BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's both strange and counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it make more sense for the NDP and Greens to team up against the Liberals, instead of just fighting over the table scraps?

The BC NDP and BC Green parties basically "hate" each other. The BC Greens were formerly led by the invisible/lacklustre Jane Sterk. OTOH, today BC Green MLA Andrew Weaver is their new leader and he seems to be making some waves and receiving media attention - esp. on southern Van Isle.

In fact, BC NDP leader Horgan has previously admitted to the media that the BC Greens "will mow their lawn" in 2017. IOW, the BC Greens will take many 2013 BC NDP enviro voters in 2017.

And look where the BC NDP currently has seats and who the major players are in caucus:

Southern Van Isle:

1. John Horgan
2. Carole James
3. Rob Fleming
4. Lana Popham

Inner Van City proper:

1. Adrian Dix
2. David Eby
3. George Heyman
4. Spencer Chandra Herbert

West Kootenay:

Michelle Mungall

Most of these BC NDP MLAs can also be categorized as hard-core enviros themselves.

In fact, todays Vaughn Palmer column in the Van Sun brings up this same topic:

Vaughn Palmer: NDP Should Look Beyond Victoria For Constituents

April 15, 2016

VICTORIA — A leaked memo from the Steelworkers union suggests that the strained relationship with the New Democratic Party may partly be a function of the location of the provincial capital.

‘The B.C. NDP has always struggled to address the regional challenge created by the location of our province’s capital on Vancouver Island,” says the memo, prepared at the staff level earlier this year and leaked this week to The Vancouver Sun.

“Victoria is a beautiful city, but it is unlike anywhere else in B.C. Whether its lack of diversity, or its economic reliance on the provincial government as the largest local employer, conversations in the capital do not necessarily reflect the rest of B.C.”

Yet as the memo goes on to underscore: “Victoria is not only the location of our legislature but also the largest cohort of political staff and leaders.”

This is especially true of the party in its current iteration.

Opposition leader John Horgan represents suburban Juan de Fuca to the west of the capital. His predecessor but one, Carole James, lately the finance critic, is MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill, the provincial riding that includes the legislature itself. And the NDP holds four of the other five seats in the capital region.

This concentration of political forces in the provincial capital makes for “an ongoing challenge” in terms of reaching out to the rest of B.C.

....

Boiled down to its essence, the steelworkers memo is a plea for political perspective. The New Democrats should look beyond the confines of the provincial capital and bid for representation in those resource-dependent communities where the Liberals are now the dominant political force.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion...948/story.html

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I actually think that the universal daycare is a good idea (especially if we want to encourage natural birth rates to increase) but the NDP of the olden days would have had such a proposal alongside increasing LNG projects / revenue and other industrial attempts at directly helping the trades industries / common man.

I get your point but my point was on a different tangent.

Back during the 2013 election, the BC NDP platform included budget deficits of over $1 billion every year over a 4-year term. OTOH, the BC Libs campaigned on a balanced budget - we've had now 4 in a row.

Prior to the 2013 BC election, the BC NDP stated that a universal $10/day care plan, requiring ~$2 billion/year in additional program spending, "was not an option - just too expensive". Looks like they are throwing that concept to the winds for 2017.

As a matter of fact, based upon other statements... looks like the BC NDP will run on a platform that will include an additional $3 - 5 billion in annual program spending in 2017. Since BC's balanced budget is in a low surplus range... we would then be looking at ~$3 - $5 billion in annual deficits. Either that or deficits with major tax increases. Won't fly with the centrist swing electorate.

We are not talking about the federal Lib platform of $10 billion/annum in additional infrastructure spending here, which equates to ~$1.4 billion for BC's share.

[WarrenC12]

I'm not so sure a deficit budget won't fly with the electorate. We just elected the only federal party who ran on one. It just needs to be money well spent. Daycare is a good idea IMO.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not so sure a deficit budget won't fly with the electorate. We just elected the only federal party who ran on one. It just needs to be money well spent. Daycare is a good idea IMO.

Universal daycare IMO would be a bad idea and an unwise use of resources. Simply, it is very diffiuclt to maintain quality at a large scale with a universal program, with unintended results.

Contrary to what you might expect, it shows that children exposed to the program have suffered significant negative behavioral and emotional effects.

Among eligible young children, the authors found that the Quebec program lead to increases in anxiety and aggression. There was "a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction among teens" who’d been exposed for the program. And compared to children in other provinces, the Quebec cohort also showed a "sharp and contemporaneous increase in criminal behavior” as they entered adolescence.

-----

The program, which was introduced in 1997, wasn’t a complete disaster. By providing heavily subsidized slots in nonprofit daycare programs to any working parent in Quebec, it was successful by some measures: Adults’ participation in the labor force, especially among mothers of young kids, increased significantly. And enrollment in the program boomed.

But their kids suffered, winding up worse off than peers who’d never had daycare at all. It seems that the high demand for slots diluted the quality of the children’s care: After highly rated nonprofit programs filled up, the government had to resort more and more to lower-rated private and in-home services.

A universal program is also mildly regressive. Take a (lower-skilled) mom working an evening shift at Tim Hortons versus a 9 to 5 office worker - who would have more advantage with a universal daycare program? This is also a reason why a non-means-tested free tuition for post-secondary is also a subsidy for higher income earners.

The program also puts at a disadvantage women who want to stay home for a few years to care for their kids, which IMO is also a valid choice.

A better way to support families and kids IMO is to give money to them directly with some sort of means-testing (eg refundable tax credits, etc).

---------

I also agree that planned deficits wouldn't be a kiss of death nowadays.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

A universal program is also mildly regressive. Take a (lower-skilled) mom working an evening shift at Tim Hortons versus a 9 to 5 office worker - who would have more advantage with a universal daycare program? This is also a reason why a non-means-tested free tuition for post-secondary is also a subsidy for higher income earners.

How is that the case? Assuming that it is paid for with income tax, this source is progressive. Even though the benefits are equally distributed (assuming equal uptake), it is proportionally paid for more out of the pockets of high income earners than is the case today (everybody pays the same amount). I don't think that the concept of progressive/regressive applies to the receipt of benefits, otherwise universal healthcare can be said to be detrimental to the less-well-off, which is clearly not the case.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not so sure a deficit budget won't fly with the electorate. We just elected the only federal party who ran on one. It just needs to be money well spent. Daycare is a good idea IMO.

The Liberals campaigned on deficit spending to give a boost to the slow economy, by funding infrastructure projects. It's much harder to justify deficit spending when the economy is doing reasonably well, as is the case in BC right now. Needlessly creating a structural deficit when the province is already the fastest growing economy in Canada just sets us up for problems when the next recession roles around. It's just plain irresponsible, and reinforces the negative views associated with the NDP of the 90's. Keeping spending under control when times are good means we have much greater fiscal flexibility in responding to downturns.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

The Liberals campaigned on deficit spending to give a boost to the slow economy, by funding infrastructure projects. It's much harder to justify deficit spending when the economy is doing reasonably well, as is the case in BC right now. Needlessly creating a structural deficit when the province is already the fastest growing economy in Canada just sets us up for problems when the next recession roles around. It's just plain irresponsible, and reinforces the negative views associated with the NDP of the 90's. Keeping spending under control when times are good means we have much greater fiscal flexibility in responding to downturns.

I agree that a structural deficit is a problem, but we've yet to really see what their plans are apart from universal daycare. Which is great but should probably have some means testing.

Currently daycare fees are a tax deduction, but they need to go against the lower income earner in a 2-parent household. It's an incentive to get both parents in the workforce, not a break for more wealthy single earners in 2-parent families. I would support increasing this deduction to really large levels for combined incomes under $200k, for example.

I'd like to see a study, but I feel like any additional money given to young parents almost 100% goes right back into the economy, which is ideal from a policy perspective.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd like to see a study, but I feel like any additional money given to young parents almost 100% goes right back into the economy, which is ideal from a policy perspective.

If that proves to be the case, then there is certainly a solid argument for universal daycare. In the short term though, a jump in the participation rate could be a problem, depending on how quickly newly created jobs can absorb entrants into the workforce. If the result is an increase in unemployment, it'll put downward pressure on wages, which could cancel out any benefit for lower earners in the short run.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Spork

How is that the case? Assuming that it is paid for with income tax, this source is progressive. Even though the benefits are equally distributed (assuming equal uptake), it is proportionally paid for more out of the pockets of high income earners than is the case today (everybody pays the same amount). I don't think that the concept of progressive/regressive applies to the receipt of benefits, otherwise universal healthcare can be said to be detrimental to the less-well-off, which is clearly not the case.

But are the benefits distributed equally?

The utilisation rates (of the quebec daycare model) and subsidies received increase with income. It's not difficult to come up with some plausible explanations for why this would be the case:

1) High-skilled women are more likely to choose to work than those with fewer skills.
2) The daycare system is almost entirely designed for those with 9-to-5 jobs, the sort that low-income workers are less likely to have.

It was more regressive with the $5/day fee, fixed and non-means tested. IIRC, I think the fee varies with income now.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Universal daycare IMO would be a bad idea and an unwise use of resources. Simply, it is very diffiuclt to maintain quality at a large scale with a universal program, with unintended results.



A universal program is also mildly regressive. Take a (lower-skilled) mom working an evening shift at Tim Hortons versus a 9 to 5 office worker - who would have more advantage with a universal daycare program? This is also a reason why a non-means-tested free tuition for post-secondary is also a subsidy for higher income earners.

The program also puts at a disadvantage women who want to stay home for a few years to care for their kids, which IMO is also a valid choice.

A better way to support families and kids IMO is to give money to them directly with some sort of means-testing (eg refundable tax credits, etc).

---------

I also agree that planned deficits wouldn't be a kiss of death nowadays.

I made this argument back in the 2015 federal election when I was arguing against the NDPs $15 a day childcare plan.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Serious Question, how is the BC Econony doing so well? Walking around Vancouver I see way more stores going out of business than opening up.

Where is the economy doing well?

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Serious Question, how is the BC Econony doing so well? Walking around Vancouver I see way more stores going out of business than opening up.

Where is the economy doing well?

All the sectors of the economy that benefit from a low dollar mostly. The province has seen record tourism numbers (places like Whistler are having a banner year), and the film industry in Vancouver is on a roll. Real estate continues to do well, obviously. Put those together and you have an economy doing better than anything the rest of the country can muster. There is more to an economy than retail stores. Retail is only one part of the economic picture, and it hasn't been doing all that well in most wealthy countries since the dawn of online shopping. High end retail is, however, doing quite well in Vancouver.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

All the sectors of the economy that benefit from a low dollar mostly. The province has seen record tourism numbers (places like Whistler are having a banner year), and the film industry in Vancouver is on a roll. Real estate continues to do well, obviously. Put those together and you have an economy doing better than anything the rest of the country can muster. There is more to an economy than retail stores. Retail is only one part of the economic picture, and it hasn't been doing all that well in most wealthy countries since the dawn of online shopping. High end retail is, however, doing quite well in Vancouver.

Ironic that most of this thread has been complaining about the pro-environmental, anti-resource industry philosophy, yet when asked what is sustaining the economy, it's all urban, tertiary flows of capital.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Ironic that most of this thread has been complaining about the pro-environmental, anti-resource industry philosophy, yet when asked what is sustaining the economy, it's all urban, tertiary flows of capital.

Sad isn't it?

It truly is rather sad.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Ironic that most of this thread has been complaining about the pro-environmental, anti-resource industry philosophy, yet when asked what is sustaining the economy, it's all urban, tertiary flows of capital.

That's a bit misleading. That is always going to be the case, since the majority of British Columbians live in Greater Vancouver and Victoria, and those cities have service based economies, and thus the majority of the BC economy is going to be from the tertiary sector.

However, that Vancouvercentric argument ignores that a significant minority of British Columbians live in smaller towns and cities that depend very heavily on resource-extraction industries. It also ignores the fact that the Lower Mainland benefits heavily from resource industries in the province. Revenues from resource extraction, which end up in provincial revenue, enable the province to build the infrastructure, and maintain the lower general tax rates that make Vancouver's tertiary sector competitive in the first place.

Shutting down resource extraction in BC would impact Vancouver negatively both directly (most resource company headquarters are in Vancouver), and indirectly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And let's not forget why we're talking about the economy in the first place; if Canada's tertiaries are such a big part of our GDP, why does a drop in oil prices hurt the dollar so much? Let's be honest: we're still a resource-gathering country at our core. Anything else is a backup to keep us afloat in case the timber/mining/oil/gas companies are having a bad day.

BC, specifically, is being held up by logging, mining and PRC real estate, possibly to be propped up by a proper tech sector and LNG extraction in about... 5-10 years?

Until then, it would be a good idea for the BC NDP - and the Granola crowd they're courting - to create an actual plan for how they're going to keep the economy going after they knock two or three of its legs out from under it. I support their intentions, but they need to realize that they're trying to have their cake and eat it at the same time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Universal daycare IMO would be a bad idea and an unwise use of resources. Simply, it is very diffiuclt to maintain quality at a large scale with a universal program, with unintended results.



A universal program is also mildly regressive. Take a (lower-skilled) mom working an evening shift at Tim Hortons versus a 9 to 5 office worker - who would have more advantage with a universal daycare program? This is also a reason why a non-means-tested free tuition for post-secondary is also a subsidy for higher income earners.

The program also puts at a disadvantage women who want to stay home for a few years to care for their kids, which IMO is also a valid choice.

A better way to support families and kids IMO is to give money to them directly with some sort of means-testing (eg refundable tax credits, etc).

---------

I also agree that planned deficits wouldn't be a kiss of death nowadays.

People can be for and against a universal child care program but that study that if often cited is highly controversial and contested, and while it is often cited by the program's detractors both inside and outside Quebec, it's basically one of the only ones to come to this conclusion.

My kids went through the subsidized CPE system in Quebec for part of their preschool years. I witnessed first-hand how it was generally a good thing for most kids, especially for immigrant kids who often would not have otherwise known French upon their arrival at school in kindergarten, and also for certain kids from the lower socio-economic rungs who may have otherwise arrived in school without even knowing what an alphabet or numbers were.

The positive impact of the CPE system at levelling the playing field when everyone starts school was and is very obvious.

[WarrenC12]

In order to have any hope of success I think the BC NDP need to draw a line in the sand on their policy and make some bold moves a part of their plan. Doing the same old thing won't work, and to that end I'd suggest something like:

1. Increase the carbon tax - maybe devote some or all to clean transportation
2. Bring back the HST - the public seems to understand it was a mistake to ditch. Promise it in the platform and show the benefits.
3. Some form of daycare subsidy, ideally means-tested - learning from Quebec's experience should be pretty easy
4. Reduce taxes on lower income people through either rebates or further increasing the personal deduction limit
5. Support Site C (clean energy)
6. Support LNG - the same way any business can operate, no extra special treatment, etc.
7. Oppose any oil/bitumen pipeline

I feel like these are reasonable centre-left proposals that should make complete sense to a party like the BC NDP, and show a different way forward from the Liberals, who many voters are sick of.

I can only think that the radical left still has internal control over party policy. They didn't like James and stabbed her in the back. I don't think Horgan is one of these radicals, but he's not calling the shots. At least that's the way it looks from the outside.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

That's a bit misleading. That is always going to be the case, since the majority of British Columbians live in Greater Vancouver and Victoria, and those cities have service based economies, and thus the majority of the BC economy is going to be from the tertiary sector.

However, that Vancouvercentric argument ignores that a significant minority of British Columbians live in smaller towns and cities that depend very heavily on resource-extraction industries. It also ignores the fact that the Lower Mainland benefits heavily from resource industries in the province. Revenues from resource extraction, which end up in provincial revenue, enable the province to build the infrastructure, and maintain the lower general tax rates that make Vancouver's tertiary sector competitive in the first place.

Shutting down resource extraction in BC would impact Vancouver negatively both directly (most resource company headquarters are in Vancouver), and indirectly.

Bingo. Just look at the nascent LNG industry (not my intention to argue here whether it will proceed or not).

Just one of the larger LNG proposals by Petronas:

1. Already spent ~$7 billion upstream in NE BC proving up reserves - Progress Energy (Petronas up-stream) is largest driller in NE BC as result. And during 40-year LNG operations phase, will require major annual drilling program in NE BC as well. (plus infield transmission, increased nat gas processing facility capacity).

2. Construction phase - 5-year build-out for both LNG facility at tide-water as well as accompanying nat gas pipeline/mainline. Each will require 3,000 - 4,000 workers at peak construction with Prince George serving as interior service hub.

3. Major work-camp manufacturers from Horizon North in Kamloops to Britco structures in Agassiz will also have involvement.

4. Petronas has leased 34,000 sq. ft. (2 floors) in Park Place in downtown Van City for 75 staff. Royal Dutch Shell et al have also similar operations in downtown Van City.

5. They also require engineering/consulting services in downtown Van City.

6. The 3 most likely LNG projects to proceed are the Petronas, Royal Dutch Shell, and ExxonMobil consortiums in the 2017 - 2020 time frame with initial installed production (and later greenfield capacity added) as follows:

A. Petronas - 18 million ton/annum capacity;
B. Royal Dutch Shell - 24 million ton/annum capacity;
C. ExxonMobil - 30 million ton/annum capacity;

.. for a total combined annual capacity (at full build-out) of 72 million tons/annum. Based upon projections of ~$900 million in gov't revenue for each 10 million of installed LNG capacity, years down the road, potential annual gov't revenue into the BC treasury could be upwards of $7 billion/annum in the 2030+ time frame. Nothing to sneeze at.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Universal daycare IMO would be a bad idea and an unwise use of resources.

Agree. Don't understand why a political party would wanna introduce new "gold-plated" program spending, which no other province has, and which said political party previously stated "not an option - just too expensive".

Existing ministries and programs thereunder are already facing significant cost pressures moving forward. A key concern has always been the Ministry of Health, which, over the decades, has taken an increasing chunk of the overall BC budget - today it's ~40%.

And a longer-term looming problem exists in terms of an increasing BC median age, longer life-spans, and retirees across Canada moving to BC. This table points out that longer term cost problem in terms of health care costs as a function of age: