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.

In urban areas like Vancouver and Victoria, childcare fees can account for 20 percent of families’ total expenses—the second highest cost after housing. A Vancouver family with a four-year-old child in full-time childcare and a seven-year-old child in after-school care will pay at least $982 a month or $11,784 a year for childcare.

A large Vancouver-based childcare provider reports that without a significant increase in provincial funding, next year fees could be as high as $1,000 a month for three- to five-year-old children

But this is not just an urban issue. From 2001 to 2006, annual child-care fees for preschool-aged children in B.C. went up by $672. For school-aged care, the increase was more than $800.

The crisis doesn’t stop there. There still aren’t enough quality spaces.

Wait lists for quality childcare are years long. Only 14 percent of B.C. children under the age of 12 have access to a licensed childcare space. Despite government’s claims that they are creating new spaces, this is only a two percent increase since 2001 and still falls far short of the need.

And, low wages have created a staffing crisis in child care.

A recent survey of B.C.’s early childhood educators reports that almost half of these college-trained professionals earn less than $16 an hour. This includes people with 20 years experience in the field.

The B.C. childcare crisis didn’t fall from the sky. The seeds were planted in 2002 when the newly elected provincial government scrapped the $7-a-day school-aged childcare program that funded 15,000 affordable, quality spaces and cancelled plans to extend funding to care for other age groups.

Then, the government cut $40 million from its own childcare budget. These dollars were only replaced when the federal government transferred funds to B.C. that could only be spent on child care. The reality is that B.C. is spending fewer provincial dollars on childcare than in 2001.

As a result, long-time providers are teetering on the brink of closing their doors because of lack of funding. The tragic irony is that despite demand, not all spaces are filled because parents cannot afford the high fees.

It is children and families who pay the price. Some children have already lost their only chance to get a good early start. In fact, the number of children entering kindergarten who are vulnerable went up in B.C. over the last nine years.

Communities also paid the price as they were unable to attract and keep young families or fill vacant jobs because of the lack of quality, affordable child care.

Rather than implement a plan with targets and timelines for meeting B.C.’s child-care needs, the government held out the promise of all-day kindergarten but backed away because of the cost. Even this stalled initiative ignored the childcare needs of the majority of B.C. families who need full time early care and learning so that they can work.

The good news is that there are solutions. Other developed countries have systems that meet children’s developmental needs and the needs of working families. Shamefully, Canada ranks last amongst developed countries on our investment in child care.

This provincial election is an ideal time to put this issue front and centre on every party’s agenda and to find solutions for B.C.

B.C. families are looking for candidates who are committed to solving the crisis. They are looking for candidates who understand that investment in childcare is an essential part of an economic recovery strategy. It creates jobs for women and men, helps families during stressful times, and promotes healthy child development which reduces costs down the road.

For any enlightened politician, it should be a no-brainer. This election, let’s make sure that it gets done!

(First published in www.straight.com, april 28/09)

BC’s Economic Challenges and the Liberal Platform

By Marc Lee

The BC Liberal platform features many feel-good photos and proud statements taking credit for the province’s recent boom. But read between the lines, and one realizes that after eight years in power, the Liberals have effectively run out of ideas.

The platform fails to offer any vision for the future. The Campbell Liberals made some progress on climate change actions over the past couple years, but the platform offers nothing new. Meanwhile, the Climate Action Secretariat, once residing in the Premier’s office, has been relegated to the Ministry of the Environment, which recently had its budget cut.

Premier Campbell deserves credit for bringing in the carbon tax, plus a variety of other climate measures that represent the low-hanging fruit of greenhouse gas emission reductions. While the carbon tax has its shortcomings, in my view it is a positive first step, and one that carries enormous symbolic value for environmentalists.

Still, the government enters the election without a plan in place to get BC to its legislated 33 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. And there are some glaring contradictions between the climate plan and other parts of the Liberals’ platform.

One of those contradictions is the oil and gas industry. Between 2001 and 2006, oil and gas industry emissions surged by far more than the carbon tax will ever reduce come 2020. Recently, Premier Campbell was in the Northeast, promising more new investment in oil and gas extraction, which may make it virtually impossible to reach our targets. And it is not like the oil and gas patch is a huge employer – about 2,200 direct jobs in 2008 – for all that pollution.

Highway expansion and the $3-4 billion Port Mann Super-Bridge also go against the climate-action grain. This expensive mega-project will only push more unsustainable, car-oriented development further up the Fraser Valley. This threatens valuable farmland, and means that congestion will be back within a few years. No jurisdiction in the world has ever built its way out of congestion problems.

The Liberal platform offers no real vision for the economy either, now that the great boom is over. Unemployment rose rapidly through early 2009, and with housing starts down 70%, the worst is yet to come, as construction workers finish their current projects and head straight to the back of the unemployment line.

The current economic collapse is not the fault of the Liberals, but then neither was the boom their creation. BC’s economic fortunes rest on what happens outside our borders, in particular in the export markets of the US and Asia, and in Ottawa, through the Bank of Canada and the federal government.

As cheerleader-in-chief, Premier Campbell may have pumped up the home team’s confidence, but let’s face it, the cheerleaders did not win this game. Like other parts of the world, low interest rates drove a bubble in real estate, leading to a massive expansion of construction activity. And high commodity prices driven by export markets made BC’s resource industries take off.

In February’s budget, the Liberals offered little in the way of stimulus, mostly re-announcing projects already underway or relying on federal stimulus dollars. There is much more that should be done to retrofit our infrastructure to be green – like public transit and energy efficiency upgrades – and to meet long-neglected social needs, like affordable housing, addiction and mental health facilities, or residential health care.

Bad economic times mean that the small deficit projected in the budget will inevitably turn out to be much larger. The Liberal platform promises that BC will “live within its means”, but faced with a $1-2 billion deficit, will a new Liberal government pile on more spending cuts and risk making the economic picture worse, or will it accommodate a larger deficit? What does that mean for the few new promises in the platform, like all-day kindergarten or U-passes for all Vancouver post-secondary students?

In politics, as in business, marketing is everything. The BC Liberals have branded themselves as the party of good economic times, but also the party with the long-term vision to tackle climate change. At a time when families in BC are concerned about the future on both fronts, the Liberals have put forward an unambitious “devil you know” strategy to win re-election.

Even during the good times, not all British Columbians were part of the boom. Poverty rates did not drop in any meaningful way, homelessness doubled, and inequality worsened with each passing year. BC needs a plan, with targets and timelines (just like climate change) to address poverty, especially as the recession deepens its grip.

With a lack of vision and too many contradictions, the platform does not provide any sense of how Campbell the Third will govern.

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.