Category Archives: The Issues

Shocked??

Yes, we could all see how ‘shocked’ Ed Fast was by out spring election.

Mr. Fast was caught so unprepared by the election that he wasn’t able to get his election signs up until several hours after candidates were first legally permitted to put up their campaign signs.

The more cynical (longer term observers of political games and gamesmanship?) among us, observing that it took the NDP two days to get signs up and that the Liberals had to select a candidate and still haven’t begun polluting the cityscape with political signage, might well suggest that the Conservatives were so well prepared and fast out of the blocks because they knew, even before it was unveiled, that their budget would be defeated and a spring election called.

Again, the more jaded observers of the Conservative Party’s fear mongering election tactics, observing Mr Harper’s current election boogeyman – ‘a coalition government’ (as if the minority Conservative government had not been a coalition government) – and recognising that this strategy would be more viable if the opposition parties (coalition parties) ‘got together’ and brought down the government might suggest that Mr Harper formulated a budget he knew the other parties could not support.

Speaking of the budget Mr Fast wrote ” ….with a clear timeline for returning to balanced budgets by 2015″.

In the budget the Conservatives still refuse to tell Canadians how many billions of dollars they prison building boondoggle will cost Canadians – or where the money will come from. In the budget the Conservatives still refuse to tell Canadians how many billions of dollars their purchase of the shiny new fighters will cost Canadians – or where the money will come from. In the budget the Conservatives promised plenty of election budget goodies for Canadians……but failed to tell Canadians where the money to pay for these goodies would come from – but then Canadians were not told how many millions? hundreds of millions? a billion? billions? those election budget goodies would total.

With multibillion dollar black holes in the 2011and immediate future budgets how could anyone reasonably claim to have “ a clear timeline for returning to balanced budgets by 2015″?

The more jaded political observers (or more cynical) would argue that since these promises of election goodies were intended to entice voters to vote Conservative in the election the Conservative’s budget would trigger, and as the election goodies would never be part of a post election budget and thus never have an actual budgetary effect or existence, the failure to include a total was not a financial mistake but laziness.

“It’s one of the more irresponsible things that I’ve seen in my political life,” Mr Fast said in reference to the Opposition parties rejecting the budget.

No, the Conservatives presenting a budget containing multibillion dollar black holes is irresponsible. Presenting a budget with a multi – millions? hundreds of millions? a billion? billions? – black hole of goodies to curry favour with the electorate is incredibly irresponsible.

The Opposition refusing to support a budget that contained these multibillion black holes was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to defeat the budget.

“It is incomprehensible that the opposition Coalition would take such reckless action,” said Fast

Defeating the Conservative government was not reckless, it was necessary given the reckless and unacceptable action the Conservatives took in getting involved in the Libyan civil war and choosing to support the rebels without knowing who and/or what the rebels were. Although recent news reports have made it clear that the rebel forces include those who are members of what the Canadian government labels terrorist organizations.

“I’m shocked that the opposition parties would send us into an election that Canadians do not want.” [Ed Fast]

The fact that Mr Fast, as a member of the Conservative caucus, thinks that decisions should be based on popularity, rather than the situation is yet another reason the opposition had to say No.

In the face of reckless military adventurism, gaping billion dollar black holes in the budget, holes the Conservative government refused to provide information on and irresponsible promises that would add significantly to the deficit it would have been a dereliction of their duty of care if the Opposition had refused to act responsibly simply because it was unpopular to behave responsibly.

The decision to bring about an election should be based on the need for an election, not the popularity of the decision.

I would have been shocked and dismayed if the Opposition, in light of the Conservative action, had acted in a manner other than defeating the government.

I would like to say I was shocked at Mr Fast’s vitriolic hyperbole but…….that is, sadly, what politics has come to be.

P3 – the Public Speaks

I wrote that I thought it only fiscally responsible for Abbotsford and Mission to cost out a P3 – as long as they were also costing out a public project and that there was full disclosure on the terms of the P3 as well as addressing ownership and control issues.

I see nothing wrong with a city council that explores all its options when a financial commitment the size of the water project is in the process of being made – as long as council does due diligence on ALL the options .

However it is clear that the public, the people who pay the bills, are opposed to the P3 option.

Since the public’s concerns are understandable and not unreasonable, the public being opposed to the P3 should be the end of considering the use a P3 for the water project.

I salute the District of Mission for their quick recognition and acceptance of the public’s position on the matter and their listening to their citizens and voting not to waste time, resources and taxpayer’s money pursuing the P3 any further.

What can one say about Abbotsford council except – business as usual.

A recent example of council’s business as usual: the residents of Clayburn Village and area are at council – new housing development isn’t approved. Two weeks latter without the residents present and one of the councillors opposed to the housing development not present – the decision is reversed and the development is approved.

Deferring a decision until the public isn’t there, or out and out reversing a decision when the public is no longer there in numbers, is the established modus operandi for Abbotsford council in ignoring the public, the people who pay the bills, and doing as council wants.

