BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

How can the NDP do anything about the overheated market when it is mainly due to market forces? If anything, blame the federal government for its immigration policies where hundreds of thousands of people come to Canada and move to the big cities like Toronto and Vancouver. They have to live somewhere and there is no more land to build single family houses.

As for the Liberals being good financial managers, they are because they have a BALANCED OPERATING BUDGET. The provincial debt is from capital expenditure like spending on infrastructure.

Will the NDP/Greens have a balanced operating budget? Highly doubtful given their track record.

Have you read the Green & NDP platforms on housing? They've been linked several times here. A doubling of the foreign owners tax is just one of the highlights along with jacking the PPT for expensive properties. But even more important than the platforms is the psychological effect. Chinese investors hate uncertainty, and it's clear that automatic gains in housing prices are no longer guaranteed, and that the NDP and Greens got the message loud and clear from urban ridings that they want housing prices brought in check. Unlike the BC Libs, neither of the other two parties sold their soul to developers, so they're not beholden to them.

To the specuvestors on SSP, I'd get out now while you still can. The days of buying and sitting on condos watching the automatic gains roll in is over. Unless you can make money that more than overs your mortgage, maintenance and insurance, you shouldn't be in the condo market now.

The BC Libs budgets employed all kids of jiggery-pokery, as my old dad used to say, to make it appear they were better fiscal managers than they were.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Unfortunately, the real estate market seems to be the only part of the economy that's booming. So a housing market cooldown is good for Vancouver, but also means that tax revenue goes down as the coalition increasing spending. And whatever you think of Site C, Trans Mountain, Prince Rupert LNG, the Massey Bridge (etc etc etc), those projects attracted skilled labour... and the NDP/Green coalition is either neutral or ideologically opposed to all of them. None of that sounds good for the operating budget.

Here's hoping that the cooldown attracts enough tech companies to make up the loss, and that we get a party that's pro-development AND anti-corruption by next term.

[Stingray2004]

Certainly different opinions & schools of thought in this thread. Right after the May 9 election, I have reviewed the role of the Speaker, constitutional expert opinions... the whole 9 yards vis-a-vis the election outcome.

Again, aside from all of the noise, the LG will be the final determinant of the NDP/Green accord. Will re-iterate again, that based upon constitutional experts, the LG must be satisfied that it meets the "tests" of both "stability" "for a reasonable period of time". The LG is not interested in politics.

Again, many don't see "stability" with this 43 v. 43 + 1 Speaker accord. Neither do I. While not a constitutional expert, long-time poli sci prof Norman Ruff has provided well respected opinions over the past decades. His take yesterday:

“The bottom line is that it’s the duty of the Lieutenant-Governor to ensure that there’s a B.C. government that enjoys the majority of support in the legislature,” Prof. Ruff said.

Prof. Ruff said a Green or NDP speaker would cost them their majority in the legislature.

“It’s extremely precarious,” he said.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...ook-at-what-happensnext/article35151029/

Does not meet the definition of the "stability test" for the LG to me.

Many believe that the Libs forthcoming Throne Speech will be defeated (rightfully so) and that the LG will appoint the NDP/Greens as the alternative gov't. Again that "stability test" kicks in. While the LG does have the option to dissolve the legislature and call for fresh elections - that is a last resort.

The NDP/Greens will be meeting with the LG soon to present their accord. Of course, the LG will take same into consideration and consult with her constitutional advisors.

Some now believe that the LG may reject that "accord" for not meeting the "stability test" and advise the NDP/Greens to have additional members of the House support same (only thing I can see is a 43 + 3 Green accord but I can't see that happening either).

Also highly likely that same will occur well before the Libs Throne Speech, which may result in some Green abstentions.

Of course, all speculation and conjecture, but the LG will have the final verdict and no one knows what that will finally be.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Christy Clark to introduce confidence vote, possibly in June

Christy Clark won’t resign as B.C. premier – yet

Interesting that CC also mentioned in the media today that they have had constitutional advice moving forward.

The first order of business will be the election of the Speaker. Highly doubt that the Libs will put up either Linda Reid or any other Lib MLA as candidate for Speaker. That will leave the NDP/Greens to put up a Speaker since they believe that they will be gov't right away.

But will the NDP/Greens put up a Speaker from their ranks? If neither party does put up a Speaker... nothing will get done. In that context, the LG also has the option to dissolve the House and call for new elections. Doubt that will happen.

Suspect that the NDP will eventually be forced to put up an MLA for Speaker's post. (Of course this is assuming that LG has granted NDP/Green accord as alternative gov't).

So the vote on both the Throne Speech and budget then witnesses a 43 Lib v. 43 NDP/Green tie. The Speaker then must break that tie and by convention, the Speaker always votes in favour of the "status quo" - IOW the gov't.

A political Catch-22 situation.

BTW, we are all witnessing a "real-time" Poli 201 course unfolding right before our eyes.

PS. BC political media have been on social media today discussing these matters and are not receiving any relevant answers vis-a-vis the Speaker from any of the political parties.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

How can the NDP do anything about the overheated market when it is mainly due to market forces?

Because it's based on Chinese market forces and those can easily be controlled with a little effort. Raising the foreign buyer tax to 30% as the Greens wanted is a good start.

Was nothing said about electoral reform?

[waves]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

...Of course, all speculation and conjecture, but the LG will have the final verdict and no one knows what that will finally be... The Speaker then must break that tie and by convention, the Speaker always votes in favour of the "status quo"

This is basically re-iterating that it boils down to how the Lieutenant Governor decides to rule constitutionally on the role of the speaker. As apparent by our discussions here, there are well reasoned, respected and researched opinions on both sides to the argument.

Her two options are:

1) The speaker's role is to favour the "status quo" and vote as an impartial member of the house. (stingray's opinion)
2) The speaker's role is both as an impartial speaker and as a member of their political party, and they do not conflict. (waves' opinion)

All in all we don't know what will happen. We just have to wait and see for the LG to make her decision.

[Common Sense]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Because it's based on Chinese market forces and those can easily be controlled with a little effort. Raising the foreign buyer tax to 30% as the Greens wanted is a good start.

Was nothing said about electoral reform?

I agree some of the overheated housing market is due to the Chinese buying of homes but is it the only factor? The stats are all over the place regarding this issue. Certainly it is not 50%. Maybe 10-15%? If that is the case then 90% can be contributing to internal market forces.

The sure thing is 30,000 to 50,000 people are moving into Metro Vancouver each year and children of existing residents want new homes. And not enough are being built to meet demand.

[Pinion]

It affects the top end of the market which causes everyone else to over-extend just to be able to have a family. Cut off the influence at the top and real estate will be based on the local economy, as it should.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by waves

This is basically re-iterating that it boils down to how the Lieutenant Governor decides to rule constitutionally on the role of the speaker. As apparent by our discussions here, there are well reasoned, respected and researched opinions on both sides to the argument.

Her two options are:

1) The speaker's role is to favour the "status quo" and vote as an impartial member of the house. (stingray's opinion)
2) The speaker's role is both as an impartial speaker and as a member of their political party, and they do not conflict. (waves' opinion)

All in all we don't know what will happen. We just have to wait and see for the LG to make her decision.

The LG's decision will be important, but it does not sound like a new election is in the cards. Clark won't ask for one, I doubt the LG will require one.

The decision to require a new election would also set an interesting precedent. It would mean that a one seat majority can never be adequate. A one seat majority would effectively trigger a new election, always. That would make irrelevant the necessity of having an odd number of seats in the legislature and entirely change our conception of "majority" government.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

I agree some of the overheated housing market is due to the Chinese buying of homes but is it the only factor? The stats are all over the place regarding this issue. Certainly it is not 50%. Maybe 10-15%? If that is the case then 90% can be contributing to internal market forces.

The sure thing is 30,000 to 50,000 people are moving into Metro Vancouver each year and children of existing residents want new homes. And not enough are being built to meet demand.

No less than BMO's chief economist, Doug Porter have identified foreign buyers as a big part of the problem:
http://business.financialpost.com/person...-housing-market-says-bmo-chief-economist

Think of foreign buyers as the match that lights the fire. Local spec builders pile in, seeing an opportunity to make a quick buck - an older bungalow is bought, torn down and a new McMansion (out of the reach of local buyers) take it's place. The way it is now, virtually no home in Vancouver West of Main, or Richmond that is priced for local buyers. The same is happening in Toronto where Porter pointed out even the local "One Percenters" wouldn't qualify for a mortgage on a house! http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-bmo-td-1.4028032

And then you have the speculative foreign buyers active in the condo market, taking much needed supply off the market before locals even have a chance.

No government at any level in Canada should be concerning themselves with providing housing for foreign buyers. Period.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The LG's decision will be important, but it does not sound like a new election is in the cards. Clark won't ask for one, I doubt the LG will require one.

The decision to require a new election would also set an interesting precedent. It would mean that a one seat majority can never be adequate. A one seat majority would effectively trigger a new election, always. That would make irrelevant the necessity of having an odd number of seats in the legislature and entirely change our conception of "majority" government.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by waves

This is basically re-iterating that it boils down to how the Lieutenant Governor decides to rule constitutionally on the role of the speaker. As apparent by our discussions here, there are well reasoned, respected and researched opinions on both sides to the argument.

Her two options are:

1) The speaker's role is to favour the "status quo" and vote as an impartial member of the house. (stingray's opinion)
2) The speaker's role is both as an impartial speaker and as a member of their political party, and they do not conflict. (waves' opinion)

All in all we don't know what will happen. We just have to wait and see for the LG to make her decision.

In the context of role of the Speaker, I will defer to Philippe Lagassé, a constitutional expert in the Westminster System, whom many in BC media are also asking hypothetical questions.

Today, in the Vancouver Sun, Philippe Lagassé commented on numerous other hypothetical situations. Most are obviously over the top.

But Philippe Lagassé certainly was clear in the conventions of the role of the Speaker (an elected independent officer of the Legislature who does not sit with caucus). Specifically, IF NDP/Green form gov't with a 43 NDP/Green v. 43 Libs + 1 Speaker:

Here’s where it gets tricky: The speaker is not normally supposed to cast votes, since it messes with their image of being a non-partisan overseer of democracy.

But if the NDP picked a speaker from its own benches, that person would effectively need to cast a tie-breaking vote on every piece of new legislation. “It becomes clear that the speaker is just a partisan MLA, so do they become tainted by that?” said Lagassé.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/nationa...+playlist+just+crazy/13417021/story.html

Corroborates my point of view on the role of the Speaker as an independent officer of the legislature as convention.

BTW, this 2017 election is still so "fluid" that one day Van Sun's Vaughn Palmer writes an opinionated column on a matter and then the next day he has a different opinion on CKNW. We are definitely in political "Terra Incognita" here.

While I have deferred to constitutional experts in the Westminster system such as Ron Cheffins and Philippe Lagassé, I have also reviewed the 1926 Lord Byng matter as well as 1985 ON matter. While both have commonalities with the BC 2017 election... the facts are also different with each. IOW, key distinctions.

While the post-2008 federal election matter has always been on the back of my mind, I unfortunately have not previously done much research thereto. Tonight I have.

As a result of the Governor-General's actions thereto as well as former GG's constitutional advice, I am now satisfied that the BC LG will not dissolve the legislature and call a new election within at least 6 months of the election date (unless extraordinary circumstances exist, which don't appear prima facie). IOW, a new election is not in the cards.

Now back to the October 14, 2008 election. The fed Cons received 143 seats - 12 seats shy of a majority. Subsequently, the fed Libs + fed NDP + BQ formed a written coalition (comprising 163 seats). A coalition is a much stronger proposition than the accord recently signed here in BC.

Back then, the media came to the conclusion that the coalition was fait accompli akin to the recent NDP/Green accord. While constitutionally complex, the Cons continued to remain gov't until 2011. Different facts and circumstances compared to the 2017 BC election... but also some commonalities.

An extract from Andrew Coyne of MacLeans back then:

To be clear: there is nothing unconstitutional or illegitimate in the notion of a coalition government, per se. Nor would the Governor General be committing any sin against democracy were she to disregard the prime minister’s advice, following his defeat in a confidence vote, and call upon the coalition to form a government, rather than dissolve Parliament and call new elections. Constitutional scholars are virtually unanimous that she has that option, and only slightly less so that she should in fact exercise it.

But it is not a slam dunk. She must take into consideration whether the coalition is likely to last, or whether its in-built volatility is such as to condemn Canada to a prolonged period of instability and uncertainty. But even if she does hand them the keys — and that is much the more probable result...

