustainable in the future. These investments include building up physical infrastructure, as the current government is doing, but they also include making this infrastructure “green,” which they are not doing (as Marc explains here), as well as building up the social infrastructure we require to ensure that our children are well-educated and prepared to face the challenges of tomorrow.

The current US Administration is doing it. Let’s make sure that those we elect next week do the same.

Fundamentally, providing an accessible home and community care system for our frail seniors is not only the morally right thing to do for our elders, it’s also the smart thing to do in terms of containing health care costs. Caring for seniors in the community is considerably cheaper than keeping them in hospitals (which is what happens when there is no available spot in residential care for seniors who can’t live independently).

An op-ed published in the Vancouver Sun on Thursday calls attention to the serious problems in seniors’ care in this province. The authors, Jeremy Tate and Marcy Cohen, who co-authored a recent CCPA study An Uncertain Future for Seniors: BC’s Restructuring of Home and Community Health Care, 2001-2008, blame “years of poorly planned restructuring and a failure to maintain (let alone enhance) access to key services” for the decline in seniors’ care. They call for “leadership and commitment to transparency, public consultation, good planning and increased access to seniors’ care.”

But do the party platforms promise to deliver any of these things?

There are certainly important differences in the two parties’ approach towards seniors’ care. The Liberal platform mentions seniors 23 times, but seldom in the context of health care. The closest they come to seniors’ care is promising to invest in housing, more specifically 1,000 new homes for “seniors and people with disabilities.” Their health budget, however, tells us not to expect any meaningful increases in care beyond current levels.

The NDP platform, in contrast, explicitly acknowledges that seniors’ health care needs are not currently met as well as they should be, pledging to improve seniors’ care by adding 3,000 new residential care beds, re-opening some 300 beds in closed facilities (like Cowichan Lodge) and establishing a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and recommend policy reforms. There have been questions, however, as to whether the amount of money allotted for the cause would be sufficient.

UPDATE: The online version has now been fixed.

Can the NDP deal with B.C.’s economic challenges?

By Marc Lee

In BC’s 2009 election, parties must respond to two fundamental challenges: first, a crashing provincial economy with rapidly rising unemployment; and second, the global climate crisis, which demands that BC dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Rather than pit these objectives against each other, good policy choices should instead link them together: our efforts to boost employment through stimulus packages should be strategic investments that put BC on a sustainable path, not just a return to old patterns of development.

While the NDP platform takes some important steps on both fronts, it does not offer the bold new direction and vision many might expect with global capitalism on its knees. The NDP attacks head-on some of the most egregious and controversial policies of the Liberals, like run-of-the-river power projects and the flawed P3 infrastructure model. But ultimately, the platform is cautious and lands very much in the middle of the road.

This is problematic in that the NDP platform accepts both the culture of fiscal conservatism that has come to dominate Canadian politics (manifested in an over-emphasis on tax cuts and balancing the budget), and an overly rosy view of the state of the economy. It takes as given the Liberals’ February budget, which describes an alternative universe in which unemployment averages 6.2% for 2009, and BC weathers a small storm just in time for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

But the provincial unemployment rate hit 7.4% in March, up from 4.3% a year before. Since last summer, 83,000 jobs have been lost. With new housing starts down 70% compared to last year, construction employment will plummet even further as current projects are completed, meaning an unemployment rate that could hit double digits by year-end.

This inevitably means the half-billion dollar budget deficit tabled by the Liberals is a work of fiction. Both parties need to come clean about how they would amend their plans given higher-than-budgeted deficits in the $1-2 billion range.

Moreover, falling consumer spending and business investment mean government must lean even harder against these adverse economic winds. In terms of stimulus, the 2009 budget package will do little to curb rapidly rising unemployment. BC is in an excellent fiscal position, and should err on the side of doing too much, not too little.

The NDP platform adds more stimulus, with a modestly larger deficit and higher capital spending. Together, these provide additional stimulus of 1 to 1.5% of GDP if we count the multiplier effects. How the stimulus is spent is also important, and the NDP’s plan is focused on green infrastructure and social investments.

The NDP platform also takes aim at the climate change file. Its program would cap emissions from large industrial sources starting in 2010, and will harmonize those efforts with a North American cap-and-trade system. They also propose major public transit investments, low-interest loans for building retrofits for energy efficiency, and a royalty on “flaring” in the oil and gas sector (the source of 13% of BC’s GHG emissions).

Unfortunately, most of the attention of climate policy has been on the BC carbon tax, which is neither as horrible as the NDP paints it, nor as potent as advocates make it out to be. Given BC’s fiscal challenges, the NDP would do better by fixing some of the problems with the tax (like ensuring it covers all GHG emissions), using the revenues to fund climate action (rather than borrowing), and shoring up a low-income credit that fails to protect low-income households as of 2010.

The incrementalist approach of the NDP platform also shows on social policy. Even during the recent boom, many British Columbians were left out. The Liberals have overseen the shredding of social assistance, the gutting of social housing construction, and the dubious distinction of BC having the lowest minimum wage in Canada.

The NDP platform would reverse some of this damage. It would raise the minimum wage to $10. It aspires to create 2,400 new social housing units this year, and 1,200 per year after that – a move aimed at a major reduction in homelessness. The NDP have said they would bring in a poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines, but do not say what those targets should be. And the new money for social assistance in their platform is inadequate given this goal and the economic situation.

Now that BC’s housing and commodity booms are over, and the recession is getting worse each week, structural weaknesses in BC’s economy have been revealed that were not cured with a tax cut. BC needs a bold new vision that combines social justice principles with a sustainable economy. By this yardstick, the NDP makes some progress, but by pandering to tax cuts falls short in its ambition.

As for run-of-river IPPs, the fact is they are not very green, at least not if you value the large amount of land and water resources they cumulatively impact in pristine wilderness areas. They are not needed in the amounts that the government is forcing BC Hydro to acquire with its incredibly ill-considered and needlessly costly self-sufficiency and insurance policies. The energy they provide is relatively low in value, delivered disproportionately in the spring when least needed. They are high price. And the private contracts under which they are purchased provide BC Hydro with no long term security of supply. At the end of the contract terms the IPP power must be repurchased at then prevailing market prices.

Liberal Energy Policy forcing the development of excessive amounts of these ‘green’ IPPs is what I like to call a strategy to buy high-sell low (because much of the IPP power will be surplus and exported at relatively low prices) and buy now-buy again later (at the end of the initial contract terms). En realidad, as my Baja friends would say, its not just godless socialists that could question its wisdom.

As for the carbon tax, the hysteric debate and forecasts of doom have nothing to do with what is being proposed. Axing the Liberals carbon tax will mean fuel prices by 2012 may be 7 cents per litre less than they would otherwise be. That is a relatively small difference in price (less than the very annoying daily swings in price that sometimes take place at your friendly service station). And that in turn will have only a marginal impact on fuel consumption and related emissions. The demand for fuel is widely recognized by economists as inelastic (relatively unresponsive) to price.

Whatever you think about the Liberals carbon tax — a token gesture to attract green votes or a bold, albeit modest, step in the right direction — it is almost irrelevant to the much larger issues that need to be addressed. How and when will a cap and trade system for large emitters be put in place? How will transit initiatives be developed and financed to reduce auto use? Will vehicle levies or system tolls be introduced? If we are going to retain a carbon tax, how high should it go, and how can it be linked to the price of crude oil, so that it isn’t too small when crude prices are low and too high when crude prices go through the roof. Shouldn’t carbon tax revenues be devoted at least in part to offsetting the emissions on which they are levied? And shouldn’t we coordinate any carbon tax policy, like cap-and-trade, with what is going on elsewhere.

There is an opportunity to have an interesting debate here. But, at least so far, passion, politics and new found religious zeal seem to rule.

“I want you to think about one thing. Think about the opening ceremonies of the Games next Feb. 12th. There will be lots of government officials. I expect the prime minister will be there. I expect the mayor of Vancouver will be there. I expect the premier of British Columbia will be there. Visualize those opening ceremonies with Premier Carole James.”

This riff only makes sense in the context of a long-running refrain that NDP government can only play the economic blues. In the weeks to come, we will be reminded about the bad old days when the NDP were last in power. But now that we can roughly compare two terms of the NDP with two terms of the Liberals, we find that there is little truth to the smear that the NDP have the cooties.

The average rate of economic (real GDP) growth under the Liberals has been 3.1%, whereas the so-called “lost decade” under the NDP saw average growth that was only slightly lower, at 2.8 %. But if we add in estimates for 2008 and 2009 (using latest projections from the private sector, which are too rosy in my opinion, and better than what the government itself is projecting in the budget), the average growth rate under Liberal rule falls to 2.6%, LESS than under the NDP.

In terms of family incomes, average after-tax income in BC (constant dollars) was $46,340 in 1991. By 2001 it rose to $50,248, an increase of 8.4%. And by 2006 (last year for which we have data) it grew to $55,583, an increase of 10.6%. This masks some important differences in distribution, with average incomes further down the income distribution lower than they were in the early 1990s, while incomes up higher soared much more than average.

How about employment? During the “lost decade” of 1991 and 2001, BC employment grew by 344,100, an increase of 22%. Between 2001 and 2008, BC employment grew by 392,700, an increase of 20%. However, BC also just lost 35,000 jobs in January, and the prospects for rising unemployment in 2009 are severe. By the time the election occurs, it could well be the case that more jobs were created under the watch of the NDP than under the Liberals.

In terms of the unemployment rate, it was about 10% when the NDP came to power, and fell to 6.9% in May 2001. In the following boom years, the unemployment rate fell to record lows of around 4%, but at last glance (January) it was 6.1% and rising. By the time of the election I would not be surprised if the unemployment rate was higher than when the Liberals first came to power.

My point here is not a partisan one – the NDP were far from perfect in office; they benefited from immigration to BC in record numbers; but also got sideswiped by the Asian crisis of 1998-99. Rather, it is to remind people that BC’s economic fortunes generally swing on decisions made outside our borders. Politicians will inevitably try to take claim credit when times are good, and just as quickly will shift blame onto others when times get bad. The BC Liberals have rode as astonishing wave of luck by coming to power in 2001, just as BC’s real estate boom got underway in the cities, and just as exports surged and commodity prices soared, taking with them the rest of the province.

The Thone Speech may claim that all new jobs in BC have arisen due to tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2002, but the reality is that BC benefited from: low interest rates as determined by the Bank of Canada that launched a housing boom; an extra $3 billion per year in transfers from the federal government; huge growth in export demand from the US and Asia. At best the government can claim that the downturn of 2001 and 2002 was softened by its deficit-financed tax cuts, although even there so much of the gains went to the top earners in the province that it was a weak stimulus.

That the housing and commodity booms are now over, and BC is in a recession that is getting worse each week, points to structural weaknesses in BC’s economy that were not cured with a tax cut. Alas, the Premier is once again getting bit in the backside by his own penchant for populism, as BC’s fixed election date guarantees two and a half more months of bad economic news in the press in the lead-up to the next election. Given the choice, most politicians would have held a snap election last fall when plausible denial about the state of the economy was still possible (our Prime Minister even broke with his own fixed election date for this very reason).

But since that was not the call, expect a rugged and ugly election season, with a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling. That is a shame because now more than ever British Columbians need a real democratic debate about where the province is headed.