Wednesday, February 29, 2012

UPDATE - Tariq Ghuman turfed as federal Liberal Party of Canada Riding President for Surrey North over Jaspal Atwal affair!

UPDATE - Federal Liberal Party dumps Surrey North riding president Tariq Ghuman over controversy on Jaspal Atwal - convicted of attempted murder of Indian diplomat but a guest at BC Legislature budget speech

Why did Tariq Ghuman resign from BC Liberal Party Executive because he brought convicted attempted assassin Jaspal Atwal to the BC Legislature for the BC Budget - but stay on as both riding president of BC Liberals in Surrey-Panorama and riding president of federal Liberal Party in Surrey North?

Jaspal Atwal & then-Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff,
February 2009
UPDATE - Did federal the Liberal Party of Canada dispatch Tariq Ghuman as Surrey North riding president over the Jaspal Atwal controversy?

The current LPC website for Surrey North has an obvious alteration since my original post was published Wednesday - the contact name and email for Surrey North riding president Tariq Ghuman has disappeared!

Twitter messages last night in response to my original story below suggested that perhaps the LPC website had not been updated - and sure enough, Ghuman was gone today.

Still unclear - is Ghuman the current provincial BC Liberal Party riding president for Surrey-Panorama and cabinet minister Stephanie Cadieux?

Likely not, given all the publicity over Ghuman bringing convicted attempted assassin Jaspal Atwal to the BC Legislature as a guest of the premier's office for the BC budget speech.

But like Premier Christy Clark dodging questions about Atwal's possible role in her campaign, don't expect a straight answer on what happened to Ghuman either - my questions below remain largely unanswered.


The federal Liberal Party of Canada, the provincial BC Liberal Party, Tariq Ghuman and Premier Christy Clark have a lot of questions to answer.

Ghuman resigned Wednesday as a Director and member of the BC Liberal Party for bringing to the BC Legislature - as a guest of the premier - Jaspal Atwal.  Atwal, as we now know thanks to the Vancouver Sun's Kim Bolan and two MLAs who complained to the Speaker, attempted to murder Indian cabinet minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu near Gold River in 1986, twice shooting the Punjabi politician. [Sidhu was later assassinated in India.]

Question #1 - why did Ghuman quit the BC Liberal Party executive but stay on as president of BC Liberal cabinet minister Stephanie Cadieux's Surrey-Panorama riding association?

If his serious error in judgement was enough to quit the executive, why hasn't he resigned from that post as well?

Question #2 - if Ghuman rightly quit the BC Liberal Party executive over this matter, why does he remain as president of the federal Liberal Party of Canada riding association of Surrey North as of February 29?

Question #3 - what does the Liberal Party of Canada think of Ghuman inviting to the BC Legislature a man who attempted to kill an international official visiting this country?  Is he an appropriate LPC riding association president?  

Question #4 - what does former Liberal Party Member of Parliament Ujjal Dosanjh think of Ghuman's role as a federal riding association presidency?  Dosanjh has been an outspoken opponent of the use of violence in support of Punjab independence. 

Atwal was acquitted of charges he beat Dosanjh in February 1985.

Question #5 - what exactly did Atwal do that caused ICBC to win a $28,000 judgement against him in court in connection to allegations of stolen car fraud?  

Question #6 - what did Ghuman know about Atwal's past conviction and other background when he asked him to accompany him to the BC Legislature as a guest of the premier? 

None of it, some of it or all of it?

Question #7 - what role did Ghuman play in Christy Clark's BC Liberal leadership campaign?

Question #8 - did Atwal play any role in that campaign?

Question #9 - how does the Indian government feel about Atwal being a guest at the BC Legislature?

None of these questions have yet been publicly answered, to the best of my knowledge.

CKNW's Sean Leslie got hold of Ghuman's resignation letter, in which he apologizes to Liberal Party president Sharon White and takes responsibility for getting Atwal into the BC budget speech as a substitute guest on the premier's ticket without divulging who Atwal was:

"......I take full responsibility for inviting Mr. Atwal to the budget....the young people I originally invited could not attend....I did not inform the premier's office that I was bringing different was an error in my judgement, and I take full responsibility for it."

Fair enough - but that doesn't explain what happened.

Atwal was punished for the very serious crime he was convicted of.  He has paid the price our justice system demanded but that does not mean he should be an honoured guest at the BC Legislature. 

Ghuman may be the BC Liberal scapegoat in this affair.  If so, he should answer the questions he can above and be done with it. 

But both Liberal parties have to explain themselves in this unfortunate incident.  The sooner they do, the better.


UPDATE - convicted attempted assassin Jaspal Atwal was guest at BC Legislature of BC Liberal Party Director Tariq Ghuman -Ghuman resigns. Was Atwal active in Christy Clark leadership?

UPDATE - BC Liberal Party Director Tariq Ghuman has resigned this afternoon following shock that he brought a convicted gunman to the BC Legislature Budget Speech as a guest of the Premier's office.

As CKNW's Sean Leslie reports, Ghuman resigned in a letter to BC Liberal Party President Sharon White, saying:  "......I take full responsibility for inviting Mr. Atwal to the budget....the young people I originally invited could not attend....I did not inform the premier's office that I was bringing different was an error in my judgement, and I take full responsibility for it."

But questions remain about this disturbing situation.  

And Vancouver Sun reporter Kim Bolan also reports that Atwal was charged with assaulting former BC premier and former Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh and acquitted of those charges in 1985.


The shocking news that a man - convicted of the 1986 attempted assassination of an Indian cabinet minister visiting British Columbia - was a guest in the BC Legislature for the Budget presentation using an invitation from the office of Premier Christy Clark was bad enough.
Premier Christy Clark on Global TV News
The Vancouver Sun's Kim Bolan deserves credit for breaking that story.

But more questions must now be raised - was Jaspal Atwal, the gunman in question - the guest of a Director of the BC Liberal Party - Provincial Executive member Tariq Ghuman?

Ghuman is described on the Party website as REGION 9 DIRECTOR (VANCOUVER SUBURBS SOUTH).

I am reliably told Atwal was the extra guest of Ghuman and accompanied him in Victoria. 

Ghuman was also an active supporter of Christy Clark's successful leadership campaign - was Atwal working on that campaign?

And what about Atwal's involvement in a recent judgement ICBC won against him for $28,000  related to what the Vancouver Sun described as a "stolen car fraud ring"?

Clark claims she doesn't even know who invited Atwal:

"I haven't talked to the person who invited him," Clark said. "I'm not even sure with certainty who it was that invited him at this point."

Let's get some answers from Clark, her staff and Tariq Ghuman.

If he did invited and escort Atwal, Ghuman has some explaining to do.

And who else knew about Atwal's past when he arrived at the BC Legislature on budget day?

How many BC Liberal MLAs, government staff and other guests invited by the government knew exactly who he was?


Tuesday, February 28, 2012

BC teachers face dirty dealing BC government in high stakes bargaining poker game

Deck stacked against teachers in bargaining - F. Pamplona photo
BCTF is playing poker against opponent with ace up sleeve in contract negotiations.

Bill TIeleman's 24 hours/The Tyee column

Tuesday February 28, 2012

 By Bill Tieleman

"There is no gambling like politics." 
- Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister, 1868, 1874-1880
No one in their right mind would play high stakes poker against a dealer who not only uses a marked deck but also deals from the bottom of that deck and has an ace up their sleeve.

But that's the untenable position B.C. teachers now find themselves in, trying to negotiate a new contract with a provincial government that announced last week it would impose its own terms through legislation.

It's an all-in, no-win situation for teachers.

B.C. Liberal Education Minister George Abbott claims negotiations have failed, so the government has no choice.

"This isn't a situation that anyone wanted," Premier Christy Clark chimed in.

Some observers nod their heads sagely and agree -- what else can Abbott do? The teachers aren't willing to bargain, they say, it's so predictable.

Don't be fooled -- it's predictable all right -- that when the government holds all the cards, the teachers lose the game, every time.

And it's exactly what Clark and Abbott wanted -- the opportunity to bolster their flagging public support by getting tough on teachers.

With the BC Liberals down to 25 per cent in a new Forum Research poll and the BC Conservatives nipping at their heels at 22 per cent, while the New Democrats coast at 42 per cent and two by-elections imminent, things are desperate.

The pollsters even predict the NDP would win 63 of B.C.'s 85 ridings with these numbers.

And the provincial budget introduced last week only offers more pain and higher costs for British Columbians.

What options are left? Pick a fight with teachers!

Gov't gave employer no room to negotiate

The B.C. Teachers' Federation technically negotiates with the B.C. Public School Employers' Association, which is the province's bargaining agent.

But talks have come to an impasse because the government doesn't want teachers to get a raise -- any raise -- unless it comes from cutting school budgets elsewhere.

That means BCPSEA doesn't have to negotiate -- can't bargain -- because the government has restricted its mandate.

Abbott's statements as minister show just how little room BCPSEA was given to work with: "The union's demands, which would add $2 billion in costs for B.C. taxpayers, are not acceptable given the current financial reality."

Leave aside that Abbott is using gigantic financial numbers to put a cost on a deal -- outlandish projections that the union totally rejects, saying $565 million is currently the price tag for their current position.

Abbott ratchets up the rhetoric even more, claiming the minimal job action to date is damaging and an actual walkout would be unacceptable.

"It is clear that this strike is hurting students and any escalation in strike action will only increase the harm to students and the impact on parents," said Abbott.

The minister, conveniently, forgets that teachers have gone out on strike several times in the past, including a two-week walkout in 2005 -- without the sky falling or students failing.

How collective bargaining works

The government has every right to take the position that there is no money for wage increases -- but so does the union to demand more money and better conditions for its members.

The whole concept of collective bargaining is that pressure is put on both sides to compromise and move to a mutually acceptable agreement that gives each some of their goals.

To apply pressure, unions can partially or fully withdraw their labour, while employers can leave them out on a picket line rather than drawing regular pay -- or even lock them out.

In public sector negotiations, unions pressure their employer -- a provincial, municipal or federal government -- by creating inconvenience that results in voters demanding an agreement be reached.

And an Environics poll commissioned by the B.C. Federation of Labour clearly shows that in this situation the public sides with teachers, at 52 per cent, rather than the government, at 39 per cent.

The same poll shows 89 per cent would agree to binding arbitration to settle the contract and just eight per cent reject it.

But the BC Liberals are obviously in that eight per cent minority, again showing their lack of interest in making a deal and instead provoking a confrontation for political gain.

Game was rigged

Even the B.C. School Trustees Association’s provincial council came out in favour of the BCTF request for a mediator rather than an immediate move to legislation.

How governments handle these disputes can make or break their political future.

But by imposing a contract without serious bargaining, never even considering putting money on the table and without allowing teachers to take real job action, this government shows the poker game was fixed from the start.


Thursday, February 23, 2012

Bill Tieleman - The Tyee Master Class Seminar: "How to Beat the Odds: Low-Budget Campaigns that Win"

Bill Tieleman tells the secrets for winning strategies - and how to apply them to your campaigns - The Tyee Master Class seminar - April 14 - limited space available

Bill Vander Zalm and Bill Tieleman - Fight HST launch
Dave Barrett and Bill Tieleman - fighting Liberals in Point Grey
I am very pleased to have been asked by The Tyee to give a "Master Class" seminar on how to build winning campaigns despite overwhelming odds against you.

And I encourage you to sign up today for this special one-time-only, limited space opportunity on Saturday April 14 by going to The Tyee registration page now.

It's going to be an exciting session - and an opportunity to financially support your favourite online, award-winning news magazine - The Tyee - while learning how to beat the odds!

Whether or not you agree with my views doesn't matter - a fierce desire to win does.

Here's what The Tyee says:

In this Tyee Master Class, Bill Tieleman teaches how it's possible to run campaigns that beat the odds in British Columbia. Bill is winner of three successive provincial binding referendums -- last year's HST vote and two on the Single Transferable Vote -- and is speaking out for the first time since his HST victory.

This workshop grants you exclusive access to the strategic mind behind some of B.C.'s most significant citizen victories. Be one of the first to learn Bill's formula for coming out on top despite being significantly outspent in all.

Who's it for? Activists, campaigners, strategists, non-profit workers, and communications and marketing professionals of all backgrounds and experience.

Bill Tieleman is one of BC's best-known communicators, political commentators and strategists. For 13 years he has run West Star Communications, a consulting firm providing strategy and communication services for labour, business, non-profits and government agencies.

His campaign successes include launching Fight HST with Bill Vander Zalm and Chris Delaney, where he was strategist for the first-ever successful citizens initiative petition to eliminate the Harmonized Sales Tax, and then won the summer 2011 binding referendum. 

Bill was also president of NO STV, defeating the Single Transferable Vote electoral system in both the 2005 and 2009 binding referenda.

Former communications director in the B.C. Premier's Office and at the BC Federation of Labour, Bill holds a masters degree in political science from UBC and publishes a weekly column in 24 Hours and on The Tyee.


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Electoral cooperation to defeat Stephen Harper - it's undemocratic and it won't work

The Case Against an NDP, Liberal, Green Coalition

British wartime election campaign poster
Teaming up to defeat Harper's Conservatives is undemocratic and won't work.

Bill Tieleman's 24 hours/The Tyee column

Tuesday February 21, 2012 
"War without allies is bad enough -- with allies it is hell."
- British World War II air marshal Sir John Slessor

There are only two problems facing those who want an "electoral coalition" to defeat the Stephen Harper Conservatives in the next election. It's undemocratic. And it won't work.
Despite that, social media group is promoting efforts for the New Democratic, Liberal and Green parties to "cooperate" to field a single alternative candidate to defeat the federal Conservatives in key ridings and end the Harper government.

And Internet activist group goes one step farther, even advocating in an email that its supporters consider joining the Conservative Party to oppose Harper policies from the inside, as well as join the other parties to push to "make democracy work."

Both groups support NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen's idea that the NDP hold joint nominating meetings with the Liberals and Green Party in Conservative-held ridings for the 2015 election.

Despite their enthusiasm, the electoral cooperation approach has failed repeatedly in the past, most recently in last year's vote that saw Harper win his first majority.

And how do Leadnow and Avaaz expect to make democracy work better by reducing the existing options available to voters?

At any cost?

The premise behind these concepts is simple -- the Harper Conservatives are so evil and permanently destructive to Canada that nothing else but stopping them matters.
Democratic choice and the real ideological differences between the parties are to be sacrificed to stop Harper.

Even during the Second World War, all parties ran candidates against each other in the 1940 and1945 federal elections -- surely no one can say Canada today requires such a draconian step as eliminating some parties' candidates?

Using dubious scare tactics to force Canadians to accept lowest common denominator politics is reprehensible.

What Harper is doing is highly objectionable to those who voted against him. But the Conservatives earned a mandate in an election where strategic voting to block them was widely advocated and failed.

And these groups forget about right-wing policies held by both the Liberals and Greens -- both are deemed "progressive" -- because they aren't Conservatives. Many NDP voters don't share that perspective.

It's as if these groups effectively want to create a new centrist political party out of the three existing and quite different ones.

No guarantees

Of course, that's not the way Leadnow, with 80,000 members, and Avaaz, with over 600,000, see it.

Their goal is to terminate the Harper government, followed by some undefined "electoral reform" after the next election.

Then the Conservatives would never form government again and everyone -- except Tories -- would live happily ever after.

But it won't work.

First, electoral cooperation plans have always failed miserably.
In the 2011 election, several groups promoted strategic voting -- endorsing the candidate they felt had the best chance of defeating a Conservative, or retaining a close opposition seat threatened by a Tory.

Project Democracy says over 405,000 people consulted their strategic voting website, and many others heard about their efforts.

But while Project Democracy targeted 84 ridings, they were successful in only 26 of them, where non-Conservatives were elected. Conservatives won the other 58 ridings -- or 69 per cent.

Interestingly, Project Democracy admits it endorsed the "wrong" candidate in 11 ridings, meaning they promoted the candidate who it turned out had less of a chance to defeat a Conservative than another opposition candidate. Oops.

Another strategic voting group called Catch 22 targeted 60 ridings but saw opposition members elected in just 15 of them -- and in only four of those 60 were Conservative incumbent MPs actually defeated.

These awful results demonstrate the flawed approach.

And it's not just the last election that's the problem. It's all of them.

Myth of the 'unity' candidate

Political analyst Alice Funke has studied the electoral cooperation concept at length at her informative Pundits' Guide website and concludes: "I believe there is already so much evidence that these tactics don't work."

Second, it's highly unlikely that the NDP or Liberal parties will agree to the joint nomination proposal.

Aside from it requiring party constitutional changes, a majority of members would probably reject the idea.

Third, as Aristotle said: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

In other words, you can't simply add up Liberal, Green and NDP votes in any riding and presume they will all go to a "unity" candidate against the Conservative.

Right of centre Liberal supporters would likely rather vote Conservative than NDP or Green if a candidate from either of those parties was jointly nominated instead of a Liberal, or simply not vote.

Within the NDP, many members could never vote Liberal either, should someone from that party be their only offered choice.

Take a good look at some of the policies of past federal Liberal governments -- like cutting 

Employment Insurance eligibility, eliminating the deficit by dramatically reducing health care funding transfers to the provinces, cutting the public service or taking military action in Afghanistan and it's easy to see why NDP voters wouldn't jump on board.

Some Green voters would equally have trouble with either an NDP or Liberal candidate in the joint nomination scenario.

And NDP voters now know that their party would never have won official opposition status if 2011 electoral cooperation efforts had been successful, since the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois would have won more seats as a result.

'Huge for us' says Cullen

On a personal level, as a New Democrat supporter, I don't want to be told that the NDP won't field a candidate so I have to vote for a Liberal or Green running in my riding.

In Vancouver-Quadra I couldn't bring myself to vote for current MP Joyce Murray, a former Gordon Campbell-B.C. Liberal cabinet minister who gutted the environment ministry and supported other slash and burn policies by that government.

Could electoral cooperation lead to "independent" NDP, Liberal or Green candidates running against the wishes of their respective parties? Or could new parties or true independents be the result of a narrowing of voter choices?

But NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen, the B.C. Member of Parliament for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, isn't convinced by these arguments and thinks Canadians are ready for his plan, particularly after winning support from Leadnow and Avaaz.

"These two groups coming on board is huge for us," Cullen told the Canadian Press last week. "They have networks that go far, far beyond normal party structures... The sheer number, that's absolutely staggering."

So far an online poll by Leadnow called “Cooperate for Canada” has accumulated about 15,000 signatures calling on the NDP, Liberals and Greens to cooperate in key ridings to defeat the Conservatives. The NDP membership is expected to easily top 100,000 as of the Feb. 18 cut off date to be able to vote in the leadership contest.

"During the next election, the NDP, Liberals and Greens can cooperate in key ridings to defeat Stephen Harper's government, and then pass electoral reform to make Canada's democracy work better for everyone," Leadnow says.

Cullen's view of how much support these groups have may be correct and certainly should he win the leadership, no one could deny he would have a mandate to explore the concept within the NDP. (Note: I respect Cullen's energetic campaign but I have endorsed Peggy Nash, who rejects his proposal.)

Don't count on 'electoral reform'

There's still another problem waiting post-election, should all these difficulties be overcome and the electoral coalition be successful.

The second part of the plan is to introduce some type of electoral reform to Canada's current First Past The Post voting system, which Leadnow and Avaaz condemn.

But the record of success for electoral change referenda is as bad as that for electoral cooperation -- abysmal failure.

Every recent electoral system change proposal have been defeated -- the Single Transferable Vote was rejected by voters in both 2005 and 2009 in British Columbia, where I was president of No STV, the official opponent group.

While STV received more than 50 per cent support in 2005, it failed to meet the supermajority required by the B.C. government for change. In a second 2009 referendum, STV was overwhelming rejected, with a 61 per cent vote against it to 39 per cent in favour.

Voters in Ontario in 2007 gave First Past The Post strong 63 per cent backing versus 37 per cent support for a Mixed Member Proportional system.

And Prince Edward Island also handily defeated Mixed Member Proportional by a 63.5 per cent to 36.5 per cent vote in 2005.

Those decisive rejections in three different provinces should give pause to those campaigning to combine 2015 electoral cooperation with a subsequent change to proportional representation.

When given clear information about alternative electoral systems, Canadian voters have decisively chosen to keep First Past The Post.

By tying the losing record of electoral reform to the failed results of strategic voting, the groups advocating in favour of electoral cooperation may have found the surest way of actually defeating it.

Bill Tieleman is a regular Tyee contributor who writes a column on B.C. politics every Tuesday in 24 Hours newspaper. He was president of NO STV in the 2005 and 2009 provincial referenda on electoral systems and strategist for Fight HST in the 2011 provincial referenda on the Harmonized Sales Tax. 

