Thursday April 22

Thursday's QP was an interesting affair. Mary McNeil, Minister of State for the Olympics and Act Now BC, responded nearly the same way each time that a nearly identical question was asked by three times by Carole, twice by John Horgan, twice by Mike Farnworth, and twice by Shane Simpson. Twelve times a question was asked, and 12 times an answer was actually provided. Odd pattern I though. Very similar to the NDP's attack on school district funding from Wednesday, still ineffectual though mind you. Not once did the NDP get the answer they were seeking. How hard could it have been for the Liberals to just simply admit to the NDP that yes, yes indeed, we used lots of tax payers dollars for the purposes of enjoying ourselves at the Olympics?

Reporting on Government and Crown Corporations: Olympic Games Tickets

Farnworth raised the issue most clearly, when he asked for clarification on whether crown corporation monies were used as a slush fund to purchase tickets for the Olympic Games. Mary McNeil made sure to specify that a detailed report on who attended which events on the coin of which organization, would be available soon. Carole called her out though, on how this report would exclude monies ostensibly spent by Crown Corporations. Considering the Olympics almost 2 months ago, I suppose its fair to presume that such information should be available. McNeil also mentioned that the crown corporations should have such details available on their individual websites. Excuse as I go check this out..........

I found one page on free tickets to the Olympics being granted by BC Hydro, the free tickets only seemed to come in exchange for joining the PowerSmart team though. BC Hydro even gave out tickets to the gold medal mens hockey game, no word though on just how many tickets they gave away, just that "numerous" tickets were given. Perhaps this is what the NDP were cheesed about on Thursday? Probably not eh. Should we trust BC Hydro and their triple bottom line? At least they were smart enough to not pay for Blair Lekstrom's bill during the Olympics, Lekstrom being the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Was this just a ploy to make it look as though all the NDP's questions from Thursday were totally unfounded?

Looking to the blacked out FOI request the NDP received from BC Hydro, transparency seems to be limited. But shouldn't the NDP know this by now? Shouldn't they realize the limits imposed by their current interactions with the Liberals? And shouldn't they by now be striking upon a different approach? This I tell you, is why I've started this blog. While one reader the other commented that the questions I suggest as what the opposition should have asked, is more the substance of the estimates debates than it is appropriate fodder for question period, I ask, shouldn't both be allowed to be equally substantive? If of course that is, the estimates debates have any meat to them? All I know, is that QP is a far more public affair that the estimates debates are, and for that reason alone, they deserve accurate and rational information and contextualization.

Questions the NDP should have asked:
1) Was the money spent on awarding free tickets to Olympic events money well spent? What was the rate of return for money invested?
2) Who designed the Olympic and Paralympic ticketing and hosting strategy?
3) How many tickets were given to people outside of BC/outside of BC?
4) Were the various minsters required to authorize the decisions made by the respective crown corporations to fund a series of Olympic tickets?
5) Is there any chance that had we been in power instead of you, that we would have come up with a similar ticketing and hosting strategy?

Annual Facilities Grants for School Districts and Carbon Neutrality

Again Robin Austin began the education questions. Guess the NDP are so impressed with his success at getting answers over this past week (*cough cough*) that they keep him at the front of the line. He began by speaking about the province wide loss of capital grants for schools. This led me straight to the government's 224 page estimates budget from last fall, I wanted to be prepared for Margie's response on the issue. She stated that there is 110 million dollars available for schools through capital grants, and that this money is available for building upgrades. However, if you look at Schedule C of the Estimates Budget (Page 201) you will see that only 1,852,000 is available for disbursement through the Ministry of Education and that this money is to be used for Information Systems and not building and tenant improvements as Margie suggests. I'm confused.

Furthermore, no information is available anywhere specifying either a budget, or an allotment for school districts to purchase carbon offsets. I believe this is the point that NDP'ers Robin, Rob Flemming, and Harry Bains were trying to get at. The way they approached it though, allowed good old Margie considerable room to maneuver through and encouraged her to attack the NDP at every chance. I found one of her comments to be a little much though, when she said "It's certainly interesting to be preached at by an Opposition that didn't have a plan for the energy or the environment." Of course the NDP didn't have a plan to save the environment back in the 1990s, the whole climate change thing is rather new after all.......

As for the substance of her own defence of the Liberal's education ministry climate change strategy, I found it a bit specious. In response to Robin's second question, Margie spoke of how school districts will receive by spring 2011, 700 million dollars in Carbon tax revenue. The Carbon Tax is fully revenue neutral, so I find this hard to believe. Yes, schools do get back the carbon tax they pay, but this was not what Robin was talking about. And this reimbursement on came after considerable protest by the school districts, and can only ever be the product of an increased administrative effort when just Wednesday Margie was talking about how she wants school districts to find administrative savings.

Rob Flemming, the environment critic was quick to pick up the carbon offset requirements recently imposed upon school districts. He spoke of the irony of school districts being required purchase carbon offsets through Pacific Carbon Trust, a company who I don't even want to know founded, for the purposes of building new furnaces at deluxe Whistler resorts. You can check this equation out for yourself. First see here for evidence requiring the Ministry to purchase from Pacific, and then here to see just what Pacifica is all about. Glad to see our education monies are being well spent. The questionable science surrounding the usefulness and validity of carbon offsets aside, this whole equation is a tad appalling. I wonder how many of our current MLAs are actually products of the BC education system? Good thing, as Margie says, school districts "have multiple *cough* sources of revenue."

And I'm sorry, but I just cannot finish analysing Thursday's QP, I've reached my stupidity limit.

Questions that should have been asked

1) Who owns and profits from Pacifica Carbon Trust? Who are the major shareholders?
2) Why must school districts be carbon neutral?
3) Has there been public consultation on the merits of school districts being carbon neutral?
4) What science are you using on carbon offsetting?