Hopefully the District of Mission’s ‘No’ decision will prevent Abbotsford council from ignoring the public’s wishes on the matter. A sad state of affairs when Abbotsford’s citizens must depend on the District of Mission council sticking to its guns (there is little doubt Abbotsford will be pressuring Mission to ignore the public and do what Abbotsford council wants) to deny their own Abbotsford council the ability to once again ignore citizens and do as they please.

Abbotsford council’s actions make it clear that their intention was P3 or nothing to try to force voters to vote yes to the P3 in November – no matter how bad a choice it may have been for taxpayers. Again behaviour we have seen before and that has saddled taxpayers with the money devouring black hole that is the AESC and has Abbotsford taxpayers buying a profession hockey team for a few wealthy and well connected Abbotsford residents.

So it is imperative the public turn out in force at the next council meeting to prevent council, in business as usual mode, voting to proceed with the P3.

In a way the public weighing in and speaking so strongly against the P3 is a relief. While I do think it is due diligence for a city council to explore a P3 option, we are not dealing with just any council but Abbotsford city council. Typical Abbotsford council behaviour is to proceed with the P3 as the only choice and sell it to the public – branding as naysayers those who dare to suggest that the P3 was a bad choice.

For council a P3 represents a ‘get out of jail free card’ since they avoid the need to deal with the consequences of their financial mismanagement of the City’s resources with the added bonus that it is easy – the P3 private partners do all the work.

A public project will force council to deal with the consequences of the financial decisions it has made and it requires a lot more work on the part of council and staff.

Let me amend that – in a well managed municipality a public project requires a great deal of work and attention to detail in order to maximize taxpayers bang for their buck.

Which means that if the public keeps the pressure on council and prevents Abbotsford council from sneaking back to the P3, the real hard and long work for the public begins – to keep Abbotsford staff and council’s noses to the grindstone on the matter of the public project.

If taxpayers are lucky November elections will present voters an opportunity to elect financially responsible councillors to ensure the cost of the water project does not become another albatross around the necks of taxpayers.

P3 or NOT P3?

“…it’s been proposed we’re going to privatize the water system. It’s deceitful and it’s absolutely untrue,” said Peary

Deceitful and untrue? Not really……

As a P3 is this a traditional public project? No. As a P3 is there private involvement? Yes. Does the private sector take the lead in construction and operation of the project? Yes. Is a P3 privatization?

That very much is a matter of definition. A public project has no private sector participation beyond being the constructor. A P3 has private sector participation well beyond simple construction into operations.

The mayor is using the meaning of ‘privatization’ that existed prior to the rise of P3 projects. Those who call P3s ‘privatization’ are referring to the dominant role private sector organizations play in P3s: adding the private sector into what were public sector projects is by definition privatizing.

The important point is not what you call it but what differences there are in the terms of the agreement and ownership between a strictly public project and a P3.

‘…the cost efficiencies of a P3 operation…” Studies of P3 projects have shown that P3s cost both more to build and to operate than a well managed public project. All other things being equal a P3 water project will cost taxpayers significantly more than building a well managed public water project.

I use ‘all other things being equal’ because of the existence of the conservative governments P3 Canada funding that provides funding of up to 25% for P3 projects.The fund exists to provide funding to make P3 projects competitive with well managed public projects, promoting P3 projects in keeping with the federal Conservative government’s ideology.

Without the 25% federal (P3 Canada) funding Abbotsford and Mission should not consider, much less go with, using a P3 to build the water project because without the 25% funding a public project will provide appreciable savings to taxpayers.

Even a full 25% subsidy, given the congruence of current economic conditions with the state of affairs in the construction business, may not make a P3 the best choice.

Despite the previous council’s insistence that construction costs would continue to skyrocket and that those who called for Plan A construction be delayed until the post Olympic construction boom lowered prices and saved taxpayer $$$$ were idiots……now is a time when significant savings can be realized on construction costs.

The downward pressure on construction starts created by the economy together with the end of federal stimulus construction projects translates into significant reductions in construction costs for public projects.

Should Abbotsford/Mission explore the costs of a P3 water project – yes.

Is that all Abbotsford/Mission councils should do? Of course not – it would be irresponsible not to do due diligence to ascertain the cost of a well managed public project. A thorough and accurate determination of the water project, its timelines, its management and its costs if it is built as a public project must be made.

As to the referendum question in November – we don’t even know what the question should be at this point and won’t until we know whether the P3 will get the 25% funding, the costs of proceeding as a P3 project and the costs for a public project.

The water project is a financial decision that represents an extensive and long term commitment of City/taxpayer resources/dollars.

The effect the project will have on City/taxpayer resources/dollars necessitates an accurate and full understanding of the costs of both the P3 and public build options, the specifics and details of both options as well as the ownership implications of going with a P3.

Only when they are in possession of all the facts can voters make an informed decision in November on how to proceed with the construction of the water project.