Monday, February 20, 2012

Trouble in BC Liberal-Land on eve of budget - Rick Peterson, ex-BC Liberal candidate, Kevin Falcon leadership backer - joins BC Conservatives!

Just what Finance Minister Kevin Falcon and Premier Christy Clark didn't want to hear the day before the BC Budget - Rick Peterson - a prominent BC Liberal and backer of Falcon's leadership campaign has joined the BC Conservative Party.
Rick Peterson

And not just joined - investment advisor and former Edmonton Journal editorial writer Peterson will be Deputy Chair of their Finance Committee.

Peterson was a BC Liberal candidate for nomination in the Vancouver-Fairview riding in 2008 - but lost the vote to Margaret MacDiarmid, who became the candidate and then MLA in the 2009 election.

And Peterson was a volunteer in Falcon's leadership efforts in 2011.

This news will hurt in BC Liberal-Land and is another sign of the imploding party.

The next question is whether Peterson will run in the 2013 provincial election - and where?


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Facebook wipes out NO BC HST's 125,000 members on BC's largest Facebook protest page - second largest overall

This is a warning to anyone who fails to realize that Facebook is a big, profitable and powerful multi-national corporation that does whatever it wants, not what you want.
The original logo from July 2009 

Facebook has "archived" NO BC HST - which means wiping out the 125,000 plus members from what was BC's biggest Facebook protest group and second largest BC Facebook page overall - behind the Vancouver Canucks.

I created this group in July 2009 - before I helped form Fight HST with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm, ex-Unity Party leader Chris Delaney and other good folks, before the successful Citizens Initiative petition in 2010, before the winning binding provincial referendum in 2011.

At it's peak, it went viral - growing by 6,000 members every day, peaking at over 136,000!

And now, despite every effort to convince Facebook otherwise, the membership has been all but eliminated.  As of writing there are 114 members.

I encourage you to re-join NO BC HST - if only to spite Facebook's corporate malevolence.

And beware - Facebook does not belong to you or us - it belongs to them.

Below is Fight HST's news release today about this:

* * * * *

News Release                                                                     Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Facebook “archives” NO BC HST – BC’s largest Facebook protest group, wiping out 125,000 membership despite strong requests not to do so

NO BC HST Facebook page founder Bill Tieleman started group in July 2009, went viral – adding 6,000 members a day – now has just 80 members due to Facebook archiving

VANCOUVER – British Columbia’s largest Facebook protest group – NO BC HST – has seen its membership wiped out by Facebook management, dropping from over 125,000 members to just 80.

Facebook has “archived” the group formed in July 2009 by Fight HST Strategist and political commentator Bill Tieleman to oppose the Harmonized Sales Tax – meaning almost all members have been removed from the group without any notice to them.

NO BC HST was also one of British Columbia’s largest Facebook groups overall, bigger than the BC Lions Facebook fan page [50,7380] or the Vancouver Giants [4,737], but behind the Vancouver Canucks [692,123].

“It’s ironic that the Harmonized Sales Tax will last longer than the NO BC HST Facebook group formed to fight it,” says Tieleman.  “Unfortunately this is another example of how Facebook management disrespects the members who made it into a multi-billion dollar corporation.”

Tieleman noted that Facebook also “archived” the national protest group Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, which had over 210,000 members who joined to oppose the federal Conservative government move to suspend Parliament in 2010 to avoid a non-confidence vote. 

Facebook gave some groups an opportunity to transfer their membership to its new Page format but that option was never given to NO BC HST, Tieleman said, despite contacting Facebook and requesting it.

“While I still believe Facebook is a useful and powerful social media tool, the way Facebook management can arbitrarily and unfairly wipe out groups with hundreds of thousands of members without anyone’s permission is a strong warning to all,” Tieleman said.

“Facebook says it’s mission is about connecting people but the archiving of many other groups like these shows it is also about disconnecting people,” Tieleman said.

NO BC HST still exists on Facebook and Tieleman said he is encouraging people to re-join to send Facebook a message about its bad behaviour, as well as to push the BC Liberal government to extinguish the HST as required by the binding referendum passed in August 2011.

Tieleman wrote a column about Facebook threatening to “archive” NO BC HST last year – it can be found here: