Campbell Hits Hot-Buttons

On Wednesday, May 16th, Premier Campbell made the unusual move of rising several times to respond to questions from the NDP. Following in the footsteps of Attorney General "Stonewally" Oppal, Campbell answered most questions with a rant about not interfering with the independence of the judiciary. Opposition members were understandably puzzled as to how condemning political dirty tricks and assuring that they are not continuing had anything to do with the independence of the courts. In one instance where he deviated from his "before the court" routine, Campbell said: "You know, Mr. Speaker, in two years we're all going to go to the polls, and we're all going to be judged for the actions we take - both sides of this House." That answer is a recurring theme when the Campbell government is pressed on matters of accountability; rather than dealing with specific issues where they may be held at fault by the public, they appear confident they can get re-elected in spite of being unaccountable.

It is ironic that Campbell expresses his "we can do anything as long as we can get re-elected" attitude on the same day that three hot-button issues came before the Legislature. First, his government introduced Bill 37(2007), Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 which will give MLAs a minimum of a 29% pay increase retroactive to April 1, 2007, and a gold plated pension plan, retroactive to June 19, 1996. Government House Leader Mike DeJong explained the cost of providing the full pension retroactive past the May 2005 election to June 1996 is estimated as "$42 million, of which individuals would contribute $8 million". As was widely speculated, Bill 37 contains a provision for Members to decline forever both the pay increase and the pension benefits by providing written notice to the Speaker within 7 days of the Bill's proclamation, and it provides that: "A list of the names of the members who have given the notice described in this section must be posted on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the Legislative Assembly." The NDP could follow in the Ontario NDP's footsteps, and accept the package but promise to donate the booty to charity. If that is done, Campbell will no doubt make reference to the empty list on the Legislative Assembly website whenever the issue of his pay grab is mentioned. As Sean Holman revealed on Public Eye Online, Campbell is not troubled by the behaviour of members of his handpicked Commission, which froze out Commissioner Sandra Robertson and whose chair criticized Robertson's abilities. The NDP could decline the pay and pension, force the government to use closure to pass the Bill, point to many flaws in the Commission and campaign in the 2009 election against Campbell's outrageous pay grab. Failure to do that could make a bad situation worse for the NDP.

The second hot-button issue, allegations arising out of the Basi-Virk trial, may become even more important by the date of the next election. If Campbell is concerned that staffers could come out of the woodwork and contradict something he may say about political dirty tricks, those concerns will not go away simply because the trial is over. The questions that he and his ministers are stonewalling will come back again and again over the next two years.

The third hot-button issue may be found in the report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. Government usually appoints a majority of government members to legislative committees, but Campbell allowed the NDP to hold a majority of the seats on the Aquaculture Committee. The Committee's final report recommended "no salmon farm development north of Cape Caution" and that there be "a transition to ocean-based closed containment technology to minimize impact on vulnerable wild stocks and ecosystems." The report put the NDP on the side of the environment while showing concern for the transition of the aquaculture industry. Campbell may discover that interest in the fish farm issue goes beyond the people who are directly employed in the industry. He may learn that many thousands of British Columbians see the protection of wild salmon as a vote-determining issue.

The April 2007 Ipsos-Reid poll showed a 17 point gap in support between the parties; the gap was just 4 points in the May 2005 election. If the poll is correct, it means that support for the NDP is at only 77% of its 2005 level, for the Liberals it is up 7%. On a riding by riding basis, reducing the NDP's results to 77% of their 2005 vote, and increasing the Liberal's results by 7%, produces a forecast that 20 of the 33 NDP MLAs would lose their seat if an election were called today. The losers would include Harry Lali, but star performer Adrian Dix would also lose. Of course, the election is two years away. Riding boundaries will change when the Boundary Commission reports out (to the disadvantage of the NDP as its regions of strong support will not gain seats). Provincial polling results can't be applied accurately on a constituency by constituency basis; they are worse for the NDP in the Lower Mainland and better on Vancouver Island. Notwithstanding all the qualifications, however, it is clear that taking a stand on the pay grab could help put the NDP in touch with the public on an issue where 68% of those polled by Ipsos-Reid said: "they would be much less likely to vote for any politician who supports a 29% pay increase."

Campbell may not want to answer questions about the flawed Compensation Commission and his pay grab, about political dirty tricks and the involvement of his office, or about the protection of wild salmon, but he is right on one thing. In two years voters will hold him to account; they might teach him that a 17 point lead in mid-term is not something that can be taken to the bank two years out.