Somewhere in the east wing of the Legislature, a deputy minister in the Premier's Office must be in charge of storing all the napkins and backs of envelopes that Campbell has used to scribble half-baked ideas. It appears that the scraps were glued together to form the February 12th Throne Speech. It's not that any of the ideas are bad on first-blush, it's just that some are suspect once a little flesh is put on the bones. Most governments would do more research and due diligence before putting a lengthy list of promises before the public.

Consider the twenty-fourth bullet in the government's summary of the Throne Speech that appears to come straight off of Governor Schwarzenegger's website: "Standards for low-carbon fuel content will be adopted to reduce the carbon intensity of motor vehicle fuels by 10 per cent by 2020, and new incentives will be created to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles." The California standards for low-carbon fuel were supposed to be considered by its Air Resources Board (ARB) no later than June, 2007. According to a University of California news release that reported on research to determine whether Schwarzenegger's proposal was feasible: "The authors recommend that the new standard require only modest reductions in carbon intensity in the early years, and greater reductions later, as innovations reach the market." In other words, it's a great idea but it depends on discoveries and technologies that are not yet available. The first thing you see when you check out California's ARB for the standards is a link to the University of California report. It is followed by a list of meetings, activities and workshops, but not by a new draft standard. As anyone who Google's "low-carbon fuel" can see, there is extensive interest in making it happen (some of it motivated by ending US reliance on oil rather than on reducing carbon emissions). What doesn't exist is assurance that the 10 per cent reduction in carbon by 2020 standard is likely to occur. It is good that BC is supporting the work in progress, but as usual the Campbell government has gone for the overstatement. Rather than suggesting that BC will adopt a standard that cannot yet be met, the Campbell government should have declared its support for the development of low-carbon fuels with a promise to adopt standards once such fuels are available.

The ninety-fifth bullet is an example of cynicism: "Government will study the possibility of establishing a new Independent Living Savings Account framework to allow citizens to invest each year, up to age 75, in a tax-sheltered savings account for home care support, assisted independent housing and supportive housing options." This is a play to those who advocate undermining universal public health care through the establishment of health savings accounts. Of course, current public health care does not adequately cover home care support, assisted independent housing and supportive housing options, unless you consider living in a room with strangers in a ward to be adequate. Those lucky enough to have lots of money, and not have relatives who want to get all of it, can buy private care that meets a much higher standard. Campbell's savings account is unlikely to facilitate that for much of the population since federal tax statistics indicate that only 37% of British Columbia taxfilers whose major source of income was employment claimed deductions for RRSPs. A health savings account that would only qualify as a provincial tax shelter, and would have restrictions on how the money could be used upon withdrawal, would only appeal to a subset of the 37%, those had maxed out their RRSP room and who believed they wouldn't be independent in their old age. The proposed study was a waste of the back of an envelope, but the idea of baiting the NDP into a philosophical debate on the issue might have been too much to resist.

On February 19th, budget day, more than just the budget gets tabled in the Legislature. Updated service plans for every ministry and government agency are also made available; the plans are required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The Campbell government should be able to point to where each of the 112 bullets in the summary of its Throne Speech appear in the service plans. If not, the government will either be in violation of the Act or it will be shown to be less than serious about its Throne Speech.