MB Budget 2013: Five Lies

Lies ... So many lies ... It makes me sad.

I am not happy about the PST hike -- few people are -- but for me the worst aspect of this week's budget announcement wasn't the tax increase itself but all of the lies that accompanied it. I appreciate honesty. I may not like what you're doing, but if you're honest about why you're doing it and have a good reason for doing so, I will not resent your actions.

But that is not the case here. There is a tremendous arrogance in how the government delivered this budget that I'm finding hard to articulate, so let's just get on with the show ... here some of the more grievous lies from this week's budget announcement:

LIE: The tax hike is required for flood infrastructure. Direct quote: "this revenue will help protect Manitobans against flooding." There are 13 consecutive paragraphs in the budget speech about flooding, leading up to the tax increase announcement.
FACT: Spending on water-related infrastructure is actually decreasing $11 million from last year -- from $59m to $48m. This amount also represents a very small fraction of the revenue that will be generated from the tax increase.

LIE. Holding a referendum on the tax increase would make us miss construction season. Direct quote: "We have to get on with it now. The construction season is in front of us."
FACT: This has got to be one of the worst excuses I have ever heard from a politician. I don't even know where to start. How exactly is this supposed to make sense?  You see .. much like pizza at New York's famed Grimaldi's Pizzaria, you can only pay for flood infrastructure in cash, and we ... um ... don't seem to have any cash on us. Do you have any cash Greg? No? Ya, neither do I. Gosh, where are we going to find all that money so we can protect Manitoba families from flooding? This really is quite the conundrum. I think the only solution is to instantaneously raise $48 million on July 1 with a PST hike so that we can get those construction crews working!
As already mentioned, flood infrastructure spending is going down from last year, and in any case these projects can be financed. A referendum has absolutely no bearing on whether a dike gets built this summer.

LIE: Our sales tax rate is still 3rd lowest in Canada. Direct quote: "Our PST will remain third lowest in the country."
FACT: We aren't even the 3rd lowest in Western Canada.
Alberta: 0%
Saskatchewan: 5%
BC: 7%
Manitoba: 8%  ← 4th lowest
Or .. you could look at it this way: we are 4th highest in Canada, lower than only Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia.
FUN FACT: Two other provinces are decreasing their sales tax, including Nova Scotia. By July 2015 we will be tied for the 3rd highest sales tax rate in Canada.

LIE: The global economy is to blame. Direct quote: "But the economic outlook remains uncertain. The source of that uncertainty lies outside our borders."
FACT: As I've progressed through life I have learned that there are certain phrases that you never want to hear. Phrases like:
"We regret to inform you.."
"I just got my results back.."
and 
"While we have weathered the recession better than most provinces, the global economy remains uncertain.."
If you have the opportunity to pour yourself a scotch before hearing the remainder of any of those sentences I highly recommend it. Anyhow, on with the facts .... revenues for the year that just passed came in at only $200k less than what was budgeted for 2012/13, and those revenues were 3% more than the year before. In other words, the government's revenues are pretty much exactly as anticipated when the Premier said "Ridiculous idea that we're going to raise the sales tax. That's total nonsense, everybody knows that."


LIE. We are on track to balance the budget by 2016. Direct quote: "It will allow us to deliver a balanced budget by 2016."
FACT: The budget does indeed show Manitoba achieving a balanced budget in 2016/17. How? Through spending restraint unlike any we have seen from this government in the past. Spending growth projections are:
2014/15: 1.3%
2015/16: 2.1%
2016/17: 2.1%
For reference, the smallest increase the NDP has budgeted since it came into power in 1999 is 2.5%, and they have averaged spending increases of 4.6%. While it is technically possible for the government to keep this promise, they know very well that they will not.

Lakes and deserts

Related to my last post, I received this this in my inbox yesterday:

Media Advisory
March 28, 2013

Council of Canadians plans on-site protest at the Experimental Lakes Area this weekend

The Council of Canadians will stage a protest this weekend at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in a last-ditch effort to save the institution.

Mark Calzavara, the Council of Canadians’ Ontario organizer, will be on-site at the protest and available for interviews via satellite phone.

“Canada needs the ELA’s scientific research to develop sound and long term policies on water, climate and public safety,” says Emma Lui, Council of Canadians water campaigner. “Despite the Harper government’s reckless water policies, we’re not giving up yet.”

The ELA – a world-renowned water research facility – costs as little as $400,000 per year to keep open.

If a protest takes place in a forest and nobody is there to film it, are people still angry?

I hope that the media does turn out because I think it's an issue worth attention. Given the remoteness of the location and the Easter weekend timing I'm not sure how it will work out. In any case, I wish them well and hope people take notice.

 *****

Something else that came out recently -- the Canadian Government's decision to back out of the UN droughts and deserts convention -- is not unlike their move to cut the ELA.

The move was ostensibly to save money. "It’s not an effective way to spend taxpayers’ money" says PM Stephen Harper, but the amount of money being saved is negligible. The government has spent $283,000 over the past two years on this program according to the Maclean's article, although our commitment is for $350,000.

Harper claims that only 18% of the funds are being spent on anything useful. My question is: how is this different than any other UN program? In fact, with 18% of the funds surviving the UN bureaucracy and getting applied in a productive way, I would consider this astonishingly successful.

The point, of course, is not the money. The real story here is how this reflects the priorities of the current administration, the optics that a move like this generates among the public, and the impression it leaves on the other 193 countries (every other country in the UN, in case you're wondering) that are signatories to the convention.

The damage done to Canada's goodwill among other nations as a result of not being a team player on this matter, whatever that damage may be, must certainly exceed the $350k that we're saving, if one were able to quantify it.

I also find it bizarre that a government that spends $21 million per year on Economic Action Plan advertising would risk the negative publicity that a move like this generates to save a paltry $350k.

*****

The government might argue that these small and supposedly wasteful expenses add up to a significant amount, and at a time when the government is struggling to return to a balanced budget every expense needs to be carefully vetted (except Action Plan advertising apparently).

I agree that small things add up. Small polarizing decisions such as the two mentioned above, as well as others like the Conservative's reluctance to stop the importation of shark fins, combine to create a growing distaste of the government and it's intransigent approach to the environment and social issues.

This may be a miscalculation on the part of Harper. The negative impressions that these actions leave could accumulate to the point where they threaten to overcome people's fear of what Justin Trudeau might do to the country, and could spell the end of the conservative majority next election.

