Foreign-funded interest group seeks to sway next civic election

An organization called the Dogwood Initiative (also known as Dogwood BC|) has announced it intends to get involved in next year’s municipal election in Coquitlam. The environmental and government-reform group has every right to do so, of course, but the potential consequences of its involvement further bolster my ongoing argument that the provincial government should deliberate very carefully before enacting any municipal-level campaign-donation “reforms.”

Such reforms are top of mind this week because, with news that the NDP government’s first throne speech is to be delivered on Friday, Sept. 8, speculation has turned to what the contents of that speech may be. Many observers predict the Horgan government will have to address its longstanding commitment to introduce provincial campaign-donation reforms. 

This, in turn, leads me to wonder if the NDP will decide to act on municipal-level campaign-donation and -spending restrictions, as has been called for by some local politicians but which has been opposed repeatedly by me; moreover, such possible restrictions were the subject of a cautionary letter sent by Coquitlam Council to the three provincial party leaders last spring.

Faithful readers of this blog will recall that I have long argued that restrictions on corporate and/or union donations will severely handicap independent and unaffiliated candidates, unfairly helping candidates who are members of slates or parties, or who have the backing (and access to membership lists) of labour unions.

What is also evident is that, if severe donation restrictions are put in place, outside special-interest groups will likely end up playing a bigger role, not only in pre-campaign marketing, organizing and lobbying efforts, but also during campaigns themselves. It is easy to imagine a variety of issue-oriented groups moving into the vacuum created by hamstrung candidates who, because of donation and spending restrictions, will be unable to produce the flyers, pamphlets, and advertising they could produce in past election campaigns.

And here’s where Dogwood comes into the picture. The organization boasts on its website that it had a successful (but, in my eyes, largely unrecognized) impact on the last provincial election. “We had 71 election related events over the last two months across B.C.,” the group reported in early June. “We made 36,564 phone calls to get out the vote. We had 13,576 live conversations with our supporters. We texted 63,000 people. That is powerful.

“We made sure our supporters, those who want to stop Kinder Morgan, ban big money, and end thermal coal exports, showed up at their voting polls. We talked to people who weren’t sure who they were voting for or if they were voting. We helped British Columbians find their polling place and bring the right ID. And we know by how tight this election was that every vote counted — especially in those important ridings where anti-Kinder Morgan politicians were elected like Burnaby North, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Courtenay-Comox.“ 

Coquitlam residents should take special note of the fact that DI is, essentially, claiming credit for helping elect NDP MLA Selina Robinson and defeat BC Liberal candidate Steve Kim.

As suggested above, it is worth underlining that the DI is an enthusiastic supporter of banning “big money” from elections   and has even called a “corruption inquiry”into BC politics. Of course, the way I see it, a ban on so-called big money would undoubtedly strengthen the DI’s hand, giving it less competition in the marketplace of political ideas.

Moreover, the DI’s call to eliminate “big money” from politics can easily be seen as rather rich coming from an organization whose $2.2-million-dollar budget (for the year ended March 31, 2016) has its own share of “big money” revenue, to the tune of $922,447 in grants.

All this wouldn’t necessarily be of much interest to Coquitlam civic voters were it not for the fact that, on June 13, Alex McGowan, who identified himself as “the Dogwood BC Provincial Organizer in the area including Coquitlam,” told me in an email that his organization “recently made the decision to invest in building teams in the area from Burnaby to Maple Ridge in advanced [sic] of the 2018 municipal election.” He continued, “I know you are an incredible advocate in your community and I think we can find space to work together.”

I responded to his invitation to meet me by posing a series of questions, including these:

*From which organizations, and of what total, did you receive grants in 2016? 

*What were the services you provided, and to whom, that accounted for the reported $350,427 in "fee for service" revenue in 2016?

*Your organization's website celebrates the "behind the scenes" impact the DI had on the last provincial election. The site also states that the DI is a "registered sponsor" under the "Election Act." ... [W]hich candidates or parties did you sponsor, and how much did you spend in support of that sponsorship? (Please itemize).

*Is it the DI's intent to formally or informally support candidates, based on their support of your policies and or campaigns, in next year's municipal elections? If so, can those candidates expect to receive indirect or direct financial support from the DI? If so, how much?