[emphasis added]

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/n...on-is-not-illegitimate-just-ill-advised/

I suspect that the 2008 federal precedent will also play a role in the BC LG's final decision. Again, we come back to the "stability" test that a GG or LG must take into account in terms of allowing 2nd/3rd parties to form gov't, while an incumbent gov't/political party has the plurality of seats, which I have repeatedly re-iterated herein.

Day by day, the 2017 election outcome remains fluid and keeps on evolving in terms of speculation and conjecture.

[Stingray2004]

Norman Spector, who was asked and advised the BC Greens on the GreeNDP accord today confirmed the following regarding the proposed role of Speaker in same.

Before I get into same, by convention the Speaker of the House has always been an independent officer of the legislature... IOW... it's "referee".

After over 100 years of convention, for the first time ever, the NDP intends to turn the Speaker into an NDP partisan - will always vote with NDP and, unbelievably, will also vote with NDP in the "Committee of the Whole", which is chaired by the Deputy Speaker.

IOW, BC will have a "corrupted" Speaker under the proposed GreeNDP accord.

Tonight, Andrew Coyne's take:

Andrew Coyne‏ @acoyne 42m42 minutes ago

Getting strong feeling BC NDP intend to resolve impasse by turning Speaker into a partisan. There should be hell to pay if they try.

And Emmett Macfarlane‏, constitutional law expert at UWaterloo:

Emmett Macfarlane‏ @EmmMacfarlane 39m

Would be deeply troubling, IMO.

If the BC legislature can't resolve itself, a 2nd election is preferable to a lot of alternatives, like damaging the institution itself.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Norman Spector, who was asked and advised the BC Greens on the GreeNDP accord today confirmed the following regarding the proposed role of Speaker in same.

Before I get into same, by convention the Speaker of the House has always been an independent officer of the legislature... IOW... it's "referee".

After over 100 years of convention, for the first time ever, the NDP intends to turn the Speaker into an NDP partisan - will always vote with NDP and, unbelievably, will also vote with NDP in the "Committee of the Whole", which is chaired by the Deputy Speaker.

IOW, BC will have a "corrupted" Speaker under the proposed GreeNDP accord.

Tonight, Andrew Coyne's take:

And Emmett Macfarlane‏, constitutional law expert at UWaterloo:

The talking heads might get themselves in lather over the speaker's position, the public probably couldn't care less.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The talking heads might get themselves in lather over the speaker's position, the public probably couldn't care less.

I agree. 90% of voters don't even know what the Speaker is.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The talking heads might get themselves in lather over the speaker's position, the public probably couldn't care less.

Well, the media hasn't reported yet on same and folk will then become aware of Speaker's role. It will then become a public interest v. GreeNDP interest matter.

More importantly, the LG, while constitutionally not concerned about make-up of legislature will also be aware of same in determining the "stability" test re: GreeNDP gov't.

Back in 2008, during the post-October, 2008 parliamentary dispute (Harper & Liberal/NDP/Green coalition pact) involving then GG Jean, one of her constitutional advisors confirmed that, while not an over-riding factor, had the actions of the Governor General been different they would have come across as illegitimate, creating "a crisis of confidence in Canada’s political system."

I suggest that the the "Speaker" matter in BC will also be on the LGs mind in that context.

Again, we are in unprecedented constitutional territory here.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The talking heads might get themselves in lather over the speaker's position, the public probably couldn't care less.

Yep. It's like how the public punished the federal Conservatives for proroguing the government by electing them to a majority in the next election.

[whatnext]

Interesting to note voter turnout was up to 60.5% from 57.1& last time. That usually indicates a general dissatisfaction with the governing party. Unsurprisingly the two Richmond Centre turned in one of the lowest voter turnouts province-wide.

[whatnext]

Remember how the BC Fiberals sold themselves as the fiscally responsible party? Not!

Despite balanced budgets, Liberals have made B.C. Canada’s most indebted province

...According to well-respected economist Erik Andersen, the Liberal government has failed most British Columbians.

“The Liberal government has already made B.C. Canada’s most indebted province,” wrote Anderson. “Projects like Site C, which Premier Christy Clark is shown announcing here, will only make matters worse.”

According to the Auditor General of this province, “BC Hydro owes $101 billion, of “contingencies and contractual obligations” posted a year past. “These obligations come from BC Hydro’s commitments to buy power from private suppliers at far above market rates, and from other infrastructure built under public-private arrangements.“As such, it is in addition to our conventional debt and hidden from public view.”

B.C. has the dishonour of having the largest total of this type of debt of all the provinces and about 75 per cent of what is shown for the Government of Canada.

Hands-down, B.C. wins the race to be the most indebted province in Canada (see page 40 in the Auditor General’s report dated Feb. 2017). Anderson goes on to state that, “When the Standards and Poor report was issued last year, B.C.’s total financial liabilities increased from $117.8 billion to a staggering $185.7 billion.”...
http://www.osoyoostimes.com/despite-bala...made-b-c-canadas-most-indebted-province/

And then there's their plundering of ICBC:

...The Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) is another story of public assets plundered in the name of a balanced budget and that cherished credit rating.
Financial regulators have set a standard that says an insurance company must hold reserves to pay claims equal to 130 per cent of its outstanding liabilities.
ICBC’s reserves have been diverted by the government. The corporation needs a cool $1 billion in cash from its shareholder, the provincial government immediately, or it must raise its premiums by about 40 per cent. By law, automobile owners and drivers must use ICBC for basic insurance. Thus, as driver or taxpayer, you and I will get to pay the bill...
http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinio...cfe4f38-4ad9-11e7-9267-efbdfbaf956c.html

The NDP may regret forming government yet!

[retro_orange]

What a joke...

[Plafuldog]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Remember how the BC Fiberals sold themselves as the fiscally responsible party? Not!

Despite balanced budgets, Liberals have made B.C. Canada’s most indebted province

...According to well-respected economist Erik Andersen, the Liberal government has failed most British Columbians.

“The Liberal government has already made B.C. Canada’s most indebted province,” wrote Anderson. “Projects like Site C, which Premier Christy Clark is shown announcing here, will only make matters worse.”

According to the Auditor General of this province, “BC Hydro owes $101 billion, of “contingencies and contractual obligations” posted a year past. “These obligations come from BC Hydro’s commitments to buy power from private suppliers at far above market rates, and from other infrastructure built under public-private arrangements.“As such, it is in addition to our conventional debt and hidden from public view.”

B.C. has the dishonour of having the largest total of this type of debt of all the provinces and about 75 per cent of what is shown for the Government of Canada.

Hands-down, B.C. wins the race to be the most indebted province in Canada (see page 40 in the Auditor General’s report dated Feb. 2017). Anderson goes on to state that, “When the Standards and Poor report was issued last year, B.C.’s total financial liabilities increased from $117.8 billion to a staggering $185.7 billion.”...
http://www.osoyoostimes.com/despite-bala...made-b-c-canadas-most-indebted-province/

And then there's their plundering of ICBC:

...The Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) is another story of public assets plundered in the name of a balanced budget and that cherished credit rating.
Financial regulators have set a standard that says an insurance company must hold reserves to pay claims equal to 130 per cent of its outstanding liabilities.
ICBC’s reserves have been diverted by the government. The corporation needs a cool $1 billion in cash from its shareholder, the provincial government immediately, or it must raise its premiums by about 40 per cent. By law, automobile owners and drivers must use ICBC for basic insurance. Thus, as driver or taxpayer, you and I will get to pay the bill...
http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinio...cfe4f38-4ad9-11e7-9267-efbdfbaf956c.html

The NDP may regret forming government yet!

Erik Anderson is a respected economist? A google search shows his main connections as writing articles for small town newspapers and left wing media organizations such as The Tyee. It's kind of like saying Stephen Harper is a respected economist. Sure, he studied economics but he certainly didn't practice it.

Nonetheless, much of the issue is deferred maintenance. The NDP underfunded BC Ferries, ICBC, BC Hydro for the 90s so much of the 2000's was spent upgrading infrastructure. Instead of replacing aging boats and terminals, they built the fast ferries. While freezing tuition rates, universities had no money for maintenance or expansion of student spaces, which is why it was so hard to get into uni back then.

No economist would ever suggest debt is bad. It's how it's used. BC still has the highest credit ratings in the country. There's certainly concern about the continued escalation in new debt, but as of now, our GDP can support it. We aren't anywhere close to being the most indebted in Canada, at least as far as public debt is concerned. That easily falls to Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland. If you really want to see what a disaster of an economy looks like, look to Newfoundland.