Experimental Lakes Area Travesty

In spite of my somewhat conservative leanings, I gotta say that I've been disappointed with a great many things that Stephen Harper and the Federal Conservative government has done. There have been a whole slew of things from wasting money on misguided "stimulus" programs to their embarrassing response to Palestine's promotion to non-member observer state at the UN.

Some things are big. Some things are small. The closure of the Experimental Lakes Area in western Ontario near Kenora could be considered small. A below-the-radar operation that survived on a budget of less than a million dollars for most of it's existence, the ELA is a modest operation but has had a tremendous impact.

Some people will cite research done at the ELA as being a fundamental part of the effort to reduce acid rain in the 1980's. (Interestingly, this effort was led by another conservative PM, Brian Mulroney, proving that being environmentally friendly and right-of-center are not mutually exclusive concepts.) This is a notable example, but at any given time dozens of research projects might be on the go, impacting many industries or aspects of life in some small way.

Source: http://www.experimentallakesarea.ca

The closure of the ELA strikes me as a particularly harsh move, simply because it costs so little and it does so much. Of all the things that the government spends money on, this operation must be near the top in terms of bang for the buck.

Money is not wasted at the ELA. That, at least, is my experience. As a summer student one year I spent some time there assisting with experiments and collecting lake-dwelling bugs for further study back at the lab. There was a communal eating area, small buildings with bunk beds, a sand volleyball court on the compound, and not a whole lot more. Our showers in the morning were limited to 5 minutes. There was a schedule, so if your shower lasted much longer than 5 minutes you risked having a naked biologist walking in on you.

The place was nerd central. Scientists from all over the place, dressed in cargo pants, would gather and chat about their respective projects over dinner, go to bed early, and wake up at ungodly hours to continue their research.

Most governments brag about supporting research. Besides directly providing science and technology-related jobs, research often leads to development and the additional jobs that go with that. Some research also leads to a better understanding of the world we live in, which in turn can lead to policy enhancements.

This is the primary objective of the ELA: a better understanding of how human activity impacts our environment, and this is why some people think the Conservative government has pulled the center's funding. They portray this as a "war on science":

“The Harper government is gutting all and any tools, rules, and science projects that stand in the way of corporate abuse of our freshwater heritage,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “No ELA means that the damage done to water from extractive industries will forever be hidden.”

The language I would use would be less inflamatory, but it's hard to argue against the notion that this is an ideological move by the government, because there are few other plausible explanations. The government's purported reason, saving money, doesn't wash when you consider how little money is being saved in relation to the value of the research being done and the uniqueness of the operation. At the very least, this speaks to how little the government values environmental research.

The ELA may live on. The government is not locking the doors and throwing away the key -- they are just locking the doors. There is a chance that the Ontario government (yeah, they have money to spend ...) or some other party may take over the funding of the facility, but until that happens there is to be no research done there ... even if the federal funding agreement is still in effect and research grants are in place.

This may not seem like an tremendously important issue for many people, but to me the closure of the ELA and the government's handling of it has a spiteful tone. This is not an isolated thing either: the end of the mandatory long form census is another similar issue. As somebody who had to merge longitudinal data sets for quantitative studies in university, I can appreciate the value of having consistent information, and the census change will cause more problems than you might imagine.

While individually these issues may be small and you may not care a great deal about them, they reflect poorly on the character of the government, and you should at least care about that.

*****
Fun fact: if you fry these guys in pure acetic acid they become transparent.

Source: http://www.aquamerik.com/

Another fun fact: frying chironomus larvae in acetic acid does not smell good.


*** UPDATE ***

Also published in Winnipeg Free Press: Sorry, Harper, it just doesn't wash Blog of the week: Anybody Want a Peanut?

Another interesting link: As dismantling begins, shuttering of research station called a 'travesty'

"The doors of the old sleeping cabins at the 45-year-old Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) are being ripped off, the appliances are being taken away, and the personal belongings of researchers are being removed.
...
this brings into serious doubt the government’s sincerity to actually transfer the facility over to another operator."

"There's so much duplication"

I was sitting in a waiting room recently, and struck up a conversation with the person sitting beside me. Just small talk at first ... "so, where do you work?"

"Manitoba Mental Health"

I don't recall the exact name of the organization, but it was something like that. Nor do I recall the name of the lady with whom I was speaking, and even if I did I would not tell you because I do not want to get her in trouble. In any case, her answer interested me because I knew nothing of this organization. So I asked her: "What does this organization do?"

"We provide support, counseling, assistance finding employment and that sort of thing. There is so much duplication."

"Pardon?"

"There is so much duplication. You wouldn't believe how many organizations do the same thing we do."

She just threw that out there, completely unsolicited. "There is so much duplication." That she would think to include that statement in casual conversation about her place of work tells me that it's really a significant factor. Perhaps something that frustrates her or limits her sense of accomplishment at work.

That led to a conversation about why there is so much duplication. The consensus was that there are certain areas that, for reasons of optics, are immune to cutbacks. Like police services at the municipal level, health services at the provincial level are nigh impossible to cut. They are, however, extremely easy to increase. Announcing a new program for mental health services or anything else is good PR. Thus, with new programs being added all the time and no old programs getting cut, duplication arises.

This squares with something I heard from a friend who used to work in the Finance department on Broadway. He said that prior to any budget, proposals would be made to trim one thing or another in the area of health care and they were all systematically rejected. This was something that my friend found frustrating and limited his sense of accomplishment at work.

What is stopping the current NDP administration from cutting some of these programs? In theory, the NDP should be able to trim some things without fear the opposition PCs will criticize them for it. The PCs ought to understand the necessity of cutting duplication, and are not really in a position to criticize modest health care cuts after their last experience in power.

The problem (I think) is that the NDP hammered the PCs relentlessly in previous elections for health care cuts, and it worked too well. This is their biggest weapon: the PCs are the party of cutting health care and the NDP are not. They do not want to lose that advantage. They don't want the PCs to be able to say "you cut health care too" the next time the NDP attacks the PCs in an election campaign.

*****

In a Twitter discussion today, reporter Dan Lett asked pundit Luc Lewandoski to explain "What part of health and education is non-core?" It's not really a fair question. Mental health services are a "core" service, for example, but that doesn't mean it can't safely be trimmed or consolidated without impacting the final product.

Any suggestion that budgets should be trimmed are immediately countered by a government MLA with simplistic arguments about "core" services being cut, as if there is no grey area. The fact is that there is probably a great deal of room for budget trimming, but you need to be familiar with the organizations to know what those are.

I never knew anything about mental health services until recently -- I don't use mental health services because I still cling to the belief that I'm mentally stable and do not require urgent medical attention -- but it seems everybody has some kind of story about how a government agency or department is wasting time or money. All of this knowledge needs to be harnessed, and the government needs to be fearless in attacking these areas of waste and excess if it ever hopes to get its spending under control.

The Dragonfly Affair

Meet Dragonfly Games: a small Winnipeg-based developer of educational video games for children, including children with special needs. A small but growing high-tech company with endless potential but a need for capital. Exactly the kind of company we would like to see grow and employ people here in the province.

*****

In 2005, Dragonfly was approached by the Province of Manitoba and encouraged to apply for the MFS (Manitoba Film & Sound) Tax Credit program. The work they were doing was considered "highly desirable" by the Province and this MFS Tax Credit was promised to be a "highly reliable program" that Dragonfly could use for securing financing from other sources, and could be used to apply for matching funds under other programs.

Late that year, budgets were submitted, hands were shook, and the two parties signed a contract. Relying on this Tax Credit, as they were told they could do, Dragonfly applied to Telefilm Canada for a matching equity contribution. Final applications were made with revised budgets, as directed by government employees, and in January 2006 a Certificate of Acceptance was provided to Dragonfly by the Government.

Everything was in place. Dragonfly was going to get a $168,000 capital infusion from the Tax Credit, and they would leverage this capital and a loan guarantee from the Province to get $100,000 in bridge financing from a credit union. The production total was just over $500,000.

*****

In June 2006, despite the Certificate of Acceptance from the Manitoba government and all their assurances, the tax credit for Dragonfly was cancelled. The government suddenly decided that the video game business did not qualify. Lee Doerksen, the owner of Dragonfly, was forced to put up his house and business assets as collateral to continue doing business and sustain the bridge financing.

With Dragonfly now in a financial bind, the government came forward again with a new program -- the 'Manitoba New Media Production Grant' -- and Dragonfly had little option but to participate. The government promoted this new program using Dragonfly as an example, even holding a press event for television from Dragonfly's offices. The government publicly announced that it would help Dragonfly and companies like it succeed.

The New Media grant was to increase with the amount of qualifying labour for the grant. With these new assurances, the funding commitment from Telefilm Canada also increased, allowing Dragonfly to manage a total production budget of $1.1 million. Of that, approximately $350,000 was to come from the government's New Media program. An increase in bridge financing of another $100,000 was also required. They were back on track now, and with a larger budget than before.

*****

As Dragonfly was engaging in the provincial funding programs, it was approached by Biomedical Commercialization Canada (BCC), a program funded by the National Research Council (NRC), Western Economic Diversification (WED), and the provincial government, for participation in their business incubator program.

With this program, Dragonfly would pay BCC $5,500 per month for business services, and BCC would provide additional services valued at twice that amount: $11,000 per month. This was made possible because BCC receives government funding in addition to the fees paid by the client. The promised services included a full-time employee and various professional services on a part-time basis, as well as office equipment, amenities, and other resources. The total value of these services was to be $16,500 per month or $396,000 over 2 years.

As you might have guessed, BCC did not come through with the promised services.  Dragonfly complained and asked BCC to document the services provided to no avail. The BCC and NRC "threatened, harassed and intimidated Dragonfly" in an effort to deter them from further complaints. Meanwhile it was suspected that BCC was submitting invoices to its funders to recoup funding for these services that it did not provide.

Dragonfly is not alone: they became aware of other clients who had similar complaints. A company called Health Media Network Inc is already embroiled in a lawsuit with BCC. In fact, all of the companies Dragonfly spoke with were very concerned that BCC was submitting invoices to its funders including NRC, Western Economic Diversification, and the provincial government, for services that it did not provide. To date, none of these departments have contacted Dragonfly for information on the matter.

It gets worse though: in 2007 "BCC and the NRC sought to persuade and coerce Dragonfly to hire a spouse of an NRC staff member." Dragonfly refused because the person was not qualified. This resulted in additional threats by BCC to withhold services, and later that year BCC and NRC terminated the contract and expelled Dragonfly from the program.

Dragonfly paid into the program, but did not get value for that money, nor did they get the additional assistance that was promised and that Dragonfly was counting on. They were, however, subjected to treats and coercion.

*****

As mentioned, BCC did not provide Dragonfly with the level of services as promised and expected, but some services were provided and Dragonfly required an accounting of those services for it's financial statements. Dragonfly made repeated requests to BCC for an accounting of the services provided but all such requests were denied. Instead, BCC instructed Dragonfly to account for its services as if actually rendered. They were expected to make false reports to the Manitoba Department of Science, Technology , Energy and Mines (STEM), the government branch overseeing the New Media grant, and Telefilm Canada. 

...  Coincidentally (or not) STEM's Deputy Minister John Clarkson was on the BCC board.

Dragonfly was put in a difficult position of trying to report the value of services received from BCC, such as they were, without any documentation from BCC, while refusing to illegally misstate amounts and run afoul of CRA or Telefilm Canada.

In 2007 a staff member in the provincial government "openly and falsely accused Dragonfly of misrepresenting and falsifying its budgets". Because of this alleged fraud, the government announced that it would not honour its remaining commitments under the New Media grant program. 

They didn't stop there. Government representatives went to Telefilm Canada and told them about this, and Telefilm subsequently withdrew its funding as well. Government representatives also contacted Dragonfly's credit union, preventing Dragonfly from obtaining the financing it required.

All of this transpired as the government and BCC were in the process of proposing yet another program: Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research -- a program with some big-name backers designed to "marshall Manitoba's research and commercialization assets to create growth". This program, like the BCC program that failed Dragonfly Games, would also require investment by the client firms, but to an even greater degree, and it would require the client firms to fork over intellectual property rights.

*****

Dragonfly eventually coaxed Telefilm Canada back to the table, and with a lot of unpaid labour, they were able to complete a scaled-back version of their project. However, for Dragonfly, the consequences of this government "assistance" were harsh. According to their statement of claim, "Dragonfly has been rendered and remains insolvent and unable to conduct business", the company's credibility has been tarnished, key employees have abandoned the company, creditors have gone after Doerksen's house and business assets to settle claims, and as a result Doerksen himself has experienced "extreme financial hardship".

*****

All of this flowed from an attempt from a small, high-tech company to seek assistance to grow its business. It accepted assistance from a supposedly reliable government program and high-profile business incubator, and ended up in ruins.

Unfortunately many small businesses may be in the same position today, with little choice but to seek help from these same organizations, because there are few other sources of capital in Manitoba.

 *****

Disclaimer: most of the information above was taken from Dragonfly's statement of claim against the government and BCC, and from correspondence with the owner. As with every lawsuit, there are two sides to the story. This post portrays one of those. That said, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of any of the information stated above.

It's tough to be a small business in Manitoba

Let's suppose I had a small business in Manitoba. Let's call it Anybody Want A Gizmo? Let's suppose that I wanted to expand my gizmo business to include doohickeys but required additional funding to take that next step, and suppose as well that I was turned down for a spot on Dragon's Den. Who can I turn to?

Manitoba can be a tough place for an entrepreneur to do business. We hear a lot of talk about how innovation is important, and how growing small business is critical to Manitoba's economic future, but there aren't many stable sources of support and funding for budding businesses. "There are few places to turn for growth capital in Manitoba" Martin Cash, the Winnipeg Free Press business journalist, tells us.

Venture capital funds are a great source of financing for promising young businesses, and they are a great source of tax breaks for investors, but they are almost non-existent in Manitoba. There are a couple of small funds (GrowthWorks, Golden Opportunities -- which sounds more like a retirement retreat than a venture capital fund) but the Crocus calamity has forever tarnished venture capital in the minds of many Manitobans.

Crocus was by far the largest and highest profile fund if its type in Manitoba, such that it became synonymous with venture capital investing in this province. But even as the Crocus fund was incurring massive losses, it was being pumped by the Provincial Government as a great place for people to put their hard-earned cash. The end result of course was that the fund crashed and people lost money. If individual investors can't trust a government created and promoted venture capital fund, it's little wonder that there isn't much venture capital for small businesses around here.

With the lack of available venture capital, a business may need to turn to a hodge-podge of ever-changing government programs if they don't have the private connections to raise money. It seems that every two years the programs change ... probably so that every two years the government can send out another press release to announce another new program to help small business. Though the names of the programs may change, the entities that offer them generally do not.

One of the current programs, announced in 2011, is the Commercialization Support for Business Program, created by the Manitoba provincial government from a recommendation of the Manitoba Innovation Council which was appointed in 2009 by the Premier. There is also BCC (Biomedical Commercialization Canada) which is funded largely by the National Research Council and the Province of Manitoba. BCC affiliated programs with names like "Manitoba Knights" ostensibly help foster small businesses -- for a fee and a chunk of their equity.

Now another program is being pitched to supply start-up capital to entrepreneurs, as long as they "manage their progress through government-licensed incubators, such as ... Biomedical Commercialization Canada."

All of this is fine if it works and actually helps small businesses innovate and succeed commercially. I am sure sometimes it does, but as it turns out sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes things go terribly wrong. Let me tell you a story about one small local hi-tech business that not only didn't get the help it was expecting, but was driven into insolvency as a result of breaches of contract and extortion by the BCC and provincial government programs.

So grab yourself a cocoa and come back shortly for The Dragonfly Affair.

*****

I recently painted a dragonfly ... I will share with you ...

Report on speed limits -- will they listen?

Well this was a nice surprise:

A new city report, released this morning, recommends Winnipeg not lower the residential speed limit to 40 km/h. The report said many studies conducted throughout North America have shown that driver speed is affected by the context of the road and not by speed limit signs.

When I wrote about the half-baked proposal at City Council to reduce speed limits (Speed limit proposal based on bad statistics) I had assumed it was a lost cause. Useless words floating off into space. We've seen time after time, like with the hand-held cell phone ban, how legislative bodies completely ignore facts and write their laws based optics or misguided impressions.

Oh I know my blog still won't make a difference, but there is a wee small chance that this new report will, given that, among other things, the report is not authored by a anonymous blogger.

More importantly, the report compiles data from a number of studies in other cities to draw it's conclusions, including the Edmonton study that was grievously misused to promote Harvey Smith's misguided proposal to lower speed limits.

I ended my other blog post by saying:

"What we need in this city is a common-sense approach to setting speed limits. Set speed limits at levels that reasonable according to industry standards and adjust as necessary for special cases like school zones. Let's not create misguided legislation based on inconclusive data and misinterpreted studies."

Perhaps with this new evidence that artificially slow speed limits don't work, our councilors will take heed and rethink their proposal, though that it still doubtful. Some people are simply immune to facts. I had a 15 or 20 minute conversation with Harvey Smith about this in September, and there is no budging him.

Good intentions should not trump good sense.

The Scrutinization of Manitoba Hydro

It's agonizing, it is. The glacially slow creep towards sanity in how Manitoba develops it's hydro resources. As the government confidently powers ahead with its plan to spend billions on misguided dams and power lines, it is being slowed by occasional bumps of scrutiny as people increasingly question the wisdom of what the government and Hydro are doing.

Reluctantly, Manitoba Hydro agreed to file a supplemental environmental assessment because of changes to the controversial west-side Bipole III route, after the Manitoba Metis Federation and others complained.

Days later, the province has begrudgingly ordered a "Needs For and Alternatives To" review of it's northern hydro projects, the Keeyask and Conawapa generating stations. Even as the NDP government announced the review, they repeated their lines about how these projects are critical to the economic success of the province -- as though the review is nothing more than a silly formality.

The government's backwards thinking on this issue is striking. For example, take everything Minister Dave Chomiak says in the following quote ...

"The estimated $13.3-billion investment in Manitoba's north that would result from Keeyask and Conawapa would propel the province's economy for decades to come and provide clean, low-cost and reliable power for future generations of Manitobans," Chomiak said. "Moving forward with these projects is an important decision and Manitobans need to be assured that they are in the best long-term interest of the province." -fp-

... and reverse everything, and see how much more sense it makes:

"The estimated $13.3-billion debt that would result from Keeyask and Conawapa would cripple the province's economy for decades to come and drive up the cost of power for future generations of Manitobans," Chomiak said. "Moving forward with these projects is a terrible decision and Manitobans need to be worried that they are not in the best long-term interest of the province." 

Wouldn't it have been a refreshing change of pace if Chomiak had a sudden surge of integrity and actually made that second quote instead of the first?

The province has so far neglected to request a similar review of Bipole III, but Bipole III is directly related to the NFAT for the generating stations.

Here's how: The existing HVDC power lines are sufficient to carry the existing generating capacity to the south. If the review determines that there are better alternatives to the proposed generating stations, then Bipole III is not necessary either -- at least not strictly necessary. It would still provide redundancy in power delivery to the south. However the value of that redundancy will need to be weighed against the $4 billion cost of Bipole III.

Here's something else you should know: even if it's decided that a Bipole III line is required without new power dams up north, there is a huge cost impact. The original shorter east-side route for Bipole III would only require costly converters if the additional generating capacity is added. Otherwise they are not needed. This is stated in Hydro's own documents including the routing study and this leaked 2005 report. However, converters are required for the longer west side route just to function.

This means that if the NFAT finds that the additional generating capacity up north is not needed, and the government continues to insist on building the Bipole III route down the west side of the province instead of the east side, then Manitobans are not just getting pooched out of an additional $871 million (according to my calculations) but also an additional $2+ billion for converters. This makes the west-side Bipole III route a head-shaking $3 billion mistake.

But all is not grim. What once appeared to be fait accompli is now somewhat less so as more questions are raised and scrutiny is applied. For example in the past two weeks there have been 10 or more articles and editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press about reviews of Manitoba Hydro plans or concerns about those plans, including this one from a former Manitoba Hydro Vice-President.

And of course there is the needs for alternatives review. There is a good chance that it will find that the proposed new generating stations are not a good investment at this point in time in spite of the government's insistence to the contrary, especially considering the week export market alluded to in Hydro's quarterly report and the likelihood that final projects costs will be much higher than the current $13.3 billion estimate.

So you see, even as the government continues to commit to it's ill-advised plans, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Keeyask and Conawapa are not a sure thing anymore, and therefore Bipole III may not be a sure thing anymore either. Sanity may yet prevail.

Probably not.

But maybe.

Shindico sanity check

It's always good to get all sides of the story, and until now we didn't have Shindico's perspective on the Winnipeg Fire Hall Debacle. Finally, belatedly, we have heard from the company behind this mess in Bartley Kives' Freep article No closed-door deal: Shindico.

According to Shindico's Bob Downs, everything that happened was just a natural evolution of a perfectly legitimate deal. It was all very straight-forward and nobody did anything wrong. However I believe this view requires a bit of a sanity check:

Re. building fire hall no. 12 on Shindico-owned land:

Shindico suggested its own land on Taylor Avenue as the home for the new Station No. 12. "You build a building on land that doesn't belong to the city, because if you don't, it doesn't get built," said Downs

There may be some truth to this. The city may not own any suitable land in the area, but does it have to be built on Shindico land? Well Shindico certainly did own a crap-load of land in the area

... but this area south of River Heights is far from being fully developed. There certainly must be other suitable property available. What about, for instance, the still-vacant site at the south-west corner of Taylor and Waverly? A very accessible location assessed at only $378,000. Who owns that??

But let's assume for a moment that the most appropriate parcel of land was in fact owned by Shindico:

"Now we have land that we own, and we don't sell land."
To resolve this issue, the land swap was born.

 "We don't sell land " he says. "We" being Shindico Realty, a realty company. Maybe they more commonly develop land, but they certainly can and do sell land. At the end of the day they will end up selling this land to the city anyhow because if they don't it will get expropriated.

Re. the 3-for-1 land swap:

The original land swap involved only two properties -- Shindico's Taylor plot and a vacant parcel of city land at Mulvey Avenue East in Fort Rouge.
...
Douglas, however, came back and informed Shindico the police still required part of the Mulvey land for its river-patrol unit. So a chunk of this land was carved off. "I said, 'What do we do about the balance?' (Douglas) said, 'The only thing we have is the two stations that are being replaced,' ".
...
The eventual plan to trade Taylor for the Mulvey, Grosvenor and Berry properties was a compromise solution.

So we are told that originally it was going to be a straight swap between the Mulvey site, assessed at over $1 million, and the Taylor site assessed at less than half that amount*, but because the police required "a chunk" of the 4.2 acre Mulvey site, it evolved into a swap between the Mulvey site and the Berry fire hall site and the Grosvenor Ave site. Some kind of compromise that is.

In other words, "a chunk" of the Mulvey Avenue location -- perhaps 20% -- is equivalent to the infill properties on Berry St and Grosvenor Ave combined.  That math doesn't add up in my mind.

Why not just take Mulvey off the table and propose a swap of one or both of the other locations? Why add them on to Mulvey? Better yet, why not just propose to buy the land off Shindico to begin with?

"You have to understand the reason we wanted to swap the land is then we can make something out of the land. It benefits both the city and us," Downs said.

This itself is a preposterous statement. Swapping with Shindico isn't the only possible channel the city has for adding value to land. The Mulvey property had interested buyers. The city could sell the land and see the property tax roll go up as a result, and in a much more transparent way as well. It is very condescending of Downs to suggest, indirectly, that the city can't "make something out of the land" without handing over the land to Shindico.

Re. the Station 11 budget explosion

An initial 10,500-square-foot figure did not account for doors and corridors for personnel to move around ... The configuration had to be amended to satisfy concerns about traffic flow.

If this is true, then that adds a whole new layer of incompetence. Who's designing a fire hall without doors and hallways? Or if it was designed with doors and hallways, then who is estimating the cost of construction without them? His explanation still implies that somebody screwed up in a big way, and since Shindico was in charge of designing and building this thing that person is probably somebody within Shindico.

How do you account for the increase in square footage? Downs makes no reference to the proposed museum that Chief Douglas suggested was behind the size increase. Instead, the 3,500 sq ft. expansion is due to doors and corridors and dorm rooms. That's not believable.

"It was always our understanding, that whatever we agreed to was subject to council," he said. "So it wasn't being done behind closed doors."

Actually it was being done behind closed doors, but you were just leaving council to deal with the aftermath when the doors opened up and it was too late to change. Build first, check with council later.

Conclusion: I give this story by Shindico's Bob Downs two thumbs down. I find it to be unrealistic and contrived. A carefully crafted pile of crap. But that's just my opinion.


* Bart had reported that the Taylor land is assessed at $461,000. The city's assessment tool shows the plot of land at 1780 Taylor Ave assessed at $602,000 but the fire hall only takes up part of that parcel of land.

*****
Still waiting for that special pot?:

Why yes I am, actually.... Is this where I get it?

I've decided it's time for a change

I didn't want to put "electoral system" in the title because then nobody would click on the link, but
I've decided it's time for a change in how we elect our representatives.

Perhaps our current system makes sense federally, but I'm not sure it makes sense provincially or locally. This thought came to mind as I read a Metro article last week about the provincial by-election in Fort Whyte. In the article, the candidates were asked about the most important issues that came up as they campaigned door-to-door.

With the province increasingly mired in debt, billions being committed to Hydro projects of dubious benefit, and various problems with health care, family services, etc., the key issues, according to the candidates, are:

According to Brandy Schmidt, NDP ...

"the Waverly overpass request—that’s a big one," she said, adding an overpass at Waverly Street near Taylor Avenue would be something she’d look into if elected.

Bob Axworthy, Liberal ...

The most important issue, according to Axworthy, is having a representative in Fort Whyte who lives in the community.

Let me get this straight: the most important issue is not the provincial debt, or health care or increasing hydro rates or even infrastructure, but what street the candidate's house is on. Score one for Mr. Jetz TV, I guess.

Brian Pallister, PC ...

It varies from too-loud train whistles to the need for more elementary and a high school in the area, to traffic problems on Waverley Street.
...
While president of the Portage la Prairie Chamber of Commerce, helped find a resolution to train whistling — experience he hopes to bring to the Manitoba Legislature.

That's right: train whistles. Thankfully he is well-equipped to tackle the train whistle problem that plagues Manitoba, having worked on a similar problem in Portage La Prairie. He can leverage that valuable experience as MP and leader of the opposition.

Only Don Benham, Green Party, mentioned issues of province-wide significance: a proposed Honesty in Politics Act and recycling policy.

A common criticism of our 'first past the post' regional system is that it produces outcomes that are not consistent with the popular vote. This is true, but to add to that, you have these weird distortions where a person who will be governing on matters of provincial significance are campaigning on local issues that are significant only to a tiny fraction of the population. I don't know about you, but when a provincial election candidate knocks on my door and asks me what concerns I have with my riding, I have to wrack my brain to think of something that doesn't sound trivial. I'm not concerned about my riding ... I'm concerned about my province.

This preposterous state of affairs sometimes also results in something resembling bribery, as we saw in Southdale where residents voted NDP to get a fancy new community centre complex. Meanwhile, the candidate they elected to get their community center is voting on legislation that impacts everyone. It doesn't make sense.

The same arguments can be made of civic elections. I think we should elect a panel of councilors that have the best interests of the entire city in mind. I think most do, but if a councilor from Ward X continually makes poor decisions there is nothing that most people can do about it. Only a small percentage of people have a say in whether that individual gets re-elected, and because he has name recognition in that particular ward re-election is almost a certainty.

The recent Shindico land-swap craziness is evidence that there are massive systemic problems at Winnipeg City Hall that transcend ward boundaries. [By the way, Bart Kives has been doing a great job of covering this. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]. I'm not saying that council is directly to blame for this, but certainly some of them are complicit in allowing a culture to develop where grievous violations of process like this can be considered normal and acceptable.

It is my belief that if we moved to a system where all people in the city had a say in electing all councilors, there would be greater turn-over and more accountability.

I'm not prepared to come up with the details of how such a system would work, and I think it's highly unlikely anything will change anyhow since those in power have a vested interest in preserving the system that put them in power. I just think it can be better, is all.

Are we paying our mayors enough?

The pending special mayor episode of Winnipeg Internet Pundits got me thinking about mayors. My particular train of thought revolved around mayoral performance. Why do mayors always seem to under perform? Is it just my perception, or do cities generally have a hard time attracting capable leaders?

I think most Winnipeggers can relate to this. Before our last civic election there was near-unanimous consensus that mayor Sam Katz was doing a poor job: making poor planning decisions, spending too much time in Phoenix and not enough running the city, screwing up rapid transit, screwing up active transportation, doing things that were uncomfortably close to conflict of interest, burying us in an infrastructure deficit, poisoning the relationship with the Province, etc...  Yet, he won the election easily because there was nobody else worth voting for. Why???

We're not alone here, or at least I get the impression we're not. I hear stories from time to time of wacky or incompetent mayors in other cities. Even Toronto, with a population base 8 times ours, can't find a dignified mayor. Rob Ford is a controversial guy who battles with the media and often says ill-advised things like "Roads are built for buses, cars and trucks. Not for people on bikes. And my heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day." That's just the start of his controversies, which include reading while driving.

Before Ford, in the late 90's and early 00's, there was a guy named Mel Lastman. Lastman was a furniture salesman by trade, and he didn't change a bit as mayor. He was definitely the Kern Hill/David Keam of mayors. Business acumen is a plus for sure, but crazy TV ads impersonating a US President probably don't help. For whatever good things he did, he is probably best remembered as the mayor who installed giant coloured moose all over the city.

Now, there are certainly exceptions. One might point to Calgary's Naheed Nenshi as an example. However, I believe there is a definite trend. 

The question is: how do we reverse the trend? A while ago I suggested that we should encourage politicians to accept free Jets tickets as a perk to attract better candidates. I was only joking, but that may be on the right track. Are we paying mayors enough? Sam Katz earns $126k per year (plus perks). Rob Ford earns $168k as mayor of The Big Smoke. That seems like a lot of money to an average Fred, but in terms of experienced professionals capable of running a large organization, it's not. Winnipeg's Deputy CAO earns $313k. Even Sam's own chief of staff earns almost as much as he does. In the private sector, management jobs routinely run well into 6 figures. 

You could argue that all public leaders are underpaid, relatively speaking, but the office of Prime Minister for example has the prestige of the job to attract candidates. A mayor's job consists of making decisions about road repairs and trash collection, not globe trotting and hobnobbing with dignitaries. As a result, it tends to attract either long shots with nothing to lose, or wealthy business people who have something to gain. 

Every once in a while a capable long shot like Nenshi might get on the ballot and win, but more often then not our mayor ends up being a business man for whom the job is a hobby or a means to an end. A larger salary could be a small price to pay to improve those odds.

What to do with the Master Plan?

About the only surprise is how soon it happened, though the fact that it happened was all but inevitable. On Wednesday, Winnipeg City Council rendered yet another planning document obsolete by approving a proposal to disregard the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan and fast track road expansions on the periphery of the city:

Amid hubbub, $300 million in freeways approved

Said Dan Vandal, who is emerging as one of the few voices of reason on Main Street:

"I think it sends the wrong message to administration and to the province, who I'm sure paid for half of the master plan. The fact that we can make these $300 million in changes without any administrative comment on whether they're worthwhile is bizarre."

Yes, well bizarre is the name of the game at City Hall.

This change, while fast tracking new roads, no doubt also delays the rapid transit portion of the master plan until some time after the Great Apocalypse. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have wasted my time writing about it or going to the open house, although they do have good cookies at these open houses.

Nevertheless, we spent $1.25 million on this document, so we should try to make some use of it.

My first thought was to use it to line bird cages, but nobody keeps birds anymore. (Why is that? They're small and colourful. What more could you want in a pet?) 

My second thought was that we could use the pages of the Transportation Master Plan to teach kids origami. They could start by doing very simple projects like paper airplanes. This is ideal because it's tangentially related to transportation.

But then it occurred to me that the plan is in PDF format. It is very difficult to make a paper airplane out of a PDF file. I tried once and it was incredibly frustrating. In the end, perhaps the best use we can make of this document, as flawed as it is, is to lock it away in a time vault to be opened in 20 years so that the next generation of community leaders can compare what was supposed to be with what actually happened, and hopefully get cracking on that second leg of rapid transit to the U of M.

Hi I'm Mark Kelly and here's what I want to Connect:

WHYYYYYYY MEEEEEEEE???????

To tell you the truth, I often enjoy watching Connect with Mark Kelly. Ya, he applies his own slant to certain subjects, but the interviews are snappy and generally well done, and the news segments with Reshmi Nair and more recently Genevieve Tomney are refreshing. They always start with the grim news and finish up with something light, so that they can banter with Mark and flash their smile for the camera.

I am a little surprised that they would cut this particular show. It does not seem like a large budget show. One host, a studio, a team of researchers and some teleconferencing costs, basically; as opposed to something like Republic of Doyle (oh that Crazy Doyle .. I can't believe he stuffed that police man in the trunk again) which is a scripted on-location drama with writers, actors, the whole bit. It's no surprise that Doyle was chopped.

Part of the problem is that CBC is just too spread out. They have English TV, French TV, CBC News Network, CBC Radio 1, CBC Radio 2, CBC French radio, etc ... I think what CBC does best is news and investigative stuff. Maybe they need to consolidate to 2 radio staions (English & French) and 2 TV stations and focus on that.

***

I can relate to Mark Kelly. I lost my job too, quite recently. Unlike Mark, and government employees in general, I worked with an axe hanging over my head for years. Layoffs and aggressive cost cutting were a way of life at my former place of employment. Every year I saw colleagues and teammates laid off, and more often than not I would have to absorb additional work. Sometimes the cuts seemed completely unreasonable, yet despite all the layoffs we got the product out the door. The quality of the product may have suffered on occasion, but company profits kept increasing, revenue grew, and work kept getting done. My experience is that if people are forced to do more with less, they can and they will. If they can't or they won't then they will be the next ones out the door.

Which makes me wonder about CBC and all the TV shows that have been cut. The CBC execs may think that they run a lean operation and that there is no choice but to chop shows, but have they really tried to do more with less? The cuts were quite large and sudden, so maybe it was necessary. I don't know .. I don't have a good grasp of how much overhead there is at the CBC.

I will say this though: when people panic at cuts to government spending in general, saying that core services will have to be cut, I call bullshit. Most government departments at any level have not had to cut back by any significant degree for years. There is certainly capacity to do more with less. Core services need only get cut if people refuse to work more efficiently. It is a choice, not a necessity.

I lived that reality for years. When the cuts come, you think "My God, how will everything get done?" Then you begin to find things -- reports, meetings, whatever -- that aren't really critical, and you get rid of those, and you get rid of travel, and you streamline other stuff, and you end up finding a way to get the job done. Year after year we did that. Any government department can do it too.

Destroying brand new infrastructure: It's a Winnipeg Thing

For a person who only bikes a half-dozen times a year, I'm surprisingly supportive of active transportation infrastructure. In a quiet sort of way though. I don't go around pushing the active transportation gospel on unwilling victims, and I realize that regardless of how much you try to develop it, only a very small percentage of people will ever commute by pedal power in a city as sprawling as Winnipeg.

However, I would love to see an integrated network of paths that would let me bike around the city without having to compete with vehicular traffic, and was therefore pumped when the brand new Bishop Grandin Trail West opened late last year. Now, if I wanted to I could bike all the way to Assiniboine Park or my friend's place in White Ridge without riding on a major road!

Winnipeg's newest active transportation corridor claimed the starring role in this year's International Trails Day festivities in Winnipeg, and earned sparkling praise from Winnipeg's AT Madame Janice Lukes: "This new trail is a stellar example of community connectivity."


It also happens to be a stellar example of poor planning, because this is what the trail looks like now:


Less than a year after it was paved, the trail was torn up and the communities are connected no more. That's about $2 million of trail torn up to make way for the construction of the Kenaston extension through Waverly West -- something that has been planned for over six years.*

I suspect the Winnipeg Trails Association is in denial because they have not yet recognized this destruction on their web site. Both the Bishop Grandin Trail West map and their spiffy new BETA version Bikeplanit.org map show the trail as being intact, which it very much is not. In fact, there are "No Trespassing" signs at the start of the trail section (which I, um, didn't notice until after I had taken the above photo. I mean, after my Research Assistant Julio took the photo.)

How does this happen? This particular section of trail was funded by the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, which is an extension of the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program. This is separate from the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund that gave birth to many other active transportation improvements of questionable wisdom, but like that program this one is a use-it-or-lose-it affair with a specific deadline for spending your money. I have noticed that putting a drop dead date on spending money will ensure the money gets spent, but greatly increases the chance that it will be spent poorly.

I can't tell you if this botched trail was a result of deadline-related pressure, or bad communication, or something else, but there is really no excuse for it. Somebody at City Hall needs to oversee this stuff and connect the dots. I've heard of other instances where a road was repaved, only to be torn up right away for sewer repairs or some such thing. Perhaps a big chunk of Winnipeg's multi-gazillion dollar infrastructure deficit it due to one $50k/year slacker who spends his time on Twitter instead of cross referencing project dates?

Anyhow, at some future time we'll get to see if this stellar example of community connectivity will be reconnected, and if there will be some reasonable way to navigate the new intersection at Bishop and Kenaston. I sure hope so, because some day I might actually want to hop on my bike and ride to Assiniboine Park for the afternoon. Well, okay ... I'll probably take the car, but it would be really nice having that option of biking though.


* Waverley West Area Structure Plan, December 2005. Dollar value estimated based on this article that specs $20m for 12 km of trail. Total length of trail between Waverly & Scurfield is 1.8 km, much of which is torn up,

did you know: that the MTS Centre got $34 million from the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program?

The speed limit is too low. I have proof.

If you follow local Winnipeg news, you probably heard about the kerfuffle over a photo radar speed trap at Grant Ave. and Nathaniel St. where the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and anti-speed trap advocates Wise-Up Winnipeg are urging people not to pay their tickets because they believe the speeds aren't being measured properly.

Earlier in the year, Wise-Up Winnipeg also questioned whether the speed limit was properly posted on this stretch of road.

Here's the thing: even if the speed limit signage is posted correctly, and even if the radars are calibrated properly, these tickets should never have been issued. Why? Because the speed limit itself is incorrect.

This is not just my opinion. It is fact. I'll explain: In 2003 a report was submitted by the Winnipeg Public Works Department titled "SPEED LIMIT ON GRANT AVENUE AND ON KENASTON BOULEVARD". The report was conducted by traffic analysts and signed by J.A.Thomson, Director of Public Works. It has since been removed from the City of Winnipeg web site (at least I can't find it) but I happen to have a copy.

It's conclusion:

"The measured 85th percentile speeds on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard and on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road range between 61 and 68 km/h. The collision rates ... are comparable to the city-wide average of 3.3 on regional streets with similar characteristics. Based on this information and on the widely accepted practice for setting speed limits using the 85th percentile speed, it is reasonable to set 60 km/hr speed limits on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard and on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road. Furthermore, it is expected that making these changes ... will (i) result in more efficient transportation routes along these streets, (ii) reduce the incidence of short-cutting traffic on adjacent residential streets, and (iii) provide motorists travelling along these routes with a more consistent driving environment in terms of uniformity in speed limits."

When this study was brought before council it was rejected for unspecified reasons:

"The Standing Policy Committee on Public Works did not concur in the administrative recommendation and therefore did not increase the speed limit.
Further, the Standing Policy Committee on Public Works requested that in the future, consideration of speed limits be referred initially to the Ward Councillor and if necessary to the respective Community Committee." (soucre: Minutes - Standing Policy Committee on Public Works - January 13, 2003)

The traffic analysts collected all this data, did all that analysis, and council just tossed it into the garbage can without any apparent consideration. Even if the policy is good the optics are bad, therefore the elected councillors won't even touch it. Get the Community Committee to agree and maybe we'll consider it ... as if that will ever happen. That's leadership for you.

There is a permanent red light camera installed on Kenaston Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Academy Road at Corydon Ave., and this Nathaniel St. mobile speed trap is on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Kenaston Boulevard. In both cases tickets are being issued to drivers that are driving a safe speed according to traffic industry standards. It is immoral and objectionable and counter-productive to issue speeding tickets to people in areas where you KNOW the speed limits are too low.

The reason I found this study in the first place is because a few years ago I was nailed with a photo radar ticket on Kenaston Blvd. I challenged it in court. I presented this study as evidence to show that the speed I was driving was safe according to accepted standards and argued that enforcing this ticket violated the intent of the law, which ultimately is to make streets safer. In fact, enforcing an artificially low speed limit can make streets more dangerous because it causes speed differentials to increase (less consistency in the speeds people drive) which leads to increased accident rates.

Unfortunately the judge I got was completely incapable of comprehending this argument. "But .... you were going over the speed limit."

GAAAAAA! This is why you're almost at retirement and still stuck working traffic court! (I didn't say that out loud.)

Perhaps if I had appealed I would have got a judge with a capacity for independent thought and abstract concepts, but appealing takes time and money and I wasn't up for the challenge at the time. However, if one of you have recently been dinged with a ticket in one of these areas, I will gladly send you this study and I will give you my full support and encouragement as you attempt to fight your ticket.

Modest tax cuts? How about 10th consecutive tax increase?

My fellow Manitobans, you have seen or read stuff in the press about the modest tax cuts in the new NDP budget. You might therefore be surprised to learn that you will probably be paying more income tax next year, not less. There are various targeted credits that apply to certain specific groups of people, but there is only one broad personal tax cut in this budget: a phased increase to the basic personal exemption of $250 per year over 4 years.

Well, that's pretty good, isn't it? Yes, it's good. The basic personal exemption should increase ... every year. But how much does that actually put in to your pocket? $27 the first year. Yes, that's all. You get 10.8% of that $250. $27.

What you won't read about in the press is the personal tax increase in this budget. Aside from the basic personal amount, your personal taxes otherwise remain unchanged. This means that the tax rates remain unchanged, and the tax brackets remain unchanged. How is that a tax increase you ask? I'll demonstrate:

Suppose the Stephen Harper increased the federal income tax rate by 0.5%. Is that a tax increase? I dare you to say "no". Well, the federal government indexes it's tax brackets. That 0.5% tax increase is equivalent to a 0% tax increase with tax brackets that are not indexed, assuming a 2.3% rate of inflation.* In other words, the money out of your pocket is exactly the same.

The Manitoba government does not index it's tax brackets. It has increased the lower tax threshold only once since 2002, and that was only by a meager 1.5%. Let me show you how that looks in comparison to the Federal tax threshold, and that of our arch nemesis Saskatchewan:

Inflation data: 2002 = 100 (right axis) source

Not increasing the tax brackets is just as real a tax increase as actually increasing the tax rate, friends, and in fact for most people this "hidden" increase far outweighs the "modest tax cut" that you'll hear about in the news. If you make $50,000 and you get a modest 2% cost of living increase, you will pay $127.50 more in taxes due to the bracket creep. According to my calculations, which I am willing to share with you, anybody who makes more than $25,000 will pay more tax next year than last year, independent of the miscellaneous credits.

That is called a tax increase.

For more on bracket creep, here's Colin Craig of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation:

*this is also dependent upon the government indexing the brackets sufficiently to actually mitigate the impact of inflation.

related: budget commentary from some people you may know