Mr. McGowan’s responses were revealing for what he said and what he did not say. Most importantly, he revealed that the group receives an unspecified amount of funding from sources in the United States. Here is his complete answer on this subject:

“On fundraising: - 60% of Dogwood's funding comes from non-grant sources: individuals and earned revenue; none comes from government or corporations; among the foundations that support Dogwood several are based in Seattle, a city that shares the Salish Sea with British Columbia. Dogwood’s campaign decisions are independent from any financial influence since no single source provides more than 5% of total revenue. We receive donations from over 10,000 individual Canadians.”

He did not provide the names of any of those foreign funders. But a little Internet sleuthing turned up the fact that the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, which has been the subject of several exposes by National Post contributor Vivian Krause,  has been one of the DI’s major funders, pouring $187,425 into its coffers in2015 alone. 

One suspects that those BC voters, who are concerned about corporate and union donations to local politicians, would also be concerned about foreign advocacy groups’ support of a local special-interest group.

I am also wondering why Mr. McGowan did not answer my question about the nature of the “fee for service” revenue it received in 2016. He did say that, “We have registered as intervenors in the past three elections. We have never endorsed or financially supported any candidate or party as per our non-partisan status. We remain committed to that policy. Our election work continues to be about increasing turnout and engagement. In regards to election spending, all registered intervenors are required by law to submit detailed reports to all applicable election oversight bodies.”

That’s good information, but the non-partisanship implied by Mr. McGowan’s statement seems to be at odds with the declaration, quoted above, that, “We made sure our supporters, those who want to stop Kinder Morgan, ban big money, and end thermal coal exports, showed up at their voting polls.”

I had a brief phone chat this week with Mr. McGowan about some of the gaps in the information he supplied. We hope to have a fuller talk in the near future; if we do – and if any more details are forthcoming – I will update this article.

SEPT. 8.  I have now had a good discussion with Mr. McGowan about some of the issues I raised, above.
*On the fee-for-service issue, he stated firmly that DI does not sell its services to any political organization. Rather, its does training and consulting-type work for other non-profits.
*On the question of foreign donations, he stated that the amount the DI receives is "relatively small" and the money has been primarily used to support the DI's campaign to stop coal-port expansion.
*On the apparent conflict in values -- the DI is opposed to corporate and union funding of parties and candidates, but in favour of its receipt of foreign grants -- Mr. McGowan says the distinction is that the DI is not responsible for making decisions.
*On the possibility that, if successful, DI's opposition to union and corporate funding would create a more open playing field for DI and other organizations to influence public policy, he say Dogwood does not have the funds to run ads in every municipality.
*And, finally, on the apparent, de-facto partisanship, he said that, yes, the DI "definitely" wants to influence elections, but it does so by identifying party and candidate stances on crucial issues, and then communicating (to people they have identified who support the DI's goals) those stances. The DI does not specifically endorse or support any party or candidate, though.

For my part, I told him that it was my opinion that I am concerned about the impact of foreign money on local politics, that I believe its work constitutes de facto endorsement of candidates, and that the DI's anti-corporate and -union donations stance would, if implemented, unfairly favour candidates aligned with organized parties or slates, particularly if those parties and slates are affiliated with unions, which have access to volunteers and membership lists.

We agreed to disagree.

Some context, please, Mr. Horgan

Housing affordability and its associated issues, including "demo-victions," comprise one of the most pressing economic and social issues in the Lower Mainland. Little wonder, then, that the opposition New Democrats have mounted a campaign for more government action on the problem.

BlueSky's proposed development on Foster, east of Clarke.

It might help their cause, however, if they picked a more suitable example of demo-viction malfeasance than the one they highlighted in Coquitlam earlier this week.
In fact, the example they showcased, the big BlueSky Properties Inc. development on Foster Ave. in Burquitlam, could and should be held up, not as a dramatic example of corporate greed and provincial government inaction, but as a heartening example of corporate responsibility, successful community engagement, and enlightened municipal policy.
Here's the story.
As part of its housing-affordability campaign, the New Democrats staged a press conference earlier this week against the backdrop of the aging apartments in Coquitlam that will be demolished to make way for the BlueSky development at North Road and Foster Avenue.
Supported by NDP MLA Selina Robinson and one-time NDP candidate and current Coquitlam Councillor Chris Wilson*, NDP leader John Horgan pointed out that the apartments are slated for demolition to make way for condo towers that are coming as part of the densification of Burquitlam now happening in anticipation of the arrival of the Evergreen Line early next year.
With reportedly scant reference to the specific details of the BlueSky redevelopment, Mr. Horgan declared, "People and families are scrambling to find affordable rental housing here in Coquitlam and across the Lower Mainland, and they aren't getting any leadership from Christy Clark. People want to know why the Christy Clark government has not acted to protect renters and increase the number of rental homes in this overheated property market."
Fair enough comment on the provincial level. But, on the municipal level, the suggestion that old rental buildings are demolished with little regard for the future of the tenants is completely off base.
In fact, the BlueSky development is notable for the developer's care and attention to ensure that the renters in the existing 112 units are cared for. The company's commitment to this was so thorough that the development proposal won the support of both the Burquitlam Community Association and the Tri-Cities Homelessness and Housing Task Group.
The 873-unit project will eventually comprise three condo towers boasting 816 for-sale units (many of which will, of course, be put on the rental market) and a purpose-building, five-storey, 57-unit rental building, in which rents will be similar to the rents in the existing complex. (Please click here to read the full Coquitlam staff report on the project.)
Furthermore, with Coquitlam's Transit-Oriented Development Strategy and (then-old but since-updated) Housing Affordablity Strategy guiding them, city officials worked with BlueSky to ensure that several other important steps were taken to assist in the relocation of the existing renters who would not find space in the new rental building or one of the condos. The company:

• Hired an on-site rental relocation coordinator.
• Instituted ongoing communication and meetings with tenants, including relocation information.
• Provided tenants with a six-month eviction notice, rather than the provincially required two months.
• Promised to waive multiple months' rent, rather than the one-month required by law. Two months' rent would be waved if the tenant relocates within four months of receiving notice; three months' waved if relocation takes place between four and six months after notice is served.
• Offered any tenant or member of their immediate family the opportunity to purchase a unit within the BlueSky, or any Bosa Properties development, with 12 months' worth of rent going towards the down-payment on their new home.

The press release accompanying Mr. Horgan's news conference said he believes, "fair tenant relocation policies are needed, and the province should lead. Standards for requiring relocation plans for tenants and replacing demolished units need to be in place around the province, not just in some communities."
Fair enough.
But it would have been infinitely more informative (if somewhat less dramatic) for him to have pointed out that the "fair tenant relocation policies" he is calling for already exist in the very community in which he chose to voice his concerns.

(*Unlike Mr. Horgan, Mr. Wilson provided some contextual background to at least one news outlet, as evidenced by this story.)

Why I support the by-election

Robinson and Reimer at their final council meeting earlier this year.

The late US president Woodrow Wilson once said, “Democracy is not so much a form of government as a set of principles.” I believe he was correct, and this is why I voted last night in favour of staging a by-election to replace Coquitlam’s two departed City Councillors, Linda Reimer and Selina Robinson, who now sit in the BC Legislature. (Happily, my vote was part of a 4-2 majority to accept Reimer and Robinson’s resignations and set in motion the process to hold a by-election, which is likely to be held in October.)

Yes, there were practical reasons—most of which involved the saving of money—for not holding the by-election. But I believe the importance of the principles that are involved in the question far outweigh issues involving the city’s finances.

I am reminded that the world “democracy” comes from the Greek word, “demos,” meaning, “people.”  And a democratic system of government is one in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. Thus, the holding of elections is of paramount importance in a functioning democracy.

Furthermore, the key role of citizens in a democracy is participation. It is significant that two of the more-publicized initiatives I have undertaken in my first 18 months on council involved citizen engagement. One initiative—the publishing of the names of those who voted in an election—did not receive council support; the other—the staging of electronic Town Hall Meetings—met with overwhelming success. It doesn’t really make sense, then, for me to be in favour of increased citizen engagement but opposed to a by-election.

A democracy also involves government by the rule of law. I believe the Community Charter, which governs the City’s actions here, does not intend to allow the type of gymnastics—going on an unpaid leave for six months and then resigning early in 2014 so as not to trigger a by-election—in which the opponents of the by-election would have had us engage.

After all, any definition of “leave of absence” with which I am familiar suggests that the person taking a leave has the intention of eventually returning to work. Neither Robinson nor Reimer has any intention to return to City Hall.

Those who keep focusing on the money that could be saved by not staging a by-election remind me of something Oscar Wilde said many years ago: “Nowadays,” he quipped, “people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

Yes, democracy's price can be high, but its value is far greater.

Christy Clark's secret weapon

Christy Clark: A woman's edge? (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

It's taken until this long weekend for some of the best post-BC-election analysis to emerge, but I'm wondering if there's still something missing.
First, though, Brian Hutchinson in Saturday's National Post and Michael Smyth in Sunday's Province have provided extremely interesting insights into how the Liberals' superior polling told them that their dual focus, on Adrian Dix's doubtful leadership abilities and the NDP's potentially harmful economic and environmental policies, was working.
Indeed, both writers report that chief pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos told party leaders four days before the election that the BC Liberals were on track to win 48 seats; currently, their total stands at 50. Just a few hours ago, a piece by the Canadian Press's Dirk Meissner shows how oblivious the NDP were to their looming electoral catastrophe.
Apparently, the NDP's own polling data had them winning--and winning big. The party did not realize that Dix's campaign was falling flat on its face and that Dix's mid-campaign reversal, in which he announced his opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, was a big vote loser. (Smyth dubs Dix's announcement as the "Kinder surprise." Nice!)
I was pleasantly surprised when I heard, on election night, from a construction-industry acquaintance of mine that the shop steward at his operation had urged his fellow blue-collar union member not to vote for the NDP because their policies would kill economic growth in the province. This is something I've long believed, but had not appreciated the fact the message had gotten through to workers.
I have to think that some of this must be credited to Barbara Yaffe's tremendous mid-campaign Vancouver Sun column, "All green economy would bleed red,"  in which she itemized, in what the NDP must have considered excruciating detail, the many resource-related and other development projects the party opposed.
It's also emerging that voters didn't think Dix projected a leadership-type aura. Personally, I've seen him speak several times and was always impressed by his grasp of policy, the ease with which he can recall facts and figures, and the eloquent way he speaks.  However, he also comes across as rather goofy sometimes; this never bothered me, but it apparently bothered a great many voters, especially those who saw him during the campaign's lone televised debate, in which he was slouching and looked rather shabby.
And much has also been made about what a campaign-trail trooper Christy Clark was: about her charisma, her energy and her ability to connect with people. The lone time I saw her in person over the past month was at a late-in-the-campaign, early-morning stop at the office of Coquitlam-Maillardville B.C. Liberal candidate Steve Kim.
Clark was on message and on fire, taking time not only to rally the troops and deliver key election messages, but also to warmly greet some moms and school kids who showed up for the event. At the time, I wondered why the Liberals were bothering to deploy their leader in a riding that was "obviously" and "clearly" one they had no chance of winning. Ha! How wrong I was! (Actually, the end-of-month final count, in which absentee ballots will finally be counted, could reverse the outcome in Coquitlam-Maillardville. I'm predicting that Kim's lead over the NDP's Selina Robinson will, at the least, be cut. A full recount is likely.)
This last anecdote about Clark's ability to connect with people leads me to an observation about the BC Liberals' win that no one that I am aware of has yet to express, and that's that another factor in the victory might have been Clark's gender. It's not something I'm necessarily proposing myself, but it must be noted that recent political research in the U.S. shows that, essentially, voters are more likely to support a woman than a man.
The May edition of The Atlantic has an interesting item about this subject. Here are a few of the most pertinent sections:
"Evidence suggests that [anti-female] double standards may have once applied but don't any longer.... [Voters] tend to assume women are more trustworthy, less corruptible, and more in touch with everyday concerns... [Women] are harder to criticize than men. Sharp-edged attacks, particularly by male rivals, risk running afoul of the societal bias against, essentially, hitting a girl."
The latter declaration suggests that, even if the NDP had decided to launch attack ads against Clark, to counter the BC Liberals' attack ads against the NDP and Dix, those ads might very well have backfired.
And so, it may well be that the NDP was a "dead party walking" even as the campaign began.