VICTORIA - Are these guys kidding, the premiers and Paul Martin, as they stumble towards what's supposed to be some sort of break-through meeting on health care?
The premiers have just wrapped up their final preparations for Martin's televised summit. (Without Ralph Klein, who was too busy to show up.)
The good news is that at least they've come up with an agenda for Martin's meeting, something he apparently hadn't got around to yet.
That seems like a sign. The meeting is barely one week way, and Martin and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh haven't come up with a schedule of what they want to talk about. Nothing wrong with winging it sometimes, but funding and reforming health care seems a little complex to tackle without a plan.
So give the premiers credit for at least getting an agenda done. They propose spending a couple of hours late on the first day talking about accountability; a full day on the big challenges - like wait times and home care ; and the third day on funding.
Give the premiers credit for nerve, too. They're still pushing ahead with their pitch for a new, federally funded national pharmacare plan. And to pressure Martin, they hauled out a giant prop for their closing press conference, a blown-up newspaper ad from the election campaign including health care promises.
Fair enough, although Gordon Campbell and the rest should expect to see blow-ups of their campaign promises popping up. The Liberals pledge to reduce wait lists, which have climbed since the election, springs to mind.
The meeting, which was supposed to fix health care for a generation, is likely going to turn into another federal-provincial squabble over money. By the end of day three Ottawa will have come up with more cash, the provinces will be unhappy with the amount, some sort of new committee or task force will be appointed to look at a couple of high-profile issues and it will be business as usual.
That's not so so terrible really. The health care system works well enough that we're not in any crisis. Health care costs took the same amount of our GDP in 2001 as they did a decade earlier. Cost increases may be worrying; they are not any sort of critical problem.
The extra money - although it's not much - will help. The federal government has offered an extra $9 billion over five years, which would mean about $240 million more a year for B.C. Ottawa is likely to come up with more money at the meeting, probably with some sort of strings on how it can be spent.
But by the time the meeting is over attentive Canadians will likely be wondering what happened to all that talk about reforming the system, and all those reports and commissions.
Every premier deplores long waits for surgery, for example, and Martin has vowed to tackle them. But the immediate problem could be solved with money, if we chose. Eliminating the wait for hip surgery in B.C., one of the most critical, would involve a one-time commitment of $25 million. If personal taxes were increased by one-half of one per cent, or a couple of weeks' gambling revenue dedicated to eliminating the wait, the problem would be fixed.
The underlying issues could then be addressed through a national commitment to prevention, eliminating unnecessary surgery, increased efficiency, wait time guarantees and anything else that will make the system work better.
The premiers apparently think a national pharmacare program is a good thing, and they're right. A single process for approving new drugs, and a national agency could bargain much more aggressively with the drug companies, would reduce costs.
But if they were serious, they could begin work on a national pharmacare plan today, with or without Ottawa.
Those kinds of things aren't likely to get acted on next week in Ottawa. Too bad.
Footnote: The premiers came up with eight issues for day two of the talks: waiting times; a national pharmacare program; home care; human resources; healthy living; information technology; improving services in the north; and aboriginal health. It's a good list, but they've also allotted four times as much of the schedule to talk about funding as they have for a discussion of waiting times.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Time for a BC energy heritage fund
VICTORIA - A BC Energy Heritage Fund makes such good sense I can't believe the government hasn't already set one up.
The principle is simple. Set up a permanent savings account for future generations, and fund it with a set share of oil and gas revenues.
The fund recognizes that the oil and gas will run out someday, and in one stroke preserves some of the money for our grandchildren and ensures governments don't get too hooked on volatile - and ultimately finite - energy revenues.
It's a pretty straightforward idea, with a lot of benefits and no big drawbacks.
And it's already tested and proven workable. Up in Alaska, they started wondering about the flood of revenue that would be coming into government as oil and has fields were developed in the late '70s.
Alaskans knew the money would stop flowing some day. So they passed a law that said 25 per cent of new energy revenues would go into a permanent fund for future generations. It's up to $33 billion now, a cushion against tougher times. The fund has been invested so successfully that it's been able to pay dividends of about $1,300 a year to the public.
Alberta's fund took in energy revenue from 1975 to 1996, and stands at about $11 billion; Norway has more than $100 billion set aside from its energy revenues against the day the gas stops flowing.
Why not here?
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta think tank, proposed such a fund in its recent report on government and the oil and gas industry in Canada. Government shouldn't become dependent on uncertain energy revenues for its basic operations, the institute suggested. (How uncertain? In 1995 B.C. natural gas royalties were just under $98 million; this year they will be $1.2 billion.)
And sooner or later, the oil and gas will be gone. We owe it future generations to set aside some money for them, the institute argues.
It makes sense. And it also provides a useful check on government.
As the Liberals - and the NDP before them - have set out to encourage oil and gas development, critics have been quick to claim that they're in too much of a hurry, eager for quick cash. That's one of the shots opponents of coalbed methane development in the East Kootenay took at the Liberals (unfairly, I'd say).
But it's still a reasonable concern. Governments get as desperate for cash as the rest of us, and will be tempted to sell off resources in a hurry, and not necessarily at the best price.
Requiring that a significant chunk of the money for the future reduces that pressure, and takes one criticism away from development opponents.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld isn't keen on the idea. He says that if the government uses energy revenues to pay down the province's debt future generations will benefit.
But that hasn't happened, and paying down the debt isn't part of the Liberals' current plan.
And without a heritage fund there's no commitment to bind future governments, and no constant reminder that we're providing for the future.
The only real argument against a fund is that government should be able to spend all the money it can take in right away. That's hardly compelling.
It's a good time for B.C. to establish a heritage fund. The budget is balanced, so devoting a share of energy revenues to a permanent fund wouldn't result in deficits. Energy revenues are still on the rise, so there's room to divert some of the cash.
And the Liberals are launching major new initiatives to promote coalbed methane and offshore oil and gas. Setting aside a large share of those revenues for the future will ease concerns that the government is just interested in quick cash to pay for its tax cuts.
How can saving a part of the wealth for our children's children be a bad idea?
Footnote: The Pembina Institute study, which looked at activities from 1996 to 2002, found B.C. governments did a good job of getting the best price for oil and gas resources from the companies. Both Saskatchewan and Alberta, it concluded, left money on the table by undercharging the companies.
The principle is simple. Set up a permanent savings account for future generations, and fund it with a set share of oil and gas revenues.
The fund recognizes that the oil and gas will run out someday, and in one stroke preserves some of the money for our grandchildren and ensures governments don't get too hooked on volatile - and ultimately finite - energy revenues.
It's a pretty straightforward idea, with a lot of benefits and no big drawbacks.
And it's already tested and proven workable. Up in Alaska, they started wondering about the flood of revenue that would be coming into government as oil and has fields were developed in the late '70s.
Alaskans knew the money would stop flowing some day. So they passed a law that said 25 per cent of new energy revenues would go into a permanent fund for future generations. It's up to $33 billion now, a cushion against tougher times. The fund has been invested so successfully that it's been able to pay dividends of about $1,300 a year to the public.
Alberta's fund took in energy revenue from 1975 to 1996, and stands at about $11 billion; Norway has more than $100 billion set aside from its energy revenues against the day the gas stops flowing.
Why not here?
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta think tank, proposed such a fund in its recent report on government and the oil and gas industry in Canada. Government shouldn't become dependent on uncertain energy revenues for its basic operations, the institute suggested. (How uncertain? In 1995 B.C. natural gas royalties were just under $98 million; this year they will be $1.2 billion.)
And sooner or later, the oil and gas will be gone. We owe it future generations to set aside some money for them, the institute argues.
It makes sense. And it also provides a useful check on government.
As the Liberals - and the NDP before them - have set out to encourage oil and gas development, critics have been quick to claim that they're in too much of a hurry, eager for quick cash. That's one of the shots opponents of coalbed methane development in the East Kootenay took at the Liberals (unfairly, I'd say).
But it's still a reasonable concern. Governments get as desperate for cash as the rest of us, and will be tempted to sell off resources in a hurry, and not necessarily at the best price.
Requiring that a significant chunk of the money for the future reduces that pressure, and takes one criticism away from development opponents.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld isn't keen on the idea. He says that if the government uses energy revenues to pay down the province's debt future generations will benefit.
But that hasn't happened, and paying down the debt isn't part of the Liberals' current plan.
And without a heritage fund there's no commitment to bind future governments, and no constant reminder that we're providing for the future.
The only real argument against a fund is that government should be able to spend all the money it can take in right away. That's hardly compelling.
It's a good time for B.C. to establish a heritage fund. The budget is balanced, so devoting a share of energy revenues to a permanent fund wouldn't result in deficits. Energy revenues are still on the rise, so there's room to divert some of the cash.
And the Liberals are launching major new initiatives to promote coalbed methane and offshore oil and gas. Setting aside a large share of those revenues for the future will ease concerns that the government is just interested in quick cash to pay for its tax cuts.
How can saving a part of the wealth for our children's children be a bad idea?
Footnote: The Pembina Institute study, which looked at activities from 1996 to 2002, found B.C. governments did a good job of getting the best price for oil and gas resources from the companies. Both Saskatchewan and Alberta, it concluded, left money on the table by undercharging the companies.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Stakes high for all parties in coming Surrey byelection
VICTORIA - The overdue byelection in Surrey Panorama Ridge is going to offer a great chance to judge how the Liberals will fare in next year's vote.
Sure, byelections almost always go against the governing party. They're a safe way for voters to express dissatisfaction without committing to a whole new government.
But the Liberals' success - or failure - is still going to be a good indication of how well they will do next May.
The byelection is needed to replace Gulzmar Cheema, who resigned back in May to launch an unsuccessful campaign as a federal Liberal. Premier Gordon Campbell had six months to call the byelection. He's let three months pass already, depriving voters in the riding representation.
Even if Campbell calls the byelection this week, the results won't be final until mid-October. For the first two weeks of the fall legislative session, no one will speak for the riding. (Campbell criticized the NDP for byelection delays for that reason.)
It should be a fascinating race.
For starters, the riding is a good case study. In the 2001 election its vote closely mirrored the overall results. Across B.C. the Liberals got 58 per cent of the popular vote, and the NDP 22 per cent. In Surrey Panorama the Liberals took 60 per cent and the NDP 20 per cent.
There's the byelection factor to consider, but the results will still give an indication of how much the Liberal support has eroded.
The NDP has nominated Jagrup Brar, who looks a strong candidate. He's lived in the riding for 10 years and runs SEEDS, a federal program that helps people start their own businesses. He's well-known in the large IndoCanadian community, and would be seen as a moderate New Democrat.
Brar's had the NDP nomination since May. The Liberals have yet to set a date for a nomination meeting.
But their only declared candidate so far adds another interesting twist to the race.
Mary Polak is a Surrey school trustee who took an unsuccessful shot at becoming a federal Conservative candidate earlier this year. She was a school trustee - and for part of the time the chair - when the Surrey board spent almost $1 million trying to keep three kids' books depicting same sex parents out of Surrey schools. (The court ruled the ban had been made on excessively narrow grounds, including on the basis of religion. The board then banned the books again citing their quality.)
Polak would be a strong candidate in the riding, but her background makes some Liberals edgy. The party needs a broad base of support; Polak's brand of social conservatism will alienate some voters.
The byelection is also a critical test for the smaller parties who hope to grab votes from people disenchanted with both the Liberals and the NDP.
The newest entrant will be the fledgling BC Democrat Alliance, which leader Tom Morino says will be a moderate alternative to the Liberals. Morino - who will run in the byelection - is a Sooke councillor, two-time provincial Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive. (Morino had hoped to revive Gordon Wilson's Progress Democratic Alliance, but that got too complicated.)
Morino wants candidates in every riding next May to offer a serious alternative to the Liberals; his showing in Surrey Panorama will show whether that's realistic.
The Unity Party - which took seven per cent of the vote in the riding in 2001 - faces a similar challenge in portraying itself as the credible centre-right alternative to the Liberals.
And the Green Party will be looking to improve on its nine-per-cent support in the riding in order to convince prospective backers that they won't just be casting a protest vote next May.
It's going to be an important byelections for all the parties that hope to play a role in next May's general election.
All that's left is for Campbell to get on with it.
Footnote: Unity head Chris Delaney is promising an announcement Wednesday on efforts to unite centre-right opposition to the Liberals in the next election, with support expected from at least some other parties and municipal politicians. Unity's poll standings indicate the party could be a big factor in some close races.
Sure, byelections almost always go against the governing party. They're a safe way for voters to express dissatisfaction without committing to a whole new government.
But the Liberals' success - or failure - is still going to be a good indication of how well they will do next May.
The byelection is needed to replace Gulzmar Cheema, who resigned back in May to launch an unsuccessful campaign as a federal Liberal. Premier Gordon Campbell had six months to call the byelection. He's let three months pass already, depriving voters in the riding representation.
Even if Campbell calls the byelection this week, the results won't be final until mid-October. For the first two weeks of the fall legislative session, no one will speak for the riding. (Campbell criticized the NDP for byelection delays for that reason.)
It should be a fascinating race.
For starters, the riding is a good case study. In the 2001 election its vote closely mirrored the overall results. Across B.C. the Liberals got 58 per cent of the popular vote, and the NDP 22 per cent. In Surrey Panorama the Liberals took 60 per cent and the NDP 20 per cent.
There's the byelection factor to consider, but the results will still give an indication of how much the Liberal support has eroded.
The NDP has nominated Jagrup Brar, who looks a strong candidate. He's lived in the riding for 10 years and runs SEEDS, a federal program that helps people start their own businesses. He's well-known in the large IndoCanadian community, and would be seen as a moderate New Democrat.
Brar's had the NDP nomination since May. The Liberals have yet to set a date for a nomination meeting.
But their only declared candidate so far adds another interesting twist to the race.
Mary Polak is a Surrey school trustee who took an unsuccessful shot at becoming a federal Conservative candidate earlier this year. She was a school trustee - and for part of the time the chair - when the Surrey board spent almost $1 million trying to keep three kids' books depicting same sex parents out of Surrey schools. (The court ruled the ban had been made on excessively narrow grounds, including on the basis of religion. The board then banned the books again citing their quality.)
Polak would be a strong candidate in the riding, but her background makes some Liberals edgy. The party needs a broad base of support; Polak's brand of social conservatism will alienate some voters.
The byelection is also a critical test for the smaller parties who hope to grab votes from people disenchanted with both the Liberals and the NDP.
The newest entrant will be the fledgling BC Democrat Alliance, which leader Tom Morino says will be a moderate alternative to the Liberals. Morino - who will run in the byelection - is a Sooke councillor, two-time provincial Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive. (Morino had hoped to revive Gordon Wilson's Progress Democratic Alliance, but that got too complicated.)
Morino wants candidates in every riding next May to offer a serious alternative to the Liberals; his showing in Surrey Panorama will show whether that's realistic.
The Unity Party - which took seven per cent of the vote in the riding in 2001 - faces a similar challenge in portraying itself as the credible centre-right alternative to the Liberals.
And the Green Party will be looking to improve on its nine-per-cent support in the riding in order to convince prospective backers that they won't just be casting a protest vote next May.
It's going to be an important byelections for all the parties that hope to play a role in next May's general election.
All that's left is for Campbell to get on with it.
Footnote: Unity head Chris Delaney is promising an announcement Wednesday on efforts to unite centre-right opposition to the Liberals in the next election, with support expected from at least some other parties and municipal politicians. Unity's poll standings indicate the party could be a big factor in some close races.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Time for a truce in B.C.'s brewing resource battles
VICTORIA - I've got nothing against Randy Bachman, and I'd be keen to see him and Neil Young in a benefit concert up in Duncan next month.
But the rock stars are a good symbol for a developing problem in B.C. Clashes between the people who earn their money in resource industries and those who have concerns about how those industries operate are becoming increasingly divisive and bitter.
I'm not choosing sides. (Though I acknowledge a consistent partiality to the underdog, which in this case generally means the people involved in resource industries.)
Mostly, I'd argue we have to get past some of the suspicion and close-mindedness and start talking together as people who share an interest in the future.
Bachman and Young are starring in a big benefit concert for the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group, formed out of a concern about emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
The mill has been there for almost 50 years, and Norske employs some 1,000 people in the area, at good wages. People have always grumbled about the mill, but complaints have gotten loudest now, when the mill is cleaner than it's ever been.
What's changed? The trigger for the concern is Norske's plan to start burning shredded tires, chipped railway ties and coal in the mill's boilers, which have been fed with wood chips. The company says the shift would reduce emissions; some in the community have concerns. It's an issue of science, and should be resolved on that basis.
But what has also changed is the arrival of people in the area who came for the view, and the climate, and the lifestyle. They don't need to work the mill; they don't have a cousin or son employed there. They don't really like mills, or mines, or logging, or gas wells.
The airshed group members say they don't want the mill shut down; they just want the environment protected.
But Bachman emailed the environment ministry in January, and suggested all manner of dire consequences unless they padlocked the mill doors. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he pledged.
His publicist later said he's changed his mind, and doesn't want the mill closed.
But his first reaction matters. Bachman lives on Saltspring Island, in a multi-million-dollar environmentally friendly home. He earned the place, and affluence doesn't bar him from being involved in public policy debates.
But when you can call up Neil Young and get him to come to town, you've got a lot of clout. When you threaten to kill 1,000 jobs, you show a willingness to use that clout recklessly. And that will make other people nervous.
Enter First Dollar. It's a new organization, only a few months old, that wants to stand up for resource industries, the communities that depend on them, and the people who work in them. Leanne Brunt, one of the organizers, says the First Dollar will hold its own party outside the big fundraiser, with kids' games, a picnic and maybe some local performers. First Dollar, which has attracted support from across the province, reflects resource communities' need to push back against people who would too casually push them out of existence.
Across much of B.C. two worlds are noisily colliding over resource industries. Suspicions rise, both sides dig in, and the result is usually destructive.
B.C. has been through this kind of conflict before, with the war in the woods. No one should look back on that destructive time with fondness. Effective societies resolve disputes without splitting into hostile camps. And they maintain the ability to recognize the legitimacy - even urgency - of others' concerns.
There are few absolutes in this debate. Rational trade-offs must be made, and too often the opponents of resource industries - like Bachman in his email - show little willingness to recognize the need for compromise.
Unless we recognize that, and work together, we will all lose.
Footnote: This week's auction of coalbed methane leases in the East Kootenay shows the problem. A bitter battle by opponents, which enlisted Montana politicians, meant energy companies simply decided not to bid. The failure to find common ground - a failure shared by both sides - has robbed the region of a chance at good jobs.
But the rock stars are a good symbol for a developing problem in B.C. Clashes between the people who earn their money in resource industries and those who have concerns about how those industries operate are becoming increasingly divisive and bitter.
I'm not choosing sides. (Though I acknowledge a consistent partiality to the underdog, which in this case generally means the people involved in resource industries.)
Mostly, I'd argue we have to get past some of the suspicion and close-mindedness and start talking together as people who share an interest in the future.
Bachman and Young are starring in a big benefit concert for the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group, formed out of a concern about emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
The mill has been there for almost 50 years, and Norske employs some 1,000 people in the area, at good wages. People have always grumbled about the mill, but complaints have gotten loudest now, when the mill is cleaner than it's ever been.
What's changed? The trigger for the concern is Norske's plan to start burning shredded tires, chipped railway ties and coal in the mill's boilers, which have been fed with wood chips. The company says the shift would reduce emissions; some in the community have concerns. It's an issue of science, and should be resolved on that basis.
But what has also changed is the arrival of people in the area who came for the view, and the climate, and the lifestyle. They don't need to work the mill; they don't have a cousin or son employed there. They don't really like mills, or mines, or logging, or gas wells.
The airshed group members say they don't want the mill shut down; they just want the environment protected.
But Bachman emailed the environment ministry in January, and suggested all manner of dire consequences unless they padlocked the mill doors. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he pledged.
His publicist later said he's changed his mind, and doesn't want the mill closed.
But his first reaction matters. Bachman lives on Saltspring Island, in a multi-million-dollar environmentally friendly home. He earned the place, and affluence doesn't bar him from being involved in public policy debates.
But when you can call up Neil Young and get him to come to town, you've got a lot of clout. When you threaten to kill 1,000 jobs, you show a willingness to use that clout recklessly. And that will make other people nervous.
Enter First Dollar. It's a new organization, only a few months old, that wants to stand up for resource industries, the communities that depend on them, and the people who work in them. Leanne Brunt, one of the organizers, says the First Dollar will hold its own party outside the big fundraiser, with kids' games, a picnic and maybe some local performers. First Dollar, which has attracted support from across the province, reflects resource communities' need to push back against people who would too casually push them out of existence.
Across much of B.C. two worlds are noisily colliding over resource industries. Suspicions rise, both sides dig in, and the result is usually destructive.
B.C. has been through this kind of conflict before, with the war in the woods. No one should look back on that destructive time with fondness. Effective societies resolve disputes without splitting into hostile camps. And they maintain the ability to recognize the legitimacy - even urgency - of others' concerns.
There are few absolutes in this debate. Rational trade-offs must be made, and too often the opponents of resource industries - like Bachman in his email - show little willingness to recognize the need for compromise.
Unless we recognize that, and work together, we will all lose.
Footnote: This week's auction of coalbed methane leases in the East Kootenay shows the problem. A bitter battle by opponents, which enlisted Montana politicians, meant energy companies simply decided not to bid. The failure to find common ground - a failure shared by both sides - has robbed the region of a chance at good jobs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Kootenay coalbed methane big headache for Liberals
VICTORIA - B.C. hasn't even tapped into its newest energy resource, and already the province is in a war of words with the U.S.
The government sees big money and new jobs from coalbed methane, a natural gas found in coal deposits. B.C. has lots of coal, and lots of coalbed methane - perhaps enough to equal 100 years worth of current natural gas production.
So the Liberals have been continuing the effort begun during the NDP years to exploit the gas fields. The first auction of leases, covering land in the East Kootenay, ended this week. Within a few days we should learn how much companies were willing to pay.
But there's a problem. Coalbed methane development is untested in B.C., and a relatively new industry in North America. That means some people are bound to be nervous about damage to the environment.
It's easy enough to find reasons to be concerned.
Conventional natural gas is usually found in large pockets, under pressure. Companies drill a well, the gas flows out and when it's gone they cap the well and move on. It's relatively tidy, and familiar.
But coalbed methane is found within the coal seams, so companies need to drill a lot more holes.
And the methane is usually trapped beneath underground water that must be pumped out before the gas will flow. Clean water is no problem. But if it's contaminated with salt or other pollutants, it has to be pumped back underground to prevent environmental damage.
Some early development efforts in the U.S. did significant environmental damage. But coalbed methane now makes up about five per cent of U.S. gas production, and the companies have about 20 years of experience. With care and appropriate regulation coalbed methane can be safely produced.
Not everyone agrees. The Liberals have run into a wave of opposition to their plan to launch the industry by selling drilling rights in the Kootenays.
Many local people - including municipal politicians - are worried about the number of wells that will have to be drilled and potential environmental damage. They've joined forces with powerful Montana politicians who are concerned about cross-border pollution that would affect Glacier National Park. (Montana has big plans for its own coalbed methane development, but relatively little has happened so far, in part because of the threat of environmental lawsuits.)
Things got worse this week when federal MP David Anderson weighed in on the side of the Americans. Anderson, environment minister until he was dropped by Paul Martin, wrote current Environment Minister Stephane Dion calling for a federal review of B.C.'s plans.
The provincial government argues - convincingly, in my view - that it has taken the necessary steps to ensure development will only go ahead if it's safe, setting a string of conditions on the leases and writing stiff regulations.
The problem is that those claims rely on trust - trust that the rules will be enforced, trust that the government will cancel leases if development is risky. And trust is in short supply.
It's a mess. And one that could have been avoided.
The Kootenay leases are the first ones auctioned off because energy companies said they'd like a shot at the area.
But there are other parts of the province with good potential, where local residents are familiar with the energy industry. Any one would have been a better place to launch the industry, even if the initial return was lower.
This kind of brawl is in no one's interests. Uncertainty about the legal threats to development will force down the price companies are prepared to bid for the leases. Future wrangling will damage the province's reputation among resource companies as a safe place to invest.
The government has held consultations in the region, and sent a delegation to Montana.
But it hasn't been able to sell coalbed development.
That challenge will be every bit as touch as the technical hurdles.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld is responsible for coalbed methane. He's been more combative than conciliatory with both local citizens and Montana politicians, questioning everything from their motives to their judgment. So far, it's been an ineffective approach, reinforcing the impression the government isn't listening to concerns.
The government sees big money and new jobs from coalbed methane, a natural gas found in coal deposits. B.C. has lots of coal, and lots of coalbed methane - perhaps enough to equal 100 years worth of current natural gas production.
So the Liberals have been continuing the effort begun during the NDP years to exploit the gas fields. The first auction of leases, covering land in the East Kootenay, ended this week. Within a few days we should learn how much companies were willing to pay.
But there's a problem. Coalbed methane development is untested in B.C., and a relatively new industry in North America. That means some people are bound to be nervous about damage to the environment.
It's easy enough to find reasons to be concerned.
Conventional natural gas is usually found in large pockets, under pressure. Companies drill a well, the gas flows out and when it's gone they cap the well and move on. It's relatively tidy, and familiar.
But coalbed methane is found within the coal seams, so companies need to drill a lot more holes.
And the methane is usually trapped beneath underground water that must be pumped out before the gas will flow. Clean water is no problem. But if it's contaminated with salt or other pollutants, it has to be pumped back underground to prevent environmental damage.
Some early development efforts in the U.S. did significant environmental damage. But coalbed methane now makes up about five per cent of U.S. gas production, and the companies have about 20 years of experience. With care and appropriate regulation coalbed methane can be safely produced.
Not everyone agrees. The Liberals have run into a wave of opposition to their plan to launch the industry by selling drilling rights in the Kootenays.
Many local people - including municipal politicians - are worried about the number of wells that will have to be drilled and potential environmental damage. They've joined forces with powerful Montana politicians who are concerned about cross-border pollution that would affect Glacier National Park. (Montana has big plans for its own coalbed methane development, but relatively little has happened so far, in part because of the threat of environmental lawsuits.)
Things got worse this week when federal MP David Anderson weighed in on the side of the Americans. Anderson, environment minister until he was dropped by Paul Martin, wrote current Environment Minister Stephane Dion calling for a federal review of B.C.'s plans.
The provincial government argues - convincingly, in my view - that it has taken the necessary steps to ensure development will only go ahead if it's safe, setting a string of conditions on the leases and writing stiff regulations.
The problem is that those claims rely on trust - trust that the rules will be enforced, trust that the government will cancel leases if development is risky. And trust is in short supply.
It's a mess. And one that could have been avoided.
The Kootenay leases are the first ones auctioned off because energy companies said they'd like a shot at the area.
But there are other parts of the province with good potential, where local residents are familiar with the energy industry. Any one would have been a better place to launch the industry, even if the initial return was lower.
This kind of brawl is in no one's interests. Uncertainty about the legal threats to development will force down the price companies are prepared to bid for the leases. Future wrangling will damage the province's reputation among resource companies as a safe place to invest.
The government has held consultations in the region, and sent a delegation to Montana.
But it hasn't been able to sell coalbed development.
That challenge will be every bit as touch as the technical hurdles.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld is responsible for coalbed methane. He's been more combative than conciliatory with both local citizens and Montana politicians, questioning everything from their motives to their judgment. So far, it's been an ineffective approach, reinforcing the impression the government isn't listening to concerns.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Notes: Martin's waste, violence and women, NDP doom, hearts and grow ops
VICTORIA - Random notes from the front: Another way to waste your money, keeping women safe sensibly, why NDP candidates could be Gordon Campbell's secret weapon.
Remember Paul Martin's Throne Speech last January?
Of course not. No one pays attention to Throne Speeches because they're ceremonial drones that open new sessions of Parliament or provincial legislatures.
But Martin and company approached his first Throne Speech with a great deal of attention and a fine disregard for your money. Martin spent $49,000 to have the Throne Speech tested with four focus groups across the country - none in B.C. - as if it was some megabudget Hollywood blockbuster.
Martin has a coven of advisors and speechwriters. He has a whole caucus to vetr the speech. But that wasn't enough.
What did he learn? The average Canadians in the focus groups found some themes "vague and often trite." Some sections were incomprehensible. Talking about health care, child care and safe food was good; talking about immigration and First Nations treaties bad.
Research is fine. But a government that can't even manage to produce a Throne Speech without nervously spending tax dollars on focus groups is wasteful and lacking basic competence.
Much nervousness over a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision to let a Kamloops man challenge provincial policies on violence against women.
Scott Crockford was charged with assault after an altercation with his common-law spouse. He says she was bigger and stronger and the instigator. And he says Crown prosecutors were guided by discriminatory government policy.
He has a good case. B.C. has a policy designed to ensure that domestic violence is taken seriously. In the past, women have been reluctant to press charges, for a variety of reasons, and cases have often been treated as a private matter.
That allows the violence to continue, so B.C. has guidelines for prosecutors on deciding whether charges are in the public interest. (One of two criteria for deciding on whether to lay charges, along with the likelihood of conviction.)
"Given the incidence of violence against women in relationships in Canada, the prosecution of such offences is almost invariably in the public interest," the policy says. Even minor cases should result in charges.
The government now has two choices. It can fight on, spending more money and putting the policy at risk. Or it can simply change the policy to cover all domestic violence, without reference to gender. Women are the victims in 85 per cent of cases; they will still be well-served by the policy.
Carole James should be having nightmares about some of the emerging prospective NDP candidates. There are faces from the past, like Harry Lali, who complained of a media-RCMP-Liberal conspiracy against Glen Clark, Steve Orcherton, NDP leadership candidate who argued the party was too centrist, and Adrian Dix, Clark's political advisor who drafted an exculpatory memo during the casino scandal and backdated it. And faces from the public sector unions, like former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky and former CUPE national head Judy Darcy.
Gordon Campbell must be rooting for every one of them to leap successfully into the race. They would make his campaign speeches much easier to write.
The most striking thing about Campbell's announcement of more money to reduce heart surgery wait times was how easy it would be to eliminate the problem. The government found $3 million to pay for 163 more operations. That's about about five per cent more than last year and enough to reduce the median wait for non-emergency surgery from 15 weeks to 12 weeks. (It was 13 weeks when the Liberals were elected.)
But for just $7 million more everyone waiting could have had their surgery, and the wait time knocked down to a few weeks.
Sure, there are lots of other priorities. But the solutions to some of our concerns about wait times are at hand, and within our ability to pay.
Footnote: It has become a fad for municipalities to pass tough new laws punishing landlords if tenants have a grow op. The province's support for the laws may waver now that the BC Building Corp. - a government agency - has been caught with a 500-plant grow op at a former Riverview Hospital building it manages.
Remember Paul Martin's Throne Speech last January?
Of course not. No one pays attention to Throne Speeches because they're ceremonial drones that open new sessions of Parliament or provincial legislatures.
But Martin and company approached his first Throne Speech with a great deal of attention and a fine disregard for your money. Martin spent $49,000 to have the Throne Speech tested with four focus groups across the country - none in B.C. - as if it was some megabudget Hollywood blockbuster.
Martin has a coven of advisors and speechwriters. He has a whole caucus to vetr the speech. But that wasn't enough.
What did he learn? The average Canadians in the focus groups found some themes "vague and often trite." Some sections were incomprehensible. Talking about health care, child care and safe food was good; talking about immigration and First Nations treaties bad.
Research is fine. But a government that can't even manage to produce a Throne Speech without nervously spending tax dollars on focus groups is wasteful and lacking basic competence.
Much nervousness over a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision to let a Kamloops man challenge provincial policies on violence against women.
Scott Crockford was charged with assault after an altercation with his common-law spouse. He says she was bigger and stronger and the instigator. And he says Crown prosecutors were guided by discriminatory government policy.
He has a good case. B.C. has a policy designed to ensure that domestic violence is taken seriously. In the past, women have been reluctant to press charges, for a variety of reasons, and cases have often been treated as a private matter.
That allows the violence to continue, so B.C. has guidelines for prosecutors on deciding whether charges are in the public interest. (One of two criteria for deciding on whether to lay charges, along with the likelihood of conviction.)
"Given the incidence of violence against women in relationships in Canada, the prosecution of such offences is almost invariably in the public interest," the policy says. Even minor cases should result in charges.
The government now has two choices. It can fight on, spending more money and putting the policy at risk. Or it can simply change the policy to cover all domestic violence, without reference to gender. Women are the victims in 85 per cent of cases; they will still be well-served by the policy.
Carole James should be having nightmares about some of the emerging prospective NDP candidates. There are faces from the past, like Harry Lali, who complained of a media-RCMP-Liberal conspiracy against Glen Clark, Steve Orcherton, NDP leadership candidate who argued the party was too centrist, and Adrian Dix, Clark's political advisor who drafted an exculpatory memo during the casino scandal and backdated it. And faces from the public sector unions, like former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky and former CUPE national head Judy Darcy.
Gordon Campbell must be rooting for every one of them to leap successfully into the race. They would make his campaign speeches much easier to write.
The most striking thing about Campbell's announcement of more money to reduce heart surgery wait times was how easy it would be to eliminate the problem. The government found $3 million to pay for 163 more operations. That's about about five per cent more than last year and enough to reduce the median wait for non-emergency surgery from 15 weeks to 12 weeks. (It was 13 weeks when the Liberals were elected.)
But for just $7 million more everyone waiting could have had their surgery, and the wait time knocked down to a few weeks.
Sure, there are lots of other priorities. But the solutions to some of our concerns about wait times are at hand, and within our ability to pay.
Footnote: It has become a fad for municipalities to pass tough new laws punishing landlords if tenants have a grow op. The province's support for the laws may waver now that the BC Building Corp. - a government agency - has been caught with a 500-plant grow op at a former Riverview Hospital building it manages.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Quit pretending - that beer is a drug
VICTORIA - There's probably lots of good reasons to fret about a machine that lets you inhale your gin instead of drinking it.
But I can't shake the sense that the quick call for a ban is just another example of our reluctance to consider alcohol a drug.
Alcohol Without Liquid machines are already in a couple of British bars, where patrons pay $12 to pull on a face mask and inhale a vapour of oxygen and alcohol. Knock-offs are cropping up on EBay, and the machines are expected to make their U.S. debut soon.
Already, nervous hands are wringing. Critics complain the machines could lead to people getting drunk quickly (though the company says it takes about 20 minutes to inhale the equivalent of one drink). They observe rightly that impaired people would pass breathalyzer tests. And they wonder if users' brains - now protected by the time it takes to process drinks - could be damaged by a rush of alcohol.
Good concerns.
But on the other hand the machines offer some remarkable harm reduction benefits.
No calories, or the risk of obesity related diseases. No damage to the liver, or other internal organs.
That means getting drinkers to switch to vaporizers could prevent about 190 deaths a year in B.C. directly related to alcohol, and another 900 indirect deaths, just by reducing the physical damage.
That's not the way we think about alcohol. We don't see it as a drug, let alone a dangerous one, even though it will kill more people each year than heroin or cocaine overdoses.
Far be it from me to mock peoples' claims that they like the taste. I do too. And I've heard people talk convincingly of the special delight of the latest Okanagan merlot.
But I am prepared to wager that if you banned the sale of merlot - heck the sale of all red wine - in B.C., the overall consumption of alcohol would not fall by one litre. All those people who so loved red wine, or single malt scotch, or strawberry coolers, would find something else to drink if they weren't available.
Because ultimately all those bottles we buy are just the delivery system for the drug. The effects of alcohol - the relaxation, the buzz, whatever - really drive our consumption.
Look at those coolers and flavoured ciders, the hottest growing category of the last several years. We knocked back about 55,000,000 bottles in B.C. last year, some $93 million worth. They're tasty and everything, but not so tasty that we'd be grabbing them up at $2 a bottle if they didn't offer the mood-altering effects of alcohol.
B.C. liquor stores took in almost $2 billion last year. Some that was from tourists and visitors, I suppose, but then British Columbians were also travelling and drinking. The stores sold 347 million litres of beer, wine, vodka and the rest, enough to fill about 300 Olympic pools, and about 110 litres per adult.
Alcohol is by far the most widely used and available drug in our society - and the most heavily promoted to recruit new users.
It's also easily the most damaging, resulting in some 1,800 deaths each year and countless tragedies, from shattered families to lost jobs. Take alcohol out of the mix and our problem of backlogs in the courts would disappear, and our waiting lists for health care would shrink overnight.
Not to be preachy. I did my bit to help the Liquor Distribution Branch to those record sales last year. Sometimes a little mood-altering is just the ticket.
But the quick dismissive reaction to the alcohol vaporizer - gimmick that it may be - showed again our reluctance to acknowledge alcohol as another potentially addictive, potentially dangerous drug that we seek for its chemical effects on our brain.
And that's too bad. Alcohol has huge effects in our society. Our attitude towards it - and public policies - should be based on reality, not a polite pretence.
Footnote: Our biggest failure is not providing youth with accurate information about alcohol. A McCreary Centre Society survey of B.C. high students found 63 per cent of 15 year olds had tried alcohol. About 45 per cent of high school students who reported using alcohol also reported binge drinking within the last month. That's a massive public failure.
But I can't shake the sense that the quick call for a ban is just another example of our reluctance to consider alcohol a drug.
Alcohol Without Liquid machines are already in a couple of British bars, where patrons pay $12 to pull on a face mask and inhale a vapour of oxygen and alcohol. Knock-offs are cropping up on EBay, and the machines are expected to make their U.S. debut soon.
Already, nervous hands are wringing. Critics complain the machines could lead to people getting drunk quickly (though the company says it takes about 20 minutes to inhale the equivalent of one drink). They observe rightly that impaired people would pass breathalyzer tests. And they wonder if users' brains - now protected by the time it takes to process drinks - could be damaged by a rush of alcohol.
Good concerns.
But on the other hand the machines offer some remarkable harm reduction benefits.
No calories, or the risk of obesity related diseases. No damage to the liver, or other internal organs.
That means getting drinkers to switch to vaporizers could prevent about 190 deaths a year in B.C. directly related to alcohol, and another 900 indirect deaths, just by reducing the physical damage.
That's not the way we think about alcohol. We don't see it as a drug, let alone a dangerous one, even though it will kill more people each year than heroin or cocaine overdoses.
Far be it from me to mock peoples' claims that they like the taste. I do too. And I've heard people talk convincingly of the special delight of the latest Okanagan merlot.
But I am prepared to wager that if you banned the sale of merlot - heck the sale of all red wine - in B.C., the overall consumption of alcohol would not fall by one litre. All those people who so loved red wine, or single malt scotch, or strawberry coolers, would find something else to drink if they weren't available.
Because ultimately all those bottles we buy are just the delivery system for the drug. The effects of alcohol - the relaxation, the buzz, whatever - really drive our consumption.
Look at those coolers and flavoured ciders, the hottest growing category of the last several years. We knocked back about 55,000,000 bottles in B.C. last year, some $93 million worth. They're tasty and everything, but not so tasty that we'd be grabbing them up at $2 a bottle if they didn't offer the mood-altering effects of alcohol.
B.C. liquor stores took in almost $2 billion last year. Some that was from tourists and visitors, I suppose, but then British Columbians were also travelling and drinking. The stores sold 347 million litres of beer, wine, vodka and the rest, enough to fill about 300 Olympic pools, and about 110 litres per adult.
Alcohol is by far the most widely used and available drug in our society - and the most heavily promoted to recruit new users.
It's also easily the most damaging, resulting in some 1,800 deaths each year and countless tragedies, from shattered families to lost jobs. Take alcohol out of the mix and our problem of backlogs in the courts would disappear, and our waiting lists for health care would shrink overnight.
Not to be preachy. I did my bit to help the Liquor Distribution Branch to those record sales last year. Sometimes a little mood-altering is just the ticket.
But the quick dismissive reaction to the alcohol vaporizer - gimmick that it may be - showed again our reluctance to acknowledge alcohol as another potentially addictive, potentially dangerous drug that we seek for its chemical effects on our brain.
And that's too bad. Alcohol has huge effects in our society. Our attitude towards it - and public policies - should be based on reality, not a polite pretence.
Footnote: Our biggest failure is not providing youth with accurate information about alcohol. A McCreary Centre Society survey of B.C. high students found 63 per cent of 15 year olds had tried alcohol. About 45 per cent of high school students who reported using alcohol also reported binge drinking within the last month. That's a massive public failure.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Tied poll shows NDP, Liberals face big challenges
VICTORIA - That whooshing sound you hear is Liberals heaving a sigh of relief about the latest Mustel Group poll.
Gordon Campbell and company were pretty confident last month's disastrous poll didn't reflect reality. That poll found the New Democrats had surged to 45 per cent, while the Liberals had skidded to a dismal 33 per cent.
But it still had to be a relief for Liberals to get the new numbers and see that they had climbed back to 40-per-cent support, just below the New Democrats at 42 per cent.
It's a sign of how tough things have got for the Liberals, elected with such huge support, that poll results that show them in second place are good news.
Pollster Evi Mustel says several things may have worked in the Liberals' favour. The economy is improving, and that is an important factor for many male voters, she says. (The Liberal rebound was almost entirely among men.)
And the last poll, which showed the Liberal plunge, came at the same time as the federal election. The provincial Liberals were criticized from all sides during the campaign. NDP leader Jack Layton blasted the government for tax and spending cuts; federal Liberal David Anderson blamed Campbell's unpopularity for the federal party's problems in B.C.
The good news for the Liberals is that the fallout has stopped.
The bad news is that given the minority government in Ottawa, the B.C. Liberals could once again be tangled up in federal politics as we near next May's provincial election. The Martin government will likely last longer than that, but with each passing month the advance campaigning for the inevitable vote will heat up.
Mustel also says the poll results may indicate that some voters are considering the possibility that the New Democrats might actually win, and shifting back to the Liberals. it's one thing to send a message by electing a strong opposition, they're deciding, and quite another to put the NDP back in office after their recent mismanagement.
Those are the fears NDP leader Carole James is supposed to be quelling, with mixed success so far. The party's poll standings represent a remarkable recovery, given that Mustel had them as low as 13 per cent in the months following the election.
But James has yet to make an impression on 50 per cent of voters, according to the poll. They have no opinion on the job she's doing as NDP leader.
James is generally doing OK with the people who have made up their minds - 57 per cent of decided voters approve of her performance, compared to 36 per cent for Campbell. (Sixty-four per cent think Campbell is doing a bad job.)
But doing OK isn't enough. As the election approaches she has to convince people the New Democrats can be trusted. So far, she's made relatively little progress in increasing the number of people who are confident in her ability.
It all makes for a very volatile situation, says Mustel. Asked for reasons for their choices, and voters are saying they aren't really keen on the party they say they support - they just dislike the other guys more. No party has a large committed core vote, and that means things could change very quickly.
There's one more piece of bad news for the Liberals in this poll. People were asked to pick the one issue they consider most critical, and almost 40 per cent picked health care. Government and the economy were the next closest issues, at 12 per cent each.
Health care hasn't been a strong issue for the Liberals. British Columbians are the least satisfied in Canada with their health care, and their satisfaction has decreased since the Liberals were elected.
The poll establishes one thing. The Liberals and the NDP both have their work cut out for before the election, now only nine months away.
Footnote: The Greens were at 11 per cent, down slightly from last month, Reform at three per cent, Social Credit at one per cent and Unity barely registered. The strength of all those parties and the success of a new unite-the-right movement could decide the election outcome in a number of close ridings.
Gordon Campbell and company were pretty confident last month's disastrous poll didn't reflect reality. That poll found the New Democrats had surged to 45 per cent, while the Liberals had skidded to a dismal 33 per cent.
But it still had to be a relief for Liberals to get the new numbers and see that they had climbed back to 40-per-cent support, just below the New Democrats at 42 per cent.
It's a sign of how tough things have got for the Liberals, elected with such huge support, that poll results that show them in second place are good news.
Pollster Evi Mustel says several things may have worked in the Liberals' favour. The economy is improving, and that is an important factor for many male voters, she says. (The Liberal rebound was almost entirely among men.)
And the last poll, which showed the Liberal plunge, came at the same time as the federal election. The provincial Liberals were criticized from all sides during the campaign. NDP leader Jack Layton blasted the government for tax and spending cuts; federal Liberal David Anderson blamed Campbell's unpopularity for the federal party's problems in B.C.
The good news for the Liberals is that the fallout has stopped.
The bad news is that given the minority government in Ottawa, the B.C. Liberals could once again be tangled up in federal politics as we near next May's provincial election. The Martin government will likely last longer than that, but with each passing month the advance campaigning for the inevitable vote will heat up.
Mustel also says the poll results may indicate that some voters are considering the possibility that the New Democrats might actually win, and shifting back to the Liberals. it's one thing to send a message by electing a strong opposition, they're deciding, and quite another to put the NDP back in office after their recent mismanagement.
Those are the fears NDP leader Carole James is supposed to be quelling, with mixed success so far. The party's poll standings represent a remarkable recovery, given that Mustel had them as low as 13 per cent in the months following the election.
But James has yet to make an impression on 50 per cent of voters, according to the poll. They have no opinion on the job she's doing as NDP leader.
James is generally doing OK with the people who have made up their minds - 57 per cent of decided voters approve of her performance, compared to 36 per cent for Campbell. (Sixty-four per cent think Campbell is doing a bad job.)
But doing OK isn't enough. As the election approaches she has to convince people the New Democrats can be trusted. So far, she's made relatively little progress in increasing the number of people who are confident in her ability.
It all makes for a very volatile situation, says Mustel. Asked for reasons for their choices, and voters are saying they aren't really keen on the party they say they support - they just dislike the other guys more. No party has a large committed core vote, and that means things could change very quickly.
There's one more piece of bad news for the Liberals in this poll. People were asked to pick the one issue they consider most critical, and almost 40 per cent picked health care. Government and the economy were the next closest issues, at 12 per cent each.
Health care hasn't been a strong issue for the Liberals. British Columbians are the least satisfied in Canada with their health care, and their satisfaction has decreased since the Liberals were elected.
The poll establishes one thing. The Liberals and the NDP both have their work cut out for before the election, now only nine months away.
Footnote: The Greens were at 11 per cent, down slightly from last month, Reform at three per cent, Social Credit at one per cent and Unity barely registered. The strength of all those parties and the success of a new unite-the-right movement could decide the election outcome in a number of close ridings.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Health care summit looking like a doomed effort
VICTORIA - Things are looking rocky for Paul Martin's big televised health care summit.
Premier Gordon Campbell and the rest of the premiers are heading to Toronto for one last strategy session before they meet with Martin.
The premiers want to firm up their proposal for a federally funded, national pharmacare plan. And they need to figure out how to handle Martin's counter-proposal for a reduction in wait times for surgery.
Martin's health care summit next month has at least got everyone's attention. But it has the potential to be a weird event, as all parties jockey for political advantage under the TV lights.
Martin says he wants to leave the meeting with a new plan for health care in Canada, a ridiculous objective, no matter how much work is done behind the scenes.
The public would be much better served if this became the first of a regular series of public first ministers' meetings on health care, perhaps once a month for six months. That would allow serious work on the kind of health care Canadians want, what and how they will pay, and positive changes that can be made.
There's no fix for health care, nothing that can be cobbled together in a few days that will make a lasting difference.
A national pharmacare program makes good sense. A single buyer - and single approving agency for new drugs - could negotiate more effectively with drug suppliers, and make the best decisions about which new drugs offer enough benefits to offset higher costs.
But so far, that's not what the provinces are mainly talking about. They're concern is shifting the current costs on to the federal government. For the public, that's a bookkeeping change. The same taxpayers pay, and the system isn't improved.
Martin's focus on reducing wait times for treatment in five key areas also makes good sense. Canadians judge the system by how long they must wait for care, and have watched with dismay as wait times increased.
Other jurisdictions have provided their citizens with wait time guarantees - a promise of treatment for major ailments within a set time. If the system can't deliver, the government pays for treatment outside the country or in the private sector.
But a deal on wait time limits or guidelines is not going to be reached in a few days in Ottawa. Health care is a provincial responsibility, and premiers will be understandably nervous in committing to wait time guidelines they can't meet.
And we are a long way from agreement on what sort of wait time guidelines we are prepared to adopt. In B.C., governments have decided that people should wait longer and longer for surgery. Wait lists in most areas climbed under the NDP, and climbed even more sharply under the Liberals. The median wait for a hip replacement has climbed 25 per cent since the election, for non-emergency heart surgery by 15 per cent. Our governments have had other priorities.
In the short term, reducing wait lists is about money, as Campbell showed this week. He announced $3 million more for heart surgery this week, a 5.5-per-cent increase. That's enough to cut the median wait by 20 per cent to 12 weeks, shorter than when the Liberals were elected. And it's a reminder of how relatively small amounts of money can make a large difference in reducing the wait for treatment.
Many Canadians have lost confidence in their governments' ability to manage health care, as this week's Ipsos poll revealed. When the premiers and prime minister sit down next month, those people want to see a commitment to long-term solutions.
Instead, they will see the leaders stumbling toward a meeting with hopelessly complex objectives. One of two outcomes is likely: the meeting will either break-up in recriminations and posturing; or another short-term deal involving extra money to maintain the status quo will be cobbled together.
Neither addresses the real health care issues.
Footnote: The Ipsos survey, done for the Canadian Medical Association, asked Canadians to grade the health care system. More than one in four gave federal and provincial governments failing grades for working together to make the system more accountable. Almost 30 per cent said the federal government wasn't funding health care adequately and 22 per cent said their provincial government wasn't spending enough.
Premier Gordon Campbell and the rest of the premiers are heading to Toronto for one last strategy session before they meet with Martin.
The premiers want to firm up their proposal for a federally funded, national pharmacare plan. And they need to figure out how to handle Martin's counter-proposal for a reduction in wait times for surgery.
Martin's health care summit next month has at least got everyone's attention. But it has the potential to be a weird event, as all parties jockey for political advantage under the TV lights.
Martin says he wants to leave the meeting with a new plan for health care in Canada, a ridiculous objective, no matter how much work is done behind the scenes.
The public would be much better served if this became the first of a regular series of public first ministers' meetings on health care, perhaps once a month for six months. That would allow serious work on the kind of health care Canadians want, what and how they will pay, and positive changes that can be made.
There's no fix for health care, nothing that can be cobbled together in a few days that will make a lasting difference.
A national pharmacare program makes good sense. A single buyer - and single approving agency for new drugs - could negotiate more effectively with drug suppliers, and make the best decisions about which new drugs offer enough benefits to offset higher costs.
But so far, that's not what the provinces are mainly talking about. They're concern is shifting the current costs on to the federal government. For the public, that's a bookkeeping change. The same taxpayers pay, and the system isn't improved.
Martin's focus on reducing wait times for treatment in five key areas also makes good sense. Canadians judge the system by how long they must wait for care, and have watched with dismay as wait times increased.
Other jurisdictions have provided their citizens with wait time guarantees - a promise of treatment for major ailments within a set time. If the system can't deliver, the government pays for treatment outside the country or in the private sector.
But a deal on wait time limits or guidelines is not going to be reached in a few days in Ottawa. Health care is a provincial responsibility, and premiers will be understandably nervous in committing to wait time guidelines they can't meet.
And we are a long way from agreement on what sort of wait time guidelines we are prepared to adopt. In B.C., governments have decided that people should wait longer and longer for surgery. Wait lists in most areas climbed under the NDP, and climbed even more sharply under the Liberals. The median wait for a hip replacement has climbed 25 per cent since the election, for non-emergency heart surgery by 15 per cent. Our governments have had other priorities.
In the short term, reducing wait lists is about money, as Campbell showed this week. He announced $3 million more for heart surgery this week, a 5.5-per-cent increase. That's enough to cut the median wait by 20 per cent to 12 weeks, shorter than when the Liberals were elected. And it's a reminder of how relatively small amounts of money can make a large difference in reducing the wait for treatment.
Many Canadians have lost confidence in their governments' ability to manage health care, as this week's Ipsos poll revealed. When the premiers and prime minister sit down next month, those people want to see a commitment to long-term solutions.
Instead, they will see the leaders stumbling toward a meeting with hopelessly complex objectives. One of two outcomes is likely: the meeting will either break-up in recriminations and posturing; or another short-term deal involving extra money to maintain the status quo will be cobbled together.
Neither addresses the real health care issues.
Footnote: The Ipsos survey, done for the Canadian Medical Association, asked Canadians to grade the health care system. More than one in four gave federal and provincial governments failing grades for working together to make the system more accountable. Almost 30 per cent said the federal government wasn't funding health care adequately and 22 per cent said their provincial government wasn't spending enough.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Pharmacare plan about who pays, not better health care
VICTORIA - It sometimes looks like Canadians' brains turn to mush when we start talking about health care.
Take the premiers' proposal that Ottawa create a national pharmacare program, taking over from the provinces. The premiers plucked the idea out of the air when they met to prepare for Paul Martin's televised health care summit next month. At this point, they don't know how it would work or what it would cost - estimates range from $7 billion to $12 billion.
A national plan actually makes good sense. It could help to ensure more efficient and effective drug purchasing and use. But that's not the premiers' focus. They looking at who pays, the provinces or the federal government.
And despite all the talk about sustainability, and controlling costs, and efficiency, that's mostly what we debate - who should pay.
Who cares? Pay taxes to Victoria for pharmacare, or pay taxes to Ottawa for pharmacare - that's hardly a critical health care reform question.
Even the debate about two-tier care or delisting services is about who pays. Allowing some people to pay extra for speedier or higher quality care doesn't reduce the amount we spend on health care by one cent. It just shuffles the cost around.
Right now, people pay taxes for the care we agree is needed. Under a two-tier system, taxes would be less and people would pay more out of their own pockets. Health care spending wouldn't change. (The U.S. has such a system, and health care costs actually consume a larger share of its GDP. If spending was at the same level in B.C., our health budget would be $2 billion higher.)
We're dancing around the problems, not dealing with them.
Take drug costs. They are one of the most rapidly increasing health care expenses. If we can find ways to control those costs - as B.C. has done with reference-based pricing, which ensures that the cheapest effective medication is used - then we'll have more to spend on other areas.
But we don't even really know if drug spending increases are a good or bad thing.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003; the national average was $505. That could mean that we're doing a good job of controlling costs, or our doctors are more careful with prescriptions or simply that we're healthier - all good things.
Or it could mean that we're failing to make effective use of prescription drugs, and as a result more people are requiring surgery. We just don't know.
A national pharmacare plan that focused on effectiveness, not who pays, could help answer those questions. It could ensure that new drugs were only approved when they offered wide, cost-effective benefits. It could bargain effectively with big drug companies. And it would prevent drug companies playing provinces off against one another, winning approval for a new drug in one place and then supporting patients in other provinces pushing for the same thing.
The good news is that we have time to do this right. There is no health care sustainability crisis.
Yes, costs are rising rapidly and that should be a concern.
But despite all the doom-and-gloom, an internal federal finance department review released this year projected that health care spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond. Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP - the critical measure - was the same in 2001 as it was in 1991. There is no crisis.
The premier's pharmacare proposal isn't going anywhere. Prime Minister Paul Martin doesn't want the expense or the responsibility. His new interest is wait times. But shorter waits mean more money, and neither Martin nor most of the premiers want to spend more.
Maybe, under the bright television lights, the First Ministers will give up on arguing about who pays, and start talking about how we can deliver health care more effectively.
Footnote: One challenging in controlling drug costs is saying no. Drug companies regularly offer much more expensive new drugs with relatively small improvements in benefits for most patients. Governments that decide that it's not worth paying for each new drug can face intense pressure from patients, pressure groups and the pharmaceutical industry.
Take the premiers' proposal that Ottawa create a national pharmacare program, taking over from the provinces. The premiers plucked the idea out of the air when they met to prepare for Paul Martin's televised health care summit next month. At this point, they don't know how it would work or what it would cost - estimates range from $7 billion to $12 billion.
A national plan actually makes good sense. It could help to ensure more efficient and effective drug purchasing and use. But that's not the premiers' focus. They looking at who pays, the provinces or the federal government.
And despite all the talk about sustainability, and controlling costs, and efficiency, that's mostly what we debate - who should pay.
Who cares? Pay taxes to Victoria for pharmacare, or pay taxes to Ottawa for pharmacare - that's hardly a critical health care reform question.
Even the debate about two-tier care or delisting services is about who pays. Allowing some people to pay extra for speedier or higher quality care doesn't reduce the amount we spend on health care by one cent. It just shuffles the cost around.
Right now, people pay taxes for the care we agree is needed. Under a two-tier system, taxes would be less and people would pay more out of their own pockets. Health care spending wouldn't change. (The U.S. has such a system, and health care costs actually consume a larger share of its GDP. If spending was at the same level in B.C., our health budget would be $2 billion higher.)
We're dancing around the problems, not dealing with them.
Take drug costs. They are one of the most rapidly increasing health care expenses. If we can find ways to control those costs - as B.C. has done with reference-based pricing, which ensures that the cheapest effective medication is used - then we'll have more to spend on other areas.
But we don't even really know if drug spending increases are a good or bad thing.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003; the national average was $505. That could mean that we're doing a good job of controlling costs, or our doctors are more careful with prescriptions or simply that we're healthier - all good things.
Or it could mean that we're failing to make effective use of prescription drugs, and as a result more people are requiring surgery. We just don't know.
A national pharmacare plan that focused on effectiveness, not who pays, could help answer those questions. It could ensure that new drugs were only approved when they offered wide, cost-effective benefits. It could bargain effectively with big drug companies. And it would prevent drug companies playing provinces off against one another, winning approval for a new drug in one place and then supporting patients in other provinces pushing for the same thing.
The good news is that we have time to do this right. There is no health care sustainability crisis.
Yes, costs are rising rapidly and that should be a concern.
But despite all the doom-and-gloom, an internal federal finance department review released this year projected that health care spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond. Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP - the critical measure - was the same in 2001 as it was in 1991. There is no crisis.
The premier's pharmacare proposal isn't going anywhere. Prime Minister Paul Martin doesn't want the expense or the responsibility. His new interest is wait times. But shorter waits mean more money, and neither Martin nor most of the premiers want to spend more.
Maybe, under the bright television lights, the First Ministers will give up on arguing about who pays, and start talking about how we can deliver health care more effectively.
Footnote: One challenging in controlling drug costs is saying no. Drug companies regularly offer much more expensive new drugs with relatively small improvements in benefits for most patients. Governments that decide that it's not worth paying for each new drug can face intense pressure from patients, pressure groups and the pharmaceutical industry.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Economy needs lowest possible BC Ferries' fares
VICTORIA - What's the big deal about spending a bit more for ferries, anyway?
Quite a lot, actually. Just look at how past ferry rate increases have damaged the economies of the province, and Vancouver Island.
B.C. shipyards should have been giving a chance to bid on construction of three new ships for BC Ferries, a contract that could be worth $500 million. It's just wrong that a government-owned corporation barred the leading local shipyard from even submitting a bid.
But lots of critics have argued that it's worth paying more to buy locally, while remaining vague on where that extra money will come from.
It's not likely the government will write a cheque to cover the extra costs, which leaves ferry riders on the hook.
And that would be very bad news, for Vancouver Island, coastal communities and the province.
Ferry rates matter. BC Stats concluded earlier this year that three decades of big increases are costing Vancouver Island's tourism economy more than $25 million a year in hotel and room revenues alone. Figure on other spending, and you're looking at a $50-million annual loss to the economy because ferry fares went up faster than inflation.
And it's not just a regional issue. Because Vancouver Island is a destination for visitors from outside the province, it's likely that B.C. tourism as a whole has been hurt by the rising rates, the report found.
BC Stats established average fares from the Mainland to Vancouver Island over the last 30 years, factoring in traffic types and the impact of reservation fees. It found fares have steadily increased faster than inflation over the last three decades.
Since 1975 the Vancouver cost-of-living index has gone up by an average 4.5 per cent a year. Ferry rates have gone up by an average 6.5 per cent a year.
Back in 1975 a car and driver could get across to the Island for $5. If costs had matched inflation, then today's fare would be about $17. Instead the average fare for a car in 2003 was $30, a 77-per-cent real increase.
Still a bargain by world standards, some might say.
But that misses the point. The real cost of using the ferries has been steadily rising, and that has inevitable consequences.
For some people, mostly locals who have to use the ferries, rising costs are an irritant, but it doesn't alter their travel plans.
But the basic laws of economics hold that if the cost of a discretionary purchase - like a holiday - increases, then a certain number of people will cancel their plans.
And they have.
The number of passengers on BC Ferries went up 33 per cent from 1980 to 2003.
But B.C.'s population rose 55 per cent. The overall tourism industry exploded. BC Ferries hasn't kept up.
Back in 1989, Vancouver Island had a 20.2-per-cent share of room revenues in the province, a standard measure of tourism activity. But the Island has been steadily losing ground to the rest of B.C., and in 2003 its share had fallen to 18.4 per cent, according to BC Stats.
Sounds like a small drop. But it translates into $25 million in lost revenues, and a whack more in the money those people would have spent. (The study wasn't skewed by picking one rough year; the decline was steady through the period.)
"The trend in Vancouver Island’s share of room revenues has closely followed changes in ferry prices," BC Stats reported. "This suggests that BC Ferries has been, to a degree, pricing Vancouver Island out of the tourism market."
None of this justifies shutting local shipyards out of the building.
But it should be a caution for those who are willing to pay a premium for local ships - and want ferry users to foot the bill.
Higher prices for ferry travel do matter, and their effects reverberate through the economy.
Footnote: BC Ferries own studies confirm the report. In its prospectus filed as part of its borrowing plans the corporation said that for every 10 per cent fares went up on the main routes, about three per cent of travellers cancelled trips. The corporation's last annual report blamed large 1997 rate increases for falling passenger volumes.
Quite a lot, actually. Just look at how past ferry rate increases have damaged the economies of the province, and Vancouver Island.
B.C. shipyards should have been giving a chance to bid on construction of three new ships for BC Ferries, a contract that could be worth $500 million. It's just wrong that a government-owned corporation barred the leading local shipyard from even submitting a bid.
But lots of critics have argued that it's worth paying more to buy locally, while remaining vague on where that extra money will come from.
It's not likely the government will write a cheque to cover the extra costs, which leaves ferry riders on the hook.
And that would be very bad news, for Vancouver Island, coastal communities and the province.
Ferry rates matter. BC Stats concluded earlier this year that three decades of big increases are costing Vancouver Island's tourism economy more than $25 million a year in hotel and room revenues alone. Figure on other spending, and you're looking at a $50-million annual loss to the economy because ferry fares went up faster than inflation.
And it's not just a regional issue. Because Vancouver Island is a destination for visitors from outside the province, it's likely that B.C. tourism as a whole has been hurt by the rising rates, the report found.
BC Stats established average fares from the Mainland to Vancouver Island over the last 30 years, factoring in traffic types and the impact of reservation fees. It found fares have steadily increased faster than inflation over the last three decades.
Since 1975 the Vancouver cost-of-living index has gone up by an average 4.5 per cent a year. Ferry rates have gone up by an average 6.5 per cent a year.
Back in 1975 a car and driver could get across to the Island for $5. If costs had matched inflation, then today's fare would be about $17. Instead the average fare for a car in 2003 was $30, a 77-per-cent real increase.
Still a bargain by world standards, some might say.
But that misses the point. The real cost of using the ferries has been steadily rising, and that has inevitable consequences.
For some people, mostly locals who have to use the ferries, rising costs are an irritant, but it doesn't alter their travel plans.
But the basic laws of economics hold that if the cost of a discretionary purchase - like a holiday - increases, then a certain number of people will cancel their plans.
And they have.
The number of passengers on BC Ferries went up 33 per cent from 1980 to 2003.
But B.C.'s population rose 55 per cent. The overall tourism industry exploded. BC Ferries hasn't kept up.
Back in 1989, Vancouver Island had a 20.2-per-cent share of room revenues in the province, a standard measure of tourism activity. But the Island has been steadily losing ground to the rest of B.C., and in 2003 its share had fallen to 18.4 per cent, according to BC Stats.
Sounds like a small drop. But it translates into $25 million in lost revenues, and a whack more in the money those people would have spent. (The study wasn't skewed by picking one rough year; the decline was steady through the period.)
"The trend in Vancouver Island’s share of room revenues has closely followed changes in ferry prices," BC Stats reported. "This suggests that BC Ferries has been, to a degree, pricing Vancouver Island out of the tourism market."
None of this justifies shutting local shipyards out of the building.
But it should be a caution for those who are willing to pay a premium for local ships - and want ferry users to foot the bill.
Higher prices for ferry travel do matter, and their effects reverberate through the economy.
Footnote: BC Ferries own studies confirm the report. In its prospectus filed as part of its borrowing plans the corporation said that for every 10 per cent fares went up on the main routes, about three per cent of travellers cancelled trips. The corporation's last annual report blamed large 1997 rate increases for falling passenger volumes.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Ellard case doesn't make show need for jury system change
VICTORIA - You'd have thought the halls of justice were crumbling around us by some of the reaction to the Kelly Ellard case.
There's been much debate about the jury system since Ellard's second trial for the murder of Reena Virk ended in a hung jury.
The jury system is fundamental to justice. You have the right to have your case decided not by a judge, appointed by the state, but by a randomly selected panel of your peers. All 12 members of the jury have to agree that the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt before you're found guilty.
We should treasure that right.
But the Ellard case sparked a lively, passionate and useful debate. Some people decided that the case showed the jury system doesn't work. A single juror was unconvinced by the Crown's case, and stuck to her position. The result was a hung jury, and the need for another trial.
The critics' arguments around the Ellard case are dubious. They weren't in the court and didn't hear evidence or arguments, but have apparently decided Ellard should have been found guilty, so the system is somehow broken.
But it could be argued that the jury system worked perfectly. The Crown made its case, but couldn't convince all the jurors of guilt. They reported that to the judge. That's what's supposed to happen.
But what if one juror is perversely, unreasonably blind to the facts, the critics say.
Fair argument. Attorney General Geoff Plant said it might be time to look at having smaller juries - perhaps eight people - to allow a greater chance of unanimity.
Or, he said, juries could make their decision on a majority vote, without requiring all to agree. Judges in England can accept a jury decision based on a 10 to two vote.
But the arguments for change are weak, in large part because it's not even clear if this happens often enough to be a concern. B.C. doesn't track hung juries, but the best estimate is that fewer than three per cent of criminal jury trials end up in am mistrial as a result of a deadlocked jury. That doesn't seem like a problem; just part of the checks and balances.
That's another objection to those changes, which Plant says the first ministers will discuss this fall. They are basically designed to make it easier for the Crown to convict people; perhaps it's as important to keep people safe from wrongful conviction. After all the Crown has the chance to try the case again is a jury is split, while a person wrongfully convicted is off to jail.
Plant also suggested simplifying the judge's instructions to juries, which have become increasingly long and complex. The judge's instructions in the Ellard case, delivered after a lengthy trial, ran to 165 pages, all read to the jurors before they started deliberating.
Supreme Court Justice John Bouck agrees. He wrote The Times Colonist in Victoria arguing for a system of simpler, shorter instructions. As appeal courts have overturned verdicts because juries were not properly instructed in the law, judges have been forced to add more and more detail. "Jurors become glassy eyed and unreceptive to the judge's strange legal words as they valiantly try to stay awake," he observes.
The instructions don't just add to jurors' confusion. They also are a fertile ground for appeals, by both Crown and defence. Verdicts are overturned and retrials ordered far more often because of problems with jury instructions than because of hung verdicts.
Bouck studied a useful U.S. alternative. Under the guidance of a high court, judges, lawyers, academics and public representatives agree on what juries need to be told about the law in different situations. The resulting instructions are short and clear, and can not be the basis of an appeal. Some method of simplifying instructions to juries seems a useful exercise.
But beyond that, it's hard to see any dramatic need for change.
Footnote: Plant took a lot of unfair criticism from people who said his comments on the jury system undermined Ellard's right to a fair trial next time around. Rubbish. He was asked about a policy issue and he responded. That's his job, and he did it. The last thing we need are more silent politicians.
There's been much debate about the jury system since Ellard's second trial for the murder of Reena Virk ended in a hung jury.
The jury system is fundamental to justice. You have the right to have your case decided not by a judge, appointed by the state, but by a randomly selected panel of your peers. All 12 members of the jury have to agree that the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt before you're found guilty.
We should treasure that right.
But the Ellard case sparked a lively, passionate and useful debate. Some people decided that the case showed the jury system doesn't work. A single juror was unconvinced by the Crown's case, and stuck to her position. The result was a hung jury, and the need for another trial.
The critics' arguments around the Ellard case are dubious. They weren't in the court and didn't hear evidence or arguments, but have apparently decided Ellard should have been found guilty, so the system is somehow broken.
But it could be argued that the jury system worked perfectly. The Crown made its case, but couldn't convince all the jurors of guilt. They reported that to the judge. That's what's supposed to happen.
But what if one juror is perversely, unreasonably blind to the facts, the critics say.
Fair argument. Attorney General Geoff Plant said it might be time to look at having smaller juries - perhaps eight people - to allow a greater chance of unanimity.
Or, he said, juries could make their decision on a majority vote, without requiring all to agree. Judges in England can accept a jury decision based on a 10 to two vote.
But the arguments for change are weak, in large part because it's not even clear if this happens often enough to be a concern. B.C. doesn't track hung juries, but the best estimate is that fewer than three per cent of criminal jury trials end up in am mistrial as a result of a deadlocked jury. That doesn't seem like a problem; just part of the checks and balances.
That's another objection to those changes, which Plant says the first ministers will discuss this fall. They are basically designed to make it easier for the Crown to convict people; perhaps it's as important to keep people safe from wrongful conviction. After all the Crown has the chance to try the case again is a jury is split, while a person wrongfully convicted is off to jail.
Plant also suggested simplifying the judge's instructions to juries, which have become increasingly long and complex. The judge's instructions in the Ellard case, delivered after a lengthy trial, ran to 165 pages, all read to the jurors before they started deliberating.
Supreme Court Justice John Bouck agrees. He wrote The Times Colonist in Victoria arguing for a system of simpler, shorter instructions. As appeal courts have overturned verdicts because juries were not properly instructed in the law, judges have been forced to add more and more detail. "Jurors become glassy eyed and unreceptive to the judge's strange legal words as they valiantly try to stay awake," he observes.
The instructions don't just add to jurors' confusion. They also are a fertile ground for appeals, by both Crown and defence. Verdicts are overturned and retrials ordered far more often because of problems with jury instructions than because of hung verdicts.
Bouck studied a useful U.S. alternative. Under the guidance of a high court, judges, lawyers, academics and public representatives agree on what juries need to be told about the law in different situations. The resulting instructions are short and clear, and can not be the basis of an appeal. Some method of simplifying instructions to juries seems a useful exercise.
But beyond that, it's hard to see any dramatic need for change.
Footnote: Plant took a lot of unfair criticism from people who said his comments on the jury system undermined Ellard's right to a fair trial next time around. Rubbish. He was asked about a policy issue and he responded. That's his job, and he did it. The last thing we need are more silent politicians.
Tackling health care wrong way round, again
VICTORIA - The premiers' proposal for a national, federally funded pharmacare plan highlights what's wrong with the way we approach health care.
There's a certain tactical cleverness to the idea, hatched -- apparently with little preparation -- at meetings last week.
The premiers were trying to figure out how to approach next month's televised health care summit with Prime Minister Paul Martin, who had already struck his own pose with an empty campaign promise to cut waiting lists.
The premiers needed a response.
Fundamentally, they want more money from Ottawa. But that demand is wearing thin, not least because the public recognizes that provincial and federal governments tap the same pool of taxpayers.
So the premiers came up with a twist. The federal government should create a national pharmacare program, they decided, and come up with the required $7 billion to $12 billion. (The range indicates just how well this has been thought through.) And, of course, the premiers still want Ottawa to come up with $5 billion a year in extra health transfer payments.
Don't expect any fast action.
The provinces can't even say what sort of plan they want Ottawa to provide. Provincial pharmacare plans now vary widely. P.E.I. covers 30 per cent of total prescription drug costs, with the rest paid by private insurers or individuals; Manitoba's plan covers 53 per cent of all prescription drug costs. Working out a coherent, nationally acceptable model would be a huge task.
The federal government has no interest in taking on all responsibility for the fastest-growing component of health care costs.
And the public recognizes that this proposal does nothing to address the real issues The premiers' rhetoric is about rising costs, greater effectiveness and sustainability. But their pharmacare plan doesn't tackle those tough issues. It simply takes the status quo and shuffles the financial arrangements around.
A real national pharmacare strategy would be useful.
Prescription drugs are taking an increasing share of health care spending, with little evidence on whether the money buys useful results.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003, about $145 less than the national average, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But there's little evidence as to why we spend less, or whether it's a good thing.
Perhaps reference-based pricing is keeping costs down; perhaps we're simply healthier; or perhaps we're under-prescribing and as a result more people are inding up in hospital. We don't know.
A national strategy, based on the best information available, could improve the assessment and approval process for new drugs and provide better ways of managing costs (including more effective bargaining with the drug companies.) When that is done -- the important work -- the question of who pays can be resolved.
It's difficult work. Deciding not to pay for the latest, more costly drug variations brings pressure from patients who believe they can improve their lives, and drug companies that believe they can improve their bottom lines. But it's the only way to real reform.
So far, once you get past the rhetoric, the talk is all about who pays. Even the advocates of two-tier care acknowledge it doesn't reduce costs or increase effectiveness. The health care expense is the same; the difference is whether we pay collectively or allow people to pay individually for speedier care.
We're not in any sort of health care sustainability crisis. Cost increases are worrying, but Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP was unchanged between 1991 and 2001. A federal finance department review released this year projected that even without changes health spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond.
That means we have time to make the difficult decisions about the kind of health care system we want and are prepared to pay for.
Instead, our politicians are still bogged down on debates about whether the taxes we pay to Ottawa or the taxes we pay to Victoria should be allocated to health care costs.
And that's a debate that has very little to do with better patient care.
- From the Vancouver Sun
There's a certain tactical cleverness to the idea, hatched -- apparently with little preparation -- at meetings last week.
The premiers were trying to figure out how to approach next month's televised health care summit with Prime Minister Paul Martin, who had already struck his own pose with an empty campaign promise to cut waiting lists.
The premiers needed a response.
Fundamentally, they want more money from Ottawa. But that demand is wearing thin, not least because the public recognizes that provincial and federal governments tap the same pool of taxpayers.
So the premiers came up with a twist. The federal government should create a national pharmacare program, they decided, and come up with the required $7 billion to $12 billion. (The range indicates just how well this has been thought through.) And, of course, the premiers still want Ottawa to come up with $5 billion a year in extra health transfer payments.
Don't expect any fast action.
The provinces can't even say what sort of plan they want Ottawa to provide. Provincial pharmacare plans now vary widely. P.E.I. covers 30 per cent of total prescription drug costs, with the rest paid by private insurers or individuals; Manitoba's plan covers 53 per cent of all prescription drug costs. Working out a coherent, nationally acceptable model would be a huge task.
The federal government has no interest in taking on all responsibility for the fastest-growing component of health care costs.
And the public recognizes that this proposal does nothing to address the real issues The premiers' rhetoric is about rising costs, greater effectiveness and sustainability. But their pharmacare plan doesn't tackle those tough issues. It simply takes the status quo and shuffles the financial arrangements around.
A real national pharmacare strategy would be useful.
Prescription drugs are taking an increasing share of health care spending, with little evidence on whether the money buys useful results.
In B.C., prescription drug spending was $360 per person in 2003, about $145 less than the national average, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But there's little evidence as to why we spend less, or whether it's a good thing.
Perhaps reference-based pricing is keeping costs down; perhaps we're simply healthier; or perhaps we're under-prescribing and as a result more people are inding up in hospital. We don't know.
A national strategy, based on the best information available, could improve the assessment and approval process for new drugs and provide better ways of managing costs (including more effective bargaining with the drug companies.) When that is done -- the important work -- the question of who pays can be resolved.
It's difficult work. Deciding not to pay for the latest, more costly drug variations brings pressure from patients who believe they can improve their lives, and drug companies that believe they can improve their bottom lines. But it's the only way to real reform.
So far, once you get past the rhetoric, the talk is all about who pays. Even the advocates of two-tier care acknowledge it doesn't reduce costs or increase effectiveness. The health care expense is the same; the difference is whether we pay collectively or allow people to pay individually for speedier care.
We're not in any sort of health care sustainability crisis. Cost increases are worrying, but Canadian health care spending as a percentage of GDP was unchanged between 1991 and 2001. A federal finance department review released this year projected that even without changes health spending would remain easily manageable until 2040 and beyond.
That means we have time to make the difficult decisions about the kind of health care system we want and are prepared to pay for.
Instead, our politicians are still bogged down on debates about whether the taxes we pay to Ottawa or the taxes we pay to Victoria should be allocated to health care costs.
And that's a debate that has very little to do with better patient care.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Mad cow aid went to fatten packers' profits
VICTORIA - We're quick to demand government action - and cash - when things go wrong.
But a $400-million program to help ranchers cope with the mad cow crisis actually delivered half the money as windfall profits to giant meatpackers, a reminder of how easily things can go wrong when politicians start handing out cash.
And we didn't even get any cheap beef out of the deal.
Alberta Auditor General Fred Dunn examined the federal-provincial plan cobbled together when the discovery of a single BSE-stricken cow led the U.S. to slam its border shut.
The plan worked, he found. Ranchers were cushioned from the worst of the short-term impact.
But because the Canada-Alberta BSE Recovery Program was poorly thought out, it also encouraged ranchers to dump a lot of cattle on to the market quickly. Prices fell as a result, but the ranchers were protected by taxpayers. No big windfall for the farmers; they just avoided disaster.
But the meatpackers, what a deal for them.
As cattle owners, they claimed about $45 million in direct assistance as part of the aid program.
And they scored much more because of the poorly planned aid scheme.
The plan only paid ranchers when they sent their cattle to slaughter.
Ranchers knew there was a limited pool of money available, and could check online to see how much was left in the pot. So they rushed to dump their cattle while there was still aid money. A four-legged stampede to market meant prices plummeted.
Good news for the three giant meatpackers that dominate the market in Alberta. They picked up cattle dirt cheap, kept on selling beef at normal prices and tripled the amount of profit they made on each cow - thanks to your tax dollars. Before BSE hit in May 2003, the packers were making $46 a head. That more than tripled to $176 a head in the six months after the subsidies were put in place, according to the auditor general.
But lousy news for taxpayers, and consumers. It's one thing to be asked to hand money over to cattle producers hit by an extraordinary event. It's quite another to find out that taxpayers are subsidizing corporations' huge profits.
There's several lessons here.
The most obvious is that governments should work harder at getting aid programs right, despite the pressure to act quickly. In this case, the program could have been need-based, eliminating the direct subsidy to the packing companies. It could have provided support for ranchers who chose to wait the crisis out, instead of forcing them all to dump cattle. It could have encouraged an orderly stock reduction. All would have protected taxpayers' dollars.
It's important to get these things right. This $400-million program was only one of several mad cow assistance programs worth a total of $2.5 billion. At the same time governments are being asked for cash to help poultry producers hit by avian flu fallout, fire victims and a host of others. The cost is enormous, and the public needs to be able to count on well-designed programs that achieve a legitimate public policy goal.
This affair should also be a wake-up call for those who have a blind faith in the power of the market to make things right.
In a functioning free market, consumers would at least have got cheaper steaks out of the deal. Faced with the chance to buy cows at low cost, the classic economic theory goes, meatpackers would compete for a larger share of the market by lowering prices.
But that didn't happen. It's too expensive to get into the business for a short time. The market is generally the most efficient way to manage supply, demand and price issues. But not always.
There's a place for government aid. But Alberta's auditor general has shown that attempts to spend our way out of a crisis can go badly wrong.
Footnote: The companies - Lakeside Packers, Cargill and XL Foods - had initially denied the windfall profits. They were also reliuctant to provide information on their operations to a House of Commons committee looking at the aid program. Dunn found the companies had made $117 million in profits in the year before the BSE crisis, and $197 million in just six months after it hit.
But a $400-million program to help ranchers cope with the mad cow crisis actually delivered half the money as windfall profits to giant meatpackers, a reminder of how easily things can go wrong when politicians start handing out cash.
And we didn't even get any cheap beef out of the deal.
Alberta Auditor General Fred Dunn examined the federal-provincial plan cobbled together when the discovery of a single BSE-stricken cow led the U.S. to slam its border shut.
The plan worked, he found. Ranchers were cushioned from the worst of the short-term impact.
But because the Canada-Alberta BSE Recovery Program was poorly thought out, it also encouraged ranchers to dump a lot of cattle on to the market quickly. Prices fell as a result, but the ranchers were protected by taxpayers. No big windfall for the farmers; they just avoided disaster.
But the meatpackers, what a deal for them.
As cattle owners, they claimed about $45 million in direct assistance as part of the aid program.
And they scored much more because of the poorly planned aid scheme.
The plan only paid ranchers when they sent their cattle to slaughter.
Ranchers knew there was a limited pool of money available, and could check online to see how much was left in the pot. So they rushed to dump their cattle while there was still aid money. A four-legged stampede to market meant prices plummeted.
Good news for the three giant meatpackers that dominate the market in Alberta. They picked up cattle dirt cheap, kept on selling beef at normal prices and tripled the amount of profit they made on each cow - thanks to your tax dollars. Before BSE hit in May 2003, the packers were making $46 a head. That more than tripled to $176 a head in the six months after the subsidies were put in place, according to the auditor general.
But lousy news for taxpayers, and consumers. It's one thing to be asked to hand money over to cattle producers hit by an extraordinary event. It's quite another to find out that taxpayers are subsidizing corporations' huge profits.
There's several lessons here.
The most obvious is that governments should work harder at getting aid programs right, despite the pressure to act quickly. In this case, the program could have been need-based, eliminating the direct subsidy to the packing companies. It could have provided support for ranchers who chose to wait the crisis out, instead of forcing them all to dump cattle. It could have encouraged an orderly stock reduction. All would have protected taxpayers' dollars.
It's important to get these things right. This $400-million program was only one of several mad cow assistance programs worth a total of $2.5 billion. At the same time governments are being asked for cash to help poultry producers hit by avian flu fallout, fire victims and a host of others. The cost is enormous, and the public needs to be able to count on well-designed programs that achieve a legitimate public policy goal.
This affair should also be a wake-up call for those who have a blind faith in the power of the market to make things right.
In a functioning free market, consumers would at least have got cheaper steaks out of the deal. Faced with the chance to buy cows at low cost, the classic economic theory goes, meatpackers would compete for a larger share of the market by lowering prices.
But that didn't happen. It's too expensive to get into the business for a short time. The market is generally the most efficient way to manage supply, demand and price issues. But not always.
There's a place for government aid. But Alberta's auditor general has shown that attempts to spend our way out of a crisis can go badly wrong.
Footnote: The companies - Lakeside Packers, Cargill and XL Foods - had initially denied the windfall profits. They were also reliuctant to provide information on their operations to a House of Commons committee looking at the aid program. Dunn found the companies had made $117 million in profits in the year before the BSE crisis, and $197 million in just six months after it hit.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Taser danger demands immediate review
VICTORIA - I wrote about Tasers with some enthusiasm back in 1998, when Victoria's police force became the first in Canada to give the high-tech weapons a try.
It seemed like a great breakthrough, a weapon that shoots darts that zap dangerous suspects with electricity, making them easier to subdue. The trial seemed to be a success, and then attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh approved the Taser for use across the province.
There's still a lot to recommend the gun.
But after four Taser-linked deaths in the last 12 months in the province, it's time for an independent review of the technology, and the way it's being used.
The deaths - in Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver - don't appear to be aberrations. Another 45 people have died in the U.S. in the last three years after being zapped with the newer, more powerful Taser models.
That wasn't supposed to be the deal. When the high-tech weapons were introduced here, the manufacturer, Taser International, claimed they were completely safe. The company continues to make the same claim.
People may die after being zapped by a Taser, but that doesn't mean it killed them, the company argues, pointing to the hundreds of police officers who have gone through the experience themselves.
But in at least three deaths, medical examiners have disagreed. A report by the British government in 2002 found the Tasers could not be classified as safe, although British police forces have begun testing the weapons. And a recent New York Times article said reporters could find no independent studies confirming the safety of the devices.
The company argues that the death rate for people shot with a Taser is no higher than the overall death rate for people taken into custody. People aren't killed by the Taser; they're killed by a high heart rate.
But 90 per cent of the people shot with a Taser are going to have a heart rate that has already gone through the roof. They are on drugs, or mentally ill, agitated, angry or frightened. They're involved in a dangerous confrontation with police, teetering on the edge of violence or suicide.
Four deaths in barely 12 months should be enough to trigger a review of the safety of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Just because they are dangerous doesn't mean they should be banned. The risk may be balanced by the number of lives that saved by giving police a useful tool.
Officers must make split-second decisions about how to respond to a dangerous person. They have to decide whether to try and restrain him physically, or at the other end of the spectrum whether to shoot him dead. Tasers have specific advantages in those situations - they can be fired from eight metres away, incapacitate most victims instantly and usually don't kill.
Other responses - like pepper spray - must be used at close range, and because they rely on pain can be shaken off by some people. And they are useless against an armed suspect whose goal is to have the police shoot him.
But B.C.'s entire approach to Taser use has been based on the idea that there is no risk from the devices. It hs been sold to police and public as a device that immobilizes without causing injury or death.
Those claims have shaped the way the devices are used, with critics arguing Tasers are being used too frequently and in cases where other methods of restraint would have been as effective and safer.
If there is a risk of death - and the evidence appears clear that there is - then our approach must change, and the rules governing use must become much more stringent.
It's time for a thorough independent review of the risks of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Footnote: Some of these questions could have been answered by an inquest into Clay Willey's death after he was shot with a Taser in Prince George more than a year ago. But the inquest won't be held until October. That kind of delay is inexcusable when answers are badly needed.
It seemed like a great breakthrough, a weapon that shoots darts that zap dangerous suspects with electricity, making them easier to subdue. The trial seemed to be a success, and then attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh approved the Taser for use across the province.
There's still a lot to recommend the gun.
But after four Taser-linked deaths in the last 12 months in the province, it's time for an independent review of the technology, and the way it's being used.
The deaths - in Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver - don't appear to be aberrations. Another 45 people have died in the U.S. in the last three years after being zapped with the newer, more powerful Taser models.
That wasn't supposed to be the deal. When the high-tech weapons were introduced here, the manufacturer, Taser International, claimed they were completely safe. The company continues to make the same claim.
People may die after being zapped by a Taser, but that doesn't mean it killed them, the company argues, pointing to the hundreds of police officers who have gone through the experience themselves.
But in at least three deaths, medical examiners have disagreed. A report by the British government in 2002 found the Tasers could not be classified as safe, although British police forces have begun testing the weapons. And a recent New York Times article said reporters could find no independent studies confirming the safety of the devices.
The company argues that the death rate for people shot with a Taser is no higher than the overall death rate for people taken into custody. People aren't killed by the Taser; they're killed by a high heart rate.
But 90 per cent of the people shot with a Taser are going to have a heart rate that has already gone through the roof. They are on drugs, or mentally ill, agitated, angry or frightened. They're involved in a dangerous confrontation with police, teetering on the edge of violence or suicide.
Four deaths in barely 12 months should be enough to trigger a review of the safety of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Just because they are dangerous doesn't mean they should be banned. The risk may be balanced by the number of lives that saved by giving police a useful tool.
Officers must make split-second decisions about how to respond to a dangerous person. They have to decide whether to try and restrain him physically, or at the other end of the spectrum whether to shoot him dead. Tasers have specific advantages in those situations - they can be fired from eight metres away, incapacitate most victims instantly and usually don't kill.
Other responses - like pepper spray - must be used at close range, and because they rely on pain can be shaken off by some people. And they are useless against an armed suspect whose goal is to have the police shoot him.
But B.C.'s entire approach to Taser use has been based on the idea that there is no risk from the devices. It hs been sold to police and public as a device that immobilizes without causing injury or death.
Those claims have shaped the way the devices are used, with critics arguing Tasers are being used too frequently and in cases where other methods of restraint would have been as effective and safer.
If there is a risk of death - and the evidence appears clear that there is - then our approach must change, and the rules governing use must become much more stringent.
It's time for a thorough independent review of the risks of Tasers, and the way they are being used in the province.
Footnote: Some of these questions could have been answered by an inquest into Clay Willey's death after he was shot with a Taser in Prince George more than a year ago. But the inquest won't be held until October. That kind of delay is inexcusable when answers are badly needed.
Liberals running risk with ICBC overhaul
VICTORIA - Look for ICBC to be the next Crown corporation to get a makeover by the Liberal government, a risky move in the last months before an election.
The Liberals want to loosen ICBC's grip and let private insurance companies grab a bigger share of the business. Their campaign platform included a pledge to introduce "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums."
That hasn't happened.
Part of the problem was timing. As the Liberals took over, private car insurance rates were soaring across Canada and becoming a major political problem for provincial governments. But in B.C., rates were stable and the system was working.
The privatization push also ran into a problem in ICBC's new CEO, picked by the Liberals to run the company like a business. Nick Geer left his job as a vice-president in Jimmy Pattison's empire to run ICBC. And after taking a look at the company, he decided the current level of competition - which is tiny - served ICBC and its customers well.
Geer won the battles for a time, despite government grumbling. But earlier this summer he was pushed out with a $450,000 severance package. ICBC board member Ted Smith, a former broadcast industry executive, blamed the government. "In all my years in business, I have never seen a more stupid move in any company or corporation, public or private," he told the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer.
Geer's likely successor is Paul Taylor, who has been helping the Liberals cut costs since he was brought in right after the election. Taylor helped spearhead the Klein government's cost-cutting moves, and has done the same thing for the Liberals as finance deputy minister. His government role has just been cut back, clearing the way for the leap to ICBC, where he'll push the Liberal plan to shrink the corporation's role.
It's an initiative that should have Liberal MLAs cringing. The Campbell government has stumbled into a string of problems with its plans for Crown corporations, with the current BC Ferries' furore only the latest. Taking a fling at remaking another one, so close to the election, seems highly risky.
Especially when it's a Crown corporation that touches the pocketbook of almost every family in the province.
The idea of competition is appealing, because without it consumers will never know if they're paying too much for their car insurance. The basic principle, that competing companies will produce innovation and benefits for consumer, makes good sense.
Right now there is no real competition in car insurance in B.C. ICBC has a monopoly on basic insurance - the coverage you must have to cover the cost of dealing with injuries resulting from a car crash. That's about 60 per cent of the entire insurance market.
Optional insurance - the coverage to pay for repairs, for example - is theoretically open to competition. But ICBC's grip on the basic coverage means most people take the path of least resistance and buy their optional coverage from the Crown corporation as well. The result is that private companies have about 15 per cent of the optional coverage, a percentage that hasn't really changed under the Liberals.
Crunch the numbers, and you find ICBC has close to 95 per cent of the total vehicle insurance market. That's not meaningful competition.
But ideology aside, the government has been unable to justify selling off ICBC or ending its monopoly on basic insurance. (Asked what effect that would have, Geer said "You would find chaos in the marketplace, you would probably see the bankruptcy of ICBC.")
The Crown corporation has cut costs, raised rates by about 13 per cent over three years and reduced the level of coverage, and generally seems to remain well-viewed by British Columbians.
It hardly seems like the kind of thing that an unpopular government would want to mess with in the run-up to next May's election.
Footnote: Taylor's likely appointment sends a signal that the Liberals think the toughest part of the cost-cutting program are behind them. It also could mean a big raise: Taylor is paid $200,000; Geer was getting $262,000 to run ICBC, with hefty bonus potential.
The Liberals want to loosen ICBC's grip and let private insurance companies grab a bigger share of the business. Their campaign platform included a pledge to introduce "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums."
That hasn't happened.
Part of the problem was timing. As the Liberals took over, private car insurance rates were soaring across Canada and becoming a major political problem for provincial governments. But in B.C., rates were stable and the system was working.
The privatization push also ran into a problem in ICBC's new CEO, picked by the Liberals to run the company like a business. Nick Geer left his job as a vice-president in Jimmy Pattison's empire to run ICBC. And after taking a look at the company, he decided the current level of competition - which is tiny - served ICBC and its customers well.
Geer won the battles for a time, despite government grumbling. But earlier this summer he was pushed out with a $450,000 severance package. ICBC board member Ted Smith, a former broadcast industry executive, blamed the government. "In all my years in business, I have never seen a more stupid move in any company or corporation, public or private," he told the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer.
Geer's likely successor is Paul Taylor, who has been helping the Liberals cut costs since he was brought in right after the election. Taylor helped spearhead the Klein government's cost-cutting moves, and has done the same thing for the Liberals as finance deputy minister. His government role has just been cut back, clearing the way for the leap to ICBC, where he'll push the Liberal plan to shrink the corporation's role.
It's an initiative that should have Liberal MLAs cringing. The Campbell government has stumbled into a string of problems with its plans for Crown corporations, with the current BC Ferries' furore only the latest. Taking a fling at remaking another one, so close to the election, seems highly risky.
Especially when it's a Crown corporation that touches the pocketbook of almost every family in the province.
The idea of competition is appealing, because without it consumers will never know if they're paying too much for their car insurance. The basic principle, that competing companies will produce innovation and benefits for consumer, makes good sense.
Right now there is no real competition in car insurance in B.C. ICBC has a monopoly on basic insurance - the coverage you must have to cover the cost of dealing with injuries resulting from a car crash. That's about 60 per cent of the entire insurance market.
Optional insurance - the coverage to pay for repairs, for example - is theoretically open to competition. But ICBC's grip on the basic coverage means most people take the path of least resistance and buy their optional coverage from the Crown corporation as well. The result is that private companies have about 15 per cent of the optional coverage, a percentage that hasn't really changed under the Liberals.
Crunch the numbers, and you find ICBC has close to 95 per cent of the total vehicle insurance market. That's not meaningful competition.
But ideology aside, the government has been unable to justify selling off ICBC or ending its monopoly on basic insurance. (Asked what effect that would have, Geer said "You would find chaos in the marketplace, you would probably see the bankruptcy of ICBC.")
The Crown corporation has cut costs, raised rates by about 13 per cent over three years and reduced the level of coverage, and generally seems to remain well-viewed by British Columbians.
It hardly seems like the kind of thing that an unpopular government would want to mess with in the run-up to next May's election.
Footnote: Taylor's likely appointment sends a signal that the Liberals think the toughest part of the cost-cutting program are behind them. It also could mean a big raise: Taylor is paid $200,000; Geer was getting $262,000 to run ICBC, with hefty bonus potential.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Time to abandon failed marijuana strategy
VICTORIA - B.C.'s approach to marijuana makes about as much sense as America's great Prohibition experiment in the '20s.
In both cases, the governments took aim at substances which are widely accepted. And in both cases, they decided that the way to achieve the goal was to wipe out the supply.
It's a doomed approach, as Prohibition established. The only big winners are serious criminals.
StatsCan has just released a new survey on drug use, which found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002. That's about 525,000 people, not nearly as many who knocked back a few beer on a Friday night but still an awful lot of people to portray as criminals.
Among younger British Columbians marijuana use is even more prevalent. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 and 24 has used marijuana in the last 12 months. The data suggests the percentage is about 45 per cent in B.C.
You can't arrest half-a-million people.
So Solicitor General Rich Coleman is advocating more enforcement, and tougher penalties, for the people who supply marijuana. He said the StatsCan results showed the need for the courts to get tough with people who run grow ops.
It's a doomed approach, like Prohibition.
Economic laws are just as powerful as the ones passed by politicians. When enough Americans wanted a drink after work, suppliers - from Al Capone to neighborhood bootleggers - emerged to meet the demand. When millions of Canadians have decided they want to smoke pot from time to time, then suppliers will emerge. That's the way markets work.
When demand is huge, attacking the supply side won't work. Too many people want to buy and the rewards are too great. And the public is not going to accept harsher and harsher penalties for people growing marijuana that one in six of them consume.
B.C. has tried. Despite the relaxed reputation, police lay a lot of charges. The StatsCan study found the rate of pot use in B.C. was about 25 per cent higher than the national average, the rate at which charges were laid was 75 per cent higher.
It hasn't worked. prompting calls for tougher penalties.
But look south of the border, where the war on drugs has been fought by locking up people.
Fewer than one in five people convicted in B.C. for running a grow op do jail time. In Washington State, almost half those convicted get a jail term of five years or more, Coleman says.
But the only result has been crowded jails. Marijuana is still readily available, and widely used. And despite concern about imports from Canada, most U.S. marijuana is grown domestically.
The B.C. government's stated concern is organized crime, and it's logical that any illegal activity with big cash profits is going to attract serious criminals.
But the current strategy isn't working. It's not reducing use, or the role of organized gangs.
That doesn't mean government has to give up. But it needs a new approach.
One obvious answer is to shift resources from indiscriminately busting grow ops to focusing specifically on organized crime. The Organized Crime Agency of BC - now rolled into the RCMP - complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. That hardly fights with a commitment to tackling the problem.
Another is an education campaign on all drugs, from alcohol to heroin, aimed at young users. Many aren't going to stop using, but with good information they can make much more sensible choices.
And another is to simply be more creative. If the aim is to rob organized crime of marijuana profits, then an easy answer is to turn a blind eye to people growing a dozen plants. Supply increases, prices fall and there's no role for the gangs. (An obvious, more complicated solution would be to legalize marijuana, placing it under government regulation.)
The choices are complicated. But one thing is clear - what we're doing now isn't working.
Footnote: The government also needs to be on the alert for unintended consequences. The Organized Crime Agency noted last year that efforts against grow ops had driven gangs into the production of crystal meth, a drug taking a terrible toll on young British Columbians.
In both cases, the governments took aim at substances which are widely accepted. And in both cases, they decided that the way to achieve the goal was to wipe out the supply.
It's a doomed approach, as Prohibition established. The only big winners are serious criminals.
StatsCan has just released a new survey on drug use, which found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002. That's about 525,000 people, not nearly as many who knocked back a few beer on a Friday night but still an awful lot of people to portray as criminals.
Among younger British Columbians marijuana use is even more prevalent. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 and 24 has used marijuana in the last 12 months. The data suggests the percentage is about 45 per cent in B.C.
You can't arrest half-a-million people.
So Solicitor General Rich Coleman is advocating more enforcement, and tougher penalties, for the people who supply marijuana. He said the StatsCan results showed the need for the courts to get tough with people who run grow ops.
It's a doomed approach, like Prohibition.
Economic laws are just as powerful as the ones passed by politicians. When enough Americans wanted a drink after work, suppliers - from Al Capone to neighborhood bootleggers - emerged to meet the demand. When millions of Canadians have decided they want to smoke pot from time to time, then suppliers will emerge. That's the way markets work.
When demand is huge, attacking the supply side won't work. Too many people want to buy and the rewards are too great. And the public is not going to accept harsher and harsher penalties for people growing marijuana that one in six of them consume.
B.C. has tried. Despite the relaxed reputation, police lay a lot of charges. The StatsCan study found the rate of pot use in B.C. was about 25 per cent higher than the national average, the rate at which charges were laid was 75 per cent higher.
It hasn't worked. prompting calls for tougher penalties.
But look south of the border, where the war on drugs has been fought by locking up people.
Fewer than one in five people convicted in B.C. for running a grow op do jail time. In Washington State, almost half those convicted get a jail term of five years or more, Coleman says.
But the only result has been crowded jails. Marijuana is still readily available, and widely used. And despite concern about imports from Canada, most U.S. marijuana is grown domestically.
The B.C. government's stated concern is organized crime, and it's logical that any illegal activity with big cash profits is going to attract serious criminals.
But the current strategy isn't working. It's not reducing use, or the role of organized gangs.
That doesn't mean government has to give up. But it needs a new approach.
One obvious answer is to shift resources from indiscriminately busting grow ops to focusing specifically on organized crime. The Organized Crime Agency of BC - now rolled into the RCMP - complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. That hardly fights with a commitment to tackling the problem.
Another is an education campaign on all drugs, from alcohol to heroin, aimed at young users. Many aren't going to stop using, but with good information they can make much more sensible choices.
And another is to simply be more creative. If the aim is to rob organized crime of marijuana profits, then an easy answer is to turn a blind eye to people growing a dozen plants. Supply increases, prices fall and there's no role for the gangs. (An obvious, more complicated solution would be to legalize marijuana, placing it under government regulation.)
The choices are complicated. But one thing is clear - what we're doing now isn't working.
Footnote: The government also needs to be on the alert for unintended consequences. The Organized Crime Agency noted last year that efforts against grow ops had driven gangs into the production of crystal meth, a drug taking a terrible toll on young British Columbians.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Scary crime stats and the war on drugs
VICTORIA - We treat each batch of crime statistics like some campfire ghost story, eagerly looking for new reasons to be frightened by a dangerous world.
So when Statistics Canada reported a jump in property crime in B.C. this week it was big news and a hot discussion topic. The main theme was that our corner of the world is becoming less safe, and the most commonly offered solution was more police and longer sentences.
Except that the scary story was just about as made-up as those campfire tales about one-handed killers and midnight callers.
Violent crime in B.C. dropped again this year, as it has for at least the past seven years. The rate of violent crime - and your chances of becoming a victim - has fallen by 15 per cent since 1996. You're safer, not at greater risk.
Property crime did jump by almost six per cent last year. That's worrying. But it's no cause for panic, any more than the six-per-cent drop in 2000 was a cause for wild celebration. There are just too many variables for single-year statistics to have much meaning. (For example, Vancouver police started letting people report crimes over the Internet last year, a positive change that likely increased the number of reported offences.)
And again the long-term trend is positive. The property crime rate has fallen by about 10 per cent since 1996. Some of that improvement is likely because people no longer report minor offences, but the numbers show that things are not all that bad.
There's nothing wrong with ghost stories. Perhaps worrying about imaginary dangers offers us a distraction from the more complex, real ones out there.
But they're a dangerous basis for public policy, as revealed by our costly, failed efforts to deal with marijuana use.
Statistics Canada's latest survey on drug use found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002 - about 525,000 people. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 to 24 has used marijuana in the last year. The likely rises to about 45 per cent in B.C., based on StatCan's numbers.
It's impractical for any government to think that it can enforce laws that make criminals of so many citizens.
The B.C. government disagrees and opposes the federal Liberals' move to decriminalize pot possession. Grow ops, trafficking and smuggling are enriching organized crime, it argues, and wants tougher penalties.
Facts about the extent of the problem are scarce. There's lots of talk about the need for tougher drug enforcement to stop a flood of B.C. marijuana into the U.S. But a recent RCMP report noted U.S. Customs seized 27 times more marijuana along the Mexican border than they did on the Canadian side, an indication that B.C.'s export role may be overblown.
And while there's also lots of talk about violence, an RCMP study of 12,000 B.C. grow -op reports revealed guns were found at six per cent; overall about 24 per cent of homes in the province have firearms.
An illegal, profitable activity is certain to attract some serious criminals.
But attempts to solve a drug problem by attacking sources of supply have consistently failed. America's Prohibition experiment in the '20s showed that if enough people want a drink, or any other product,, suppliers will meet the demand.
Tougher laws won't change that reality. The U.S. has also tried extreme penalties in drug cases. But the RCMP report noted that most American marijuana is still grown domestically and it's widely available. (In any case, jailing people for years for providing a product used by half-a-million British Columbians would bring justice into disrepute.)
There's no simple solution. But if the objective is to deal with organized crime, then perhaps resources should be shifted from dealing with the thousands of small grow ops to focused enforcement. Or perhaps cultivation of a few plants should be legalized, a change which would take the profits - and the gangs - out of the business.
There's nothing wrong with a good ghost story. But our sense of safety, and our response to crime, they're better based on fact.
- From the Vancouver Sun
So when Statistics Canada reported a jump in property crime in B.C. this week it was big news and a hot discussion topic. The main theme was that our corner of the world is becoming less safe, and the most commonly offered solution was more police and longer sentences.
Except that the scary story was just about as made-up as those campfire tales about one-handed killers and midnight callers.
Violent crime in B.C. dropped again this year, as it has for at least the past seven years. The rate of violent crime - and your chances of becoming a victim - has fallen by 15 per cent since 1996. You're safer, not at greater risk.
Property crime did jump by almost six per cent last year. That's worrying. But it's no cause for panic, any more than the six-per-cent drop in 2000 was a cause for wild celebration. There are just too many variables for single-year statistics to have much meaning. (For example, Vancouver police started letting people report crimes over the Internet last year, a positive change that likely increased the number of reported offences.)
And again the long-term trend is positive. The property crime rate has fallen by about 10 per cent since 1996. Some of that improvement is likely because people no longer report minor offences, but the numbers show that things are not all that bad.
There's nothing wrong with ghost stories. Perhaps worrying about imaginary dangers offers us a distraction from the more complex, real ones out there.
But they're a dangerous basis for public policy, as revealed by our costly, failed efforts to deal with marijuana use.
Statistics Canada's latest survey on drug use found that 16 per cent of British Columbians 15 and over had used marijuana in 2002 - about 525,000 people. Across Canada, more than one-third of people from 15 to 24 has used marijuana in the last year. The likely rises to about 45 per cent in B.C., based on StatCan's numbers.
It's impractical for any government to think that it can enforce laws that make criminals of so many citizens.
The B.C. government disagrees and opposes the federal Liberals' move to decriminalize pot possession. Grow ops, trafficking and smuggling are enriching organized crime, it argues, and wants tougher penalties.
Facts about the extent of the problem are scarce. There's lots of talk about the need for tougher drug enforcement to stop a flood of B.C. marijuana into the U.S. But a recent RCMP report noted U.S. Customs seized 27 times more marijuana along the Mexican border than they did on the Canadian side, an indication that B.C.'s export role may be overblown.
And while there's also lots of talk about violence, an RCMP study of 12,000 B.C. grow -op reports revealed guns were found at six per cent; overall about 24 per cent of homes in the province have firearms.
An illegal, profitable activity is certain to attract some serious criminals.
But attempts to solve a drug problem by attacking sources of supply have consistently failed. America's Prohibition experiment in the '20s showed that if enough people want a drink, or any other product,, suppliers will meet the demand.
Tougher laws won't change that reality. The U.S. has also tried extreme penalties in drug cases. But the RCMP report noted that most American marijuana is still grown domestically and it's widely available. (In any case, jailing people for years for providing a product used by half-a-million British Columbians would bring justice into disrepute.)
There's no simple solution. But if the objective is to deal with organized crime, then perhaps resources should be shifted from dealing with the thousands of small grow ops to focused enforcement. Or perhaps cultivation of a few plants should be legalized, a change which would take the profits - and the gangs - out of the business.
There's nothing wrong with a good ghost story. But our sense of safety, and our response to crime, they're better based on fact.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Notes: new subsidy for New Skeena; doctors' peace; and battling the U.S.
VICTORIA - Random notes on more taxpayers' money for the old Skeena Cellulose, a successful deal with the doctors and the risks of an environmental battle with the U.S..
Taxpayers - both local and provincial - appear to be on the hook for some $20 million in subsidies for the latest effort to revive New Skeena, the reincarnation of Skeena Cellulose.
The Liberals lasted the NDP's bailout of Skeena, which wound up costing taxpayers more than $400 million. And they've promised to end business subsidies.
But while the the details are still to come, cabinet has quietly changed the rules so northwest towns can write off taxes owed them by Skeena. The Terrace Standard reports that the towns are ready to write off more than half the $30 million they're owed in unpaid property taxes, with Prince Rupert taking the biggest hit. The province is also prepared to write off $5 million in school property taxes, the Standard reports.
Thats sounds remarkably like a subsidy. But New Skeena hasn't operated since the Liberals pulled the plug on the old company in 2001, and sold it for $8 million. It now apparently stands a good chance of negotiating a $70-million investment by The Woodbridge Company, the holding company for billionaire Ken Thomson and his family. That's about half the capital needed to restart the business.
But paying the back taxes would have gobbled up much of the investment, and Woodbridge apparently wanted a break. And now it will get it.
The move will play well in the region.
But it's tough to square with the Liberals' promise of no more business subsidies. Skeena gets a a tax break, while other forest companies - some in tough shape - have to make good on their debts.
Next date to watch is Aug. 9, when New Skeena, currently under bankruptcy protection, is back in court.
Good news for the government, and the public, in the new deal with the province's doctors. Doctors and government bashed each other when talks began last year, but this week Health Minister Colin Hansen and BCMA head Jack Burak announced a three-year deal. Doctors get no overall increase in the first two years, but about $100 million within the annual budget - about four per cent - will be moved around to meet their needs and improve care. About $60 million of the money comes from reduced payments for lab services; the other $40 million will come from unused money apparently sloshing around in the health care system.
Doctors also win binding arbitration in year three, although Hansen was quick to note that the government reserves the right to reject the deal, making it at best semi-binding.
The government made much of the fact that doctors accepted the no-wage-increase policy, like others in the public sector.
But the real win was in getting any kind of deal without a bitter dispute. Doctors, health authorities and the province are going to have to work together to make the health care system work better, and this is a good step.
Who would have thought that the toughest opposition to coalbed methane development in B.C. would come from across the U.S. border?
The province is auctioning off some leases in the Kootenays for development of coalbed methane reserves, but it's facing a fierce fight from Montana politicians and environmentalists, including the state's governor and powerful Senator Max Baucus, a frequent foe of Canada.
The reserves are near the border and an U.S. national park, and the Americans say B.C. hasn't done enough planning and investigation of environmental risks. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld says B.C. has a strong regulatory system and detailed studies aren't needed until the companies are ready to start work.
The issue of coalbed methane rates a separate column.
But the government, which is counting heavily on coalbed methane development across B.C., should be very alarmed at the U.S. opposition and the likely support it will garner in some corners of the province.
Footnote: Government can't stop fires. It can reduce the economic fallout. For the second year, tourism businesses are reporting cancelled trips by people from Europe and the U.S., who are convinced the province is on fire. An emergency fund of $2 million would be enough to counter the misinformation with some targeted messages aimed a our best markets.
Taxpayers - both local and provincial - appear to be on the hook for some $20 million in subsidies for the latest effort to revive New Skeena, the reincarnation of Skeena Cellulose.
The Liberals lasted the NDP's bailout of Skeena, which wound up costing taxpayers more than $400 million. And they've promised to end business subsidies.
But while the the details are still to come, cabinet has quietly changed the rules so northwest towns can write off taxes owed them by Skeena. The Terrace Standard reports that the towns are ready to write off more than half the $30 million they're owed in unpaid property taxes, with Prince Rupert taking the biggest hit. The province is also prepared to write off $5 million in school property taxes, the Standard reports.
Thats sounds remarkably like a subsidy. But New Skeena hasn't operated since the Liberals pulled the plug on the old company in 2001, and sold it for $8 million. It now apparently stands a good chance of negotiating a $70-million investment by The Woodbridge Company, the holding company for billionaire Ken Thomson and his family. That's about half the capital needed to restart the business.
But paying the back taxes would have gobbled up much of the investment, and Woodbridge apparently wanted a break. And now it will get it.
The move will play well in the region.
But it's tough to square with the Liberals' promise of no more business subsidies. Skeena gets a a tax break, while other forest companies - some in tough shape - have to make good on their debts.
Next date to watch is Aug. 9, when New Skeena, currently under bankruptcy protection, is back in court.
Good news for the government, and the public, in the new deal with the province's doctors. Doctors and government bashed each other when talks began last year, but this week Health Minister Colin Hansen and BCMA head Jack Burak announced a three-year deal. Doctors get no overall increase in the first two years, but about $100 million within the annual budget - about four per cent - will be moved around to meet their needs and improve care. About $60 million of the money comes from reduced payments for lab services; the other $40 million will come from unused money apparently sloshing around in the health care system.
Doctors also win binding arbitration in year three, although Hansen was quick to note that the government reserves the right to reject the deal, making it at best semi-binding.
The government made much of the fact that doctors accepted the no-wage-increase policy, like others in the public sector.
But the real win was in getting any kind of deal without a bitter dispute. Doctors, health authorities and the province are going to have to work together to make the health care system work better, and this is a good step.
Who would have thought that the toughest opposition to coalbed methane development in B.C. would come from across the U.S. border?
The province is auctioning off some leases in the Kootenays for development of coalbed methane reserves, but it's facing a fierce fight from Montana politicians and environmentalists, including the state's governor and powerful Senator Max Baucus, a frequent foe of Canada.
The reserves are near the border and an U.S. national park, and the Americans say B.C. hasn't done enough planning and investigation of environmental risks. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld says B.C. has a strong regulatory system and detailed studies aren't needed until the companies are ready to start work.
The issue of coalbed methane rates a separate column.
But the government, which is counting heavily on coalbed methane development across B.C., should be very alarmed at the U.S. opposition and the likely support it will garner in some corners of the province.
Footnote: Government can't stop fires. It can reduce the economic fallout. For the second year, tourism businesses are reporting cancelled trips by people from Europe and the U.S., who are convinced the province is on fire. An emergency fund of $2 million would be enough to counter the misinformation with some targeted messages aimed a our best markets.
Monday, July 26, 2004
B.C. shipyards deserve chance to compete for ferry contracts
VICTORIA - BC Ferries should buy new ships where ever they can get the best deal.
But it's irresponsible to bar B.C. shipyards from even trying to win construction contracts for new ferries that could be worth $500 million - 25 per cent of BC Ferries' capital budget for the next decade.
I'm not one of those who would argue that it's worth paying more to build the ships in B.C.
But this decision, in the words of Liberal MLA Dan Jarvis, looks "blatantly stupid."
BC Ferries needs two or three new mid-size ships, and hopes to award the contracts this fall.
But the government-owned business has already decided B.C. shipbuilders won't be allowed to bid. BC Ferries looked at the province's shipyards, and decided they were so hopelessly out of the picture that they couldn't even make the three-firm shortlist.
The work and the jobs will go to a European company, and B.C. shipbuilders won't even get a chance to try and win the contract.
Why? The answers from BC Ferries and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon have been unconvincing. BC Ferries says they looked at the infrastructure available to B.C. shipbuilders - the cranes and the drydocks - and decided they just weren't adequate. Falcon says building the ferries here would cost $60 million more.
But how does Falcon know, if B.C. companies aren't allowed to bid? How does BC Ferries know the companies don't have an innovative solution, or whether they are prepared to invest?
I'm not saying that B.C. shipbuilders should get preferential treatment, or that BC Ferries should pay more to have the ships built here.
That would mean someone would be subsidizing the shipyards and their employees.
The money has to come from somewhere. If it's from taxpayers, a single mother in Nelson would have to pay more to subsidize a big U.S.-owned corporation.
If it's through fare increases, then every ferry trip would cost more than it needed to, and that also has economic implications - for tourism, for businesses dependent on the ferries and for individuals.
B.C. shipyards shouldn't be guaranteed the work. They should have to win it, in a fair an open competition.
But they deserve a chance to compete
It's hard to BC Ferries management and the Liberals are thinking. There's no obvious risk to allowing B.C. companies to bid. BC Ferries says these will be fixed price contracts, so if there are cost over-runs the shipbuilder will take the hit. And all the bids will be assessed to make sure the companies can deliver. Giving B.C. shipbuilders a fair chance would cost nothing.
Unless BC Ferries needs to discredit the capacity of the B.C. and Canadian industry in order to win a tax break. Canada imposes a 25-per-cent duty on ships built outside the country, because so many foreign governments subsidize their shipbuilders. BC Ferries plans to apply for an exemption, arguing that no Canadian shipyard could build the ships. (Federal Liberal MP Keith Martin says BC Ferries is wrong and opposes the exemption.)
The plan to slam the door on the B.C. industry before the competition even begins has come in for a quick attack from Jarvis, whose North Vancouver riding includes shipyards.
Building the ships overseas - Finland and Germany are the likely choices - would be "blatantly stupid," he says. B.C. companies have built the much bigger Spirit class ships an all the rest of the ferry fleet, he notes. "We're losing too many jobs everywhere and we certainly don't need to have it when I know we've got a pretty healthy shipbuilding industry."
There's an odd political irony here. The Liberals have constantly used the fast ferry disaster - rightly - as a symbol of NDP mismanagement. Now they've created their own political mess over ferry construction.
B.C. shipyards aren't entitled to handouts.
But they surely deserve a chance to compete.
Footnote: So much for the Liberals' hope that shifting BC Ferries from a Crown corporation to a semi-independent authority would protect the government from these kind of controversies. Government owns BC Ferries; taxpayers' subsidize it; and it's critical to the economy. This isn't just another decision by a private company.
But it's irresponsible to bar B.C. shipyards from even trying to win construction contracts for new ferries that could be worth $500 million - 25 per cent of BC Ferries' capital budget for the next decade.
I'm not one of those who would argue that it's worth paying more to build the ships in B.C.
But this decision, in the words of Liberal MLA Dan Jarvis, looks "blatantly stupid."
BC Ferries needs two or three new mid-size ships, and hopes to award the contracts this fall.
But the government-owned business has already decided B.C. shipbuilders won't be allowed to bid. BC Ferries looked at the province's shipyards, and decided they were so hopelessly out of the picture that they couldn't even make the three-firm shortlist.
The work and the jobs will go to a European company, and B.C. shipbuilders won't even get a chance to try and win the contract.
Why? The answers from BC Ferries and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon have been unconvincing. BC Ferries says they looked at the infrastructure available to B.C. shipbuilders - the cranes and the drydocks - and decided they just weren't adequate. Falcon says building the ferries here would cost $60 million more.
But how does Falcon know, if B.C. companies aren't allowed to bid? How does BC Ferries know the companies don't have an innovative solution, or whether they are prepared to invest?
I'm not saying that B.C. shipbuilders should get preferential treatment, or that BC Ferries should pay more to have the ships built here.
That would mean someone would be subsidizing the shipyards and their employees.
The money has to come from somewhere. If it's from taxpayers, a single mother in Nelson would have to pay more to subsidize a big U.S.-owned corporation.
If it's through fare increases, then every ferry trip would cost more than it needed to, and that also has economic implications - for tourism, for businesses dependent on the ferries and for individuals.
B.C. shipyards shouldn't be guaranteed the work. They should have to win it, in a fair an open competition.
But they deserve a chance to compete
It's hard to BC Ferries management and the Liberals are thinking. There's no obvious risk to allowing B.C. companies to bid. BC Ferries says these will be fixed price contracts, so if there are cost over-runs the shipbuilder will take the hit. And all the bids will be assessed to make sure the companies can deliver. Giving B.C. shipbuilders a fair chance would cost nothing.
Unless BC Ferries needs to discredit the capacity of the B.C. and Canadian industry in order to win a tax break. Canada imposes a 25-per-cent duty on ships built outside the country, because so many foreign governments subsidize their shipbuilders. BC Ferries plans to apply for an exemption, arguing that no Canadian shipyard could build the ships. (Federal Liberal MP Keith Martin says BC Ferries is wrong and opposes the exemption.)
The plan to slam the door on the B.C. industry before the competition even begins has come in for a quick attack from Jarvis, whose North Vancouver riding includes shipyards.
Building the ships overseas - Finland and Germany are the likely choices - would be "blatantly stupid," he says. B.C. companies have built the much bigger Spirit class ships an all the rest of the ferry fleet, he notes. "We're losing too many jobs everywhere and we certainly don't need to have it when I know we've got a pretty healthy shipbuilding industry."
There's an odd political irony here. The Liberals have constantly used the fast ferry disaster - rightly - as a symbol of NDP mismanagement. Now they've created their own political mess over ferry construction.
B.C. shipyards aren't entitled to handouts.
But they surely deserve a chance to compete.
Footnote: So much for the Liberals' hope that shifting BC Ferries from a Crown corporation to a semi-independent authority would protect the government from these kind of controversies. Government owns BC Ferries; taxpayers' subsidize it; and it's critical to the economy. This isn't just another decision by a private company.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Resource towns fight back against arriviste rock stars
VICTORIA - When Randy Bachman and Neil Young are rocking in Duncan this fall, raising money for the next round in a fight against a nearby pulp mill, Leanne Brunt is going to be there too.
But not inside the theatre, clutching one of the hot $200 tickets.
Ms. Brunt and friends will be handing out pamphlets outside the theatre, and holding their own small-scale festival - "a celebration of resource communities and the people who live in them."
The duelling concerts - one with rock stars, the other with a picnic and some kids' games - mark the start of a new B.C.battle, one that goes far beyond the fight over emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
Mr. Bachman lives in a $3-million enviro-friendly house on Saltspring Island. He and a clutch of like-minded Islanders joined forces in the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group. They want an independent study of the emissions from the mill, which is about five kilometres across the water from Saltspring.
Ms. Brunt lives in a considerably more modest house in Campbell River. Like many of the people who work at the mill, she suspects the real goal of Mr. Bachman's group is to shut the mill down.
It's exactly the the kind of conflict that led her and others on the North Island to strt a movement called First Dollar. People in B.C.'s resource communities have been ignored and pushed around for too long, they say, by politicians, urbanites, and people like Mr. Bachman.
It's a divide you can see across the province. But the two worlds collide with the loudest crash in places where moneyed newcomers set down alongside resource communities.
In Pemberton, the current dispute is about logging in the "viewshed." In the Kootenays, it's about gas drilling. And on Saltspring and in the Cowichan Valley, it's about the pulp mill, which has been an economic mainstay for 47 years. Norkse employs about 1,000 people in the area, at above-average wages.
The relationship between mill and community has often been uneasy, especially as the community gentrified. But the current batlle was sparked by a company proposal to start using chipped-up railway ties, coal and shredded tires as fuel to supplement wood chips in the mill's boilers.
There's room for debate on the effects of using that kind of fuel, and a need for independent scientific review.
But many of the people who count on the mill for a living are convinced the critic's larger goal is to shut the mill down. If that's so, no amount of improvements will satisfy opponents.
The clean-air group denies such accusations. But then came the leak of an e-mail from Mr. Bachman to the provincial environment ministry. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he thundered in the January e-mail.
Mr. Bachman's publicist has since told reporters he has changed his mind, and no longer wants the mill closed.
Ms. Brunt doesn't have a publicist - not many single moms working in aquaculture do. She says all across B.C. people are moving to resource communities and then deciding they don't like the industries that have kept the towns alive. Couple that with government neglect and it's costing communites good jobs. "I have a 22-year-old son, and when he graduated a lot of his peers just left B.C.," she says.
First Dollar is only a few months old, but it's already found supporters across the province, including mayors and MLAs. Te goal is to promote resource industries, challenge opponents and counter boycott campaigns - generally, to push back.
B.C. has had its share of battles pitting environmentalists against companies (and sometimes unions). They have reshaped politics, helping the Green Party grow.
But this is a different kind of division, with its own impact on provincial politics. Both groups are significant. Both will be looking for a party that best reflects their ideals. Neither has an obvious political home.
Mr. Bachman and Ms. Brunt are in the frontlines of a battle that's likely to shake up B.C. politics every bit as much as the enviro campaigns of the '90s.
- From the Vancouver Sun
But not inside the theatre, clutching one of the hot $200 tickets.
Ms. Brunt and friends will be handing out pamphlets outside the theatre, and holding their own small-scale festival - "a celebration of resource communities and the people who live in them."
The duelling concerts - one with rock stars, the other with a picnic and some kids' games - mark the start of a new B.C.battle, one that goes far beyond the fight over emissions from Norske Canada's Crofton pulp mill.
Mr. Bachman lives in a $3-million enviro-friendly house on Saltspring Island. He and a clutch of like-minded Islanders joined forces in the Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group. They want an independent study of the emissions from the mill, which is about five kilometres across the water from Saltspring.
Ms. Brunt lives in a considerably more modest house in Campbell River. Like many of the people who work at the mill, she suspects the real goal of Mr. Bachman's group is to shut the mill down.
It's exactly the the kind of conflict that led her and others on the North Island to strt a movement called First Dollar. People in B.C.'s resource communities have been ignored and pushed around for too long, they say, by politicians, urbanites, and people like Mr. Bachman.
It's a divide you can see across the province. But the two worlds collide with the loudest crash in places where moneyed newcomers set down alongside resource communities.
In Pemberton, the current dispute is about logging in the "viewshed." In the Kootenays, it's about gas drilling. And on Saltspring and in the Cowichan Valley, it's about the pulp mill, which has been an economic mainstay for 47 years. Norkse employs about 1,000 people in the area, at above-average wages.
The relationship between mill and community has often been uneasy, especially as the community gentrified. But the current batlle was sparked by a company proposal to start using chipped-up railway ties, coal and shredded tires as fuel to supplement wood chips in the mill's boilers.
There's room for debate on the effects of using that kind of fuel, and a need for independent scientific review.
But many of the people who count on the mill for a living are convinced the critic's larger goal is to shut the mill down. If that's so, no amount of improvements will satisfy opponents.
The clean-air group denies such accusations. But then came the leak of an e-mail from Mr. Bachman to the provincial environment ministry. “We will not rest until the Crofton mill is shut down permanently,” he thundered in the January e-mail.
Mr. Bachman's publicist has since told reporters he has changed his mind, and no longer wants the mill closed.
Ms. Brunt doesn't have a publicist - not many single moms working in aquaculture do. She says all across B.C. people are moving to resource communities and then deciding they don't like the industries that have kept the towns alive. Couple that with government neglect and it's costing communites good jobs. "I have a 22-year-old son, and when he graduated a lot of his peers just left B.C.," she says.
First Dollar is only a few months old, but it's already found supporters across the province, including mayors and MLAs. Te goal is to promote resource industries, challenge opponents and counter boycott campaigns - generally, to push back.
B.C. has had its share of battles pitting environmentalists against companies (and sometimes unions). They have reshaped politics, helping the Green Party grow.
But this is a different kind of division, with its own impact on provincial politics. Both groups are significant. Both will be looking for a party that best reflects their ideals. Neither has an obvious political home.
Mr. Bachman and Ms. Brunt are in the frontlines of a battle that's likely to shake up B.C. politics every bit as much as the enviro campaigns of the '90s.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Watchdog sounds children and families warnings
VICTORIA - It's a remarkable disgrace, the way the children and families ministry has been mismanaged.
The people the ministry serves rely on us. Some 9,000 children are in our care. We - not the government, but you and I - said OK, we'll take care of you. Your parents can't, so we'll get you through the perils of childhood and launch you into the world.
It's not just those kids. The ministry helps families in trouble, mentally disabled adults. Their counting on us. Not because they want to, but because they need us.
I'm not keen on this. I've got my family, my work, my worries. But they're counting on us, these children and families. And we're not such jerks that we can tell some four-year-old, lugging her plastic bag of possessions to a new foster home, that she should just shape up and make her own way. We're not ready to say 'Sorry, little one, need to trim the budget a bit, better in the long run. Try and cry quietly while you go off to sleep in a strange bed.'
I have children. I know how hard it is for them to make their way into this life even with lots of advantages - enough money, good schools and parents who, in their fumbling way, are trying hard to do the right thing. That means I know how much harder, and sadder, it must be to make your own way without those things.
I'm not always a great parent, but I've tried. Governments haven't tried with these kids.
This isn't about the bad Campbell Liberals. The NDP turned indifference and incompetence into an art when it came to the ministry of children and families.
But the Liberals promised better. More money for the ministry, more commitment, stability, competence. And they have betrayed that promise, and those children and families.
Instead of providing more money, they tried to impose a ridiculous 23-per-cent budget cut. When that blew apart, they settled for a 12-per-cent cut. Instead of more stability they opted for a bungled restructuring effort.
There was lots of talk, about moving to new regional authorities, supporting families and giving communities control. There was a great deal of volunteer work done by people across the province to help prepare for the transition, which makes sense.
But there wasn't competent management. The first regional authorities were supposed to be operating now. Instead they've been pushed off to 2006 or 2007. Community planning committees for the five non-aboriginal authorities have been shut down; aboriginal committees have had their budgets cut.
Child and Youth officer Jane Morley has just looked at the ministry's efforts in her first real annual report. The title - Stay the Course - and the tone are upbeat.
But the warnings are stark.
Many people no longer believe the changes are even going to happen, and feel betrayed. "The trust and engagement of those who have put energy into the transformation cannot be turned on and off like a tap," she reported.
Many on the front-lines believe the government plans are really about cutting costs, not providing better care. "My team and I have heard from many service providers as well as service users and their advocates that budget cuts have reduced communities’ capacity to provide needed services," she found. "Many believe that talk of shared responsibility with communities is code for downloading government financial responsibility."
Unless "real authority and resources continue to be devolved to the regions and through them to communities" the whole process may fail, she warns.
We had a right to expect better. The Liberals called for more money for the ministry when they were in opposition. Their election platform promised an end to constant bureaucratic restructuring.
Instead, they ignored warnings and launched a reckless, mismanaged plan to cuts spending while totally restructuring the ministry.
And children and families across the province have paid the price.
Footnote: From the report: "Sufficient resources are a prerequisite for an effective service delivery system. Yet there is never enough money to fund health, education and welfare needs . . . . In this competition, the voices of children and youth are not loud; they need champions to ensure that they are not forgotten when scarce resources are allocated."
The people the ministry serves rely on us. Some 9,000 children are in our care. We - not the government, but you and I - said OK, we'll take care of you. Your parents can't, so we'll get you through the perils of childhood and launch you into the world.
It's not just those kids. The ministry helps families in trouble, mentally disabled adults. Their counting on us. Not because they want to, but because they need us.
I'm not keen on this. I've got my family, my work, my worries. But they're counting on us, these children and families. And we're not such jerks that we can tell some four-year-old, lugging her plastic bag of possessions to a new foster home, that she should just shape up and make her own way. We're not ready to say 'Sorry, little one, need to trim the budget a bit, better in the long run. Try and cry quietly while you go off to sleep in a strange bed.'
I have children. I know how hard it is for them to make their way into this life even with lots of advantages - enough money, good schools and parents who, in their fumbling way, are trying hard to do the right thing. That means I know how much harder, and sadder, it must be to make your own way without those things.
I'm not always a great parent, but I've tried. Governments haven't tried with these kids.
This isn't about the bad Campbell Liberals. The NDP turned indifference and incompetence into an art when it came to the ministry of children and families.
But the Liberals promised better. More money for the ministry, more commitment, stability, competence. And they have betrayed that promise, and those children and families.
Instead of providing more money, they tried to impose a ridiculous 23-per-cent budget cut. When that blew apart, they settled for a 12-per-cent cut. Instead of more stability they opted for a bungled restructuring effort.
There was lots of talk, about moving to new regional authorities, supporting families and giving communities control. There was a great deal of volunteer work done by people across the province to help prepare for the transition, which makes sense.
But there wasn't competent management. The first regional authorities were supposed to be operating now. Instead they've been pushed off to 2006 or 2007. Community planning committees for the five non-aboriginal authorities have been shut down; aboriginal committees have had their budgets cut.
Child and Youth officer Jane Morley has just looked at the ministry's efforts in her first real annual report. The title - Stay the Course - and the tone are upbeat.
But the warnings are stark.
Many people no longer believe the changes are even going to happen, and feel betrayed. "The trust and engagement of those who have put energy into the transformation cannot be turned on and off like a tap," she reported.
Many on the front-lines believe the government plans are really about cutting costs, not providing better care. "My team and I have heard from many service providers as well as service users and their advocates that budget cuts have reduced communities’ capacity to provide needed services," she found. "Many believe that talk of shared responsibility with communities is code for downloading government financial responsibility."
Unless "real authority and resources continue to be devolved to the regions and through them to communities" the whole process may fail, she warns.
We had a right to expect better. The Liberals called for more money for the ministry when they were in opposition. Their election platform promised an end to constant bureaucratic restructuring.
Instead, they ignored warnings and launched a reckless, mismanaged plan to cuts spending while totally restructuring the ministry.
And children and families across the province have paid the price.
Footnote: From the report: "Sufficient resources are a prerequisite for an effective service delivery system. Yet there is never enough money to fund health, education and welfare needs . . . . In this competition, the voices of children and youth are not loud; they need champions to ensure that they are not forgotten when scarce resources are allocated."
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Martin's new cabinet good news for B.C.
VICTORIA - Expect a few quiet cheers from the BC Liberals at the news that Victoria MP David Anderson has been dropped from the new federal cabinet.
Followed quickly by groans as they contemplate the prospect of dealing with new federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, their former NDP adversary who once said Gordon Campbell wouldn't know the truth if it hit him the face.
All in all, the new cabinet looks like a gain for B.C.
The huge - perhaps even bloated - cabinet includes five ministers from B.C., the largest number in history. Dosanjh is joined by David Emerson as industry minister and Stephen Owen as minister for western economic development and sport. Raymond Chan gets multiculturalism and Jack Austin gets a seat at the table as the government leader in the Senate.
The numbers are intended to send a signal that B.C. matters. But the test will be what the clutch of ministers are actually able to do for the province on critical issues like the softwood lumber dispute.
Anderson's demotion will please the provincial Liberals on a couple of counts. As environment minister he had been a resolute foe of any plan to allow drilling for offshore oil and gas. Not until all the questions have been answered, he said, but always in a context that made it clear that what he really meant was never.
And during the election campaign he took a number of shots at the Campbell Liberals, blaming their unpopular policies for dragging down the federal party. There was at least some truth to the charges, but it hardly won Anderson points with the Campbell crew.
But Ujjal Dosanjh's emergence as health minister creates at least a couple of problems for the BC Liberals. Harsh words have been spoken in the past, and there's some illwill to be overcome.
And the Liberals will be twitchy about whether Dosanjh's new role will help Carole James in her efforts to paint the NDP as the voice of moderation, a party with more in common with federal Liberal voters than the Campbell government.
That shouldn't be a huge concern for the BC Liberals. The NDP had lots of nasty things to say about Dosanjh's jump to the federal Liberals, and there's illwill to be dealt with there as well.
Practically, Dosanjh should be the kind of health minister B.C. wants as the provinces head into negotiations with Ottawa on a new funding deal. He used to call on the federal government to increase funding; now he has at least a small chance to make that happen. (Small chance because the major health policy changes will be driven by the prime minister's office, not the health ministry.)
The most interesting addition is Emerson, a former top bureaucrat in Bill Bennett's Socred government and most recently head of Canfor. Industry is a big ministry - some 6,000 employees and a $1.4-billion budget - and includes responsibilities for tourism promotion and economic development.
Emerson is also the senior political minister for B.C., supported by Austin, a role that gives him the opportunity to emerge as a major voice for the province. (Though that was also the hope for Owen when he was elected in 2000. It didn't happen.)
It's an interesting time for the province.
Martin has promised to tackle B.C.'s sense of alienation. And with a minority government and facing a likely election within the next 18 months, he's got good political reasons for trying to convince British Columbians to back his party. (The Liberals and NDP were virtually tied for second place in the province in the election last month.)
That should provide opportunities for Gordon Campbell to lobby for increased federal aid, in terms of both money and policy change.
Count up all the pluses and minuses, and this looks like a cabinet with the potential to offer B.C. a stronger voice in Ottawa.
Footnote: Owen does have an opportunity to help B.C. as minister for western economic diversification, now removed from industry and made a stand alone minister. Owen is also responsible for the 2010 Olympics; he and Campbell can talk about the opportunities when they're both at the Athens Games next month.
Followed quickly by groans as they contemplate the prospect of dealing with new federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, their former NDP adversary who once said Gordon Campbell wouldn't know the truth if it hit him the face.
All in all, the new cabinet looks like a gain for B.C.
The huge - perhaps even bloated - cabinet includes five ministers from B.C., the largest number in history. Dosanjh is joined by David Emerson as industry minister and Stephen Owen as minister for western economic development and sport. Raymond Chan gets multiculturalism and Jack Austin gets a seat at the table as the government leader in the Senate.
The numbers are intended to send a signal that B.C. matters. But the test will be what the clutch of ministers are actually able to do for the province on critical issues like the softwood lumber dispute.
Anderson's demotion will please the provincial Liberals on a couple of counts. As environment minister he had been a resolute foe of any plan to allow drilling for offshore oil and gas. Not until all the questions have been answered, he said, but always in a context that made it clear that what he really meant was never.
And during the election campaign he took a number of shots at the Campbell Liberals, blaming their unpopular policies for dragging down the federal party. There was at least some truth to the charges, but it hardly won Anderson points with the Campbell crew.
But Ujjal Dosanjh's emergence as health minister creates at least a couple of problems for the BC Liberals. Harsh words have been spoken in the past, and there's some illwill to be overcome.
And the Liberals will be twitchy about whether Dosanjh's new role will help Carole James in her efforts to paint the NDP as the voice of moderation, a party with more in common with federal Liberal voters than the Campbell government.
That shouldn't be a huge concern for the BC Liberals. The NDP had lots of nasty things to say about Dosanjh's jump to the federal Liberals, and there's illwill to be dealt with there as well.
Practically, Dosanjh should be the kind of health minister B.C. wants as the provinces head into negotiations with Ottawa on a new funding deal. He used to call on the federal government to increase funding; now he has at least a small chance to make that happen. (Small chance because the major health policy changes will be driven by the prime minister's office, not the health ministry.)
The most interesting addition is Emerson, a former top bureaucrat in Bill Bennett's Socred government and most recently head of Canfor. Industry is a big ministry - some 6,000 employees and a $1.4-billion budget - and includes responsibilities for tourism promotion and economic development.
Emerson is also the senior political minister for B.C., supported by Austin, a role that gives him the opportunity to emerge as a major voice for the province. (Though that was also the hope for Owen when he was elected in 2000. It didn't happen.)
It's an interesting time for the province.
Martin has promised to tackle B.C.'s sense of alienation. And with a minority government and facing a likely election within the next 18 months, he's got good political reasons for trying to convince British Columbians to back his party. (The Liberals and NDP were virtually tied for second place in the province in the election last month.)
That should provide opportunities for Gordon Campbell to lobby for increased federal aid, in terms of both money and policy change.
Count up all the pluses and minuses, and this looks like a cabinet with the potential to offer B.C. a stronger voice in Ottawa.
Footnote: Owen does have an opportunity to help B.C. as minister for western economic diversification, now removed from industry and made a stand alone minister. Owen is also responsible for the 2010 Olympics; he and Campbell can talk about the opportunities when they're both at the Athens Games next month.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Bar on family care shows an uncaring government
VICTORIA - Remember the Baulnes, the Kelowna family whose lives ended in despair after the government refused to provide money to help cope with their disabled son?
Because your government doesn't.
Maurice and Belva Baulne and their son Reece sat together in their little RV more than 2 1/2 years ago, while a hose running from the exhaust pipe filled the space with carbon monoxide. They were desperate - exhausted, running out of money and hurt. After 34 years of caring for Reece, who suffered from a terrible form of epilepsy and severe emotional problems, Maurice and Belva were sinking. They believed that Reece's emotional problems meant that handing him to strangers would destroy him. They knew they couldn't go on.
They needed help, and had tried to get $500 a month from the government. But while it was prepared to pay $60,000 a year to place Reece in an institution, government policy banned any payment to family caregivers.
After the deaths, then children and families minister Gordon Hogg promised change. "If any good can come out of these deaths, it's an understanding of the need for more flexibility," he said.
Empty words. Just ask Cheryl Hutchinson.
She's 34, a university graduate and composer. She also suffers from cerebral palsy, and requires 24-hour care to provide all her physical needs. The government will provide $6,000 a month so she can hire support workers.
But not the care worker she wants to hire, the one who has been looking after her since she was 13 - her father Phillip. The same policy that shattered the Baulnes remains in place. The B.C. government, almost alone among provinces, bars family members from providing paid care.
Cheryl and a few others have been fighting the rule for more than six years. And finally, after long delays, a BC Human Rights Tribunal has just ruled that the ban is illegal. It discriminates against Cheryl because she's severely disabled and against her father by barring him from work.
But it was a momentary victory. The government says it will appeal the ruling.
Cheryl's father, a single parent who is now 71, quit his job when she was 13 to provide care and give her the best chance at a full, independent life. They often lived on the edge of poverty. When there was no money for a wheelchair, he carried her to the school bus each day. He bathes her, rises in the night to roll her over in bed, helps her to the bathroom.
She's tried paid caregivers, but they've quit, or made her feel unsafe. (Imagine depending on a succession of strangers for almost all your physical needs.)
The government told the human rights tribunal it wants to make families to recognize their legal and moral obligation to provide care. It seems to me that Hutchinson has showed he understands that obligation better than most of us.
And the government says opening the door a crack could see more and more families seeking funding, causing costs to rise.
But it provided no convincing evidence. The government still decides when care is needed. Other provinces have successfully developed policies allowing paid family care.
And remember, the issue isn't whether Cheryl needs care. The government has agreed to provide $6,000 a month. Just not to her father.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says the government has to appeal the ruling, because it raises important issues.
But there need not have been a ruling. Instead of fighting families, the government could have developed a policy that allowed exceptions to the ban on family care based on clear criteria. (This isn't a Liberal issue; