Destination more important than journey!

Earlier, in an exclusive interview with Public Eye, independent commission to review MLA compensation member Sandra Robinson stated the three-person pay-and-pension panel changed its recommendations while she was in Europe - many of which she "doesn't agree with." Asked whether he had any concerns about those revelations, Premier Gordon Campbell - who picked the panel - told Public Eye yesterday, "I'm not going to talk about the processes the committee went through. They're all good quality individuals who did their best to present a report in the public's interest. That's what we asked them to do. And that's what they did.”

And what about commission chair Sue Paish's suggestion that Prof. Robinson, a faculty member at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business, didn't have a lot of "experience" with pension plans or the more general issue of "compensation." Does that concern him?

"I think that Ms. Robinson had some experience with regard to human resources, as was laid out in the resume she had," Premier Campbell responded. "She was recommended by a number of people who felt she had something to offer to the panel. And I think Ms. Paish has said, ‘Yup, she had something to offer to the panel.' And so the panel has made their report and now government will act on it.”

9 Comments

Incredible!

Reporter: "Mr. Premier, look! The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!"

Premier: "There is no cause of alarm. We are assured that the Emperor employs the finest taylors in the land and thus we have absolutely no doubt that he is impeccably dressed and will act accordingly!"

In the "public interest"? The public interest would be better served if the Premier would actually say something real for once - something worth listening to - something of value - something for which I could respect and admire him - something that would make me proud, rather than embarrassed, to have him as Premier of my province.

The problem is that there isn't anything with values attached to them that he appears to believe in.

The arrogance of this man and this government is beyond belief. Watching them in Question Period is painful. What bullies and terrible role models they are. Pathetic, really.

Just had a brief look on the Leg. Assembly website at the Bill introduced this afternoon.

It would have been one thing to tell MLAs to either "put their money where their mouth is" and stick with what was in place when they were elected (current salary plus legislated modest annual increments) or to accept the panel recommendations.

But, unless I'm misreading it, the government took the status quo right off the table. Those who opt out in the next seven days will have their salaries frozen forever, no matter how many times they are re-elected and no matter that the terms and condition of their "job" when they sought office and were elected were that they would get cost of living increments.

The legislature likely has all the legal power it requires to wipe out rights like that, which is not to say that those who wield it show consistently appropirate instincts when doing so.

Sorry ignore the previous post with the poor syntax and use this one...

As Premier Campbell has noted:

"I’m not going to talk about the processes the committee went through. They're all good quality individuals who did their best to present a report in the public’s interest. That’s what we asked them to do. And that’s what they did.”

"I am not following it very closely...the prosecutors are doing their job, I'm sure the defence is doing their job...and I won't have anything at all to say about it until it is complete...That has been my position from the outset".

So the Premier won't discuss whether these two processes are beyond reproach.

I wonder why?

(people on welfair-disabled wages are NOT "indexed to inflation" )

--- please read the text in hansard -----

The "take it or leave it " attitude of the Liberals

is another DIRTY - TRICK ...!

For the second time,
they are able to

ECCONOMICALLY CONTROL the opposition...

MLA's who don't "opt-out"
will have NO MORAL High Ground to speak against the greed of this bill-37...


------ Do you get it...? -----

2 years before the election,

the MLA's who opt-out,

will be at a ECCONOMIC dis-advantage

(ie: less money to do their job)


>>>>> remember 2 women denied "official-opposition status" ...!

did they get the financial resorces needed.?

( I remember the "dirty-trick" played on them ...? )

ted... ( what is wrong with these people )

by their own simple logic;

offering people on welfair, more money,
will attract a higher quality candidate (to the job)


or,


as My-Grand-Ma would put it... ?????

Use the "higher qualtity honey",
if you want to attract
a "higher quality of fly" ...!

(ie: not quite the "buzz" we were expecting,,,? is it )

Here is the NDP's first real chance to paint Gordon Campbell and his band of double dippers into a corner they can't escape.

However, someone is going to have to stick a sock in the mouths of the Harry Lalis of the caucus.

Can NDP MLAs stand firm on a matter of principle or is the lure of a larger paycheque too great?

Keep in mind, any slimy rules such as those Campbell is tacking onto this vote can be rescinded on a whim the day that pack of thugs has been booted from office.

Just as Campbell did when he tore up legally binding labour contracts, a new government can simply reverse the pay increases.

Heck, if it wanted to it could make the reversal retroactive and force the Liberal porkers to repay the entire 29 percent increase.

'Heck, if it wanted to it could make the reversal retroactive and force the Liberal porkers to repay the entire 29 percent increase.'

Did I mention "inspire me" in my earlier post?

Here is the NDP's first real chance to paint Gordon Campbell and his band of double dippers into a corner they can't escape.

However, someone is going to have to stick a sock in the mouths of the Harry Lalis of the caucus.

Can NDP MLAs stand firm on a matter of principle or is the lure of a larger paycheque too great?

bleeingheart, you may have read that powerful pundit Keith Baldrey is already betting that the answer to your last question is 'No'. He has a column out in all the CanWest weeklies saying that Lali is dead on correct, James is weak and panicky in her opposition to the pay raise and is just pandering to public opinion, and that no way should federal backbenchers be paid more than such illustrious BC Cabinet Ministers as John Les and Mike de Jong.

But he also says at one point, being careful to cover his own political backside with the readers back home, that he cannot justify the 29% pay raise! It's just that, ... well, ... Carole James is no good and Harry, whose been wrong a million and one times by Baldrey's own count, especially when he stuck up for Glen Clark, just happens to be right this time. And Farnworth and Kwan and others also want a pension, but are afraid to ask, according to Baldrey.

Baldrey spends a bit of time saying that this pay and benefits recommendation came from an independent panel as James had asked. Never does Baldrey talk about the process itself, the composition of the panel or the fact that its recommendations were changed while Panelist Number Three was out of the country. None of that matters to Baldrey.

It's a masterpiece of intentionally misleading pap, an fine example of contemporary propaganda in the BC context. The purpose is to attack and ridicule James when she has taken a popular stand that could rebound to her credit. That's no good because the purpose is to ruin her electoral chances and those of the NDP. Any fool can see that if James had taken the opposite tack Baldrey had a column ready and waiting to go, just fill in the blanks, in which he would damn her for signing on for such a scandalous increase while trumpeting the cause of average British Columbians, etc., etc. And he would add the point that she is flying in the face of public opinion!

It's a big turnaround for Baldrey who was once somewhat partial towards the NDP during Glen Clark's years, but who has since turned full circle, and now regards the NDP and the memory of Glen Clark the way a reformed smoker talks about cigarettes.


I like idea of letting the Liberals win this vote, and then making them pay it back one day after they become the opposition, but .... I may not live that long if Carole James continues to be the NDP leader.

So....

The NDP should vote against this package and go on the record with an alternative.

Personally, I believe a five per cent pay hike each year for six years would be acceptable.

Then, instead of using the politically crafted "opting out" clause (a poorly designed Liberal trap), the NDP members should then only accept a five per cent pay hike in each of the next six years and donate the remainder of the hike to a charity of their choice.

Anything less would be an indicator of a malaise in the party leadership. Or did I already say that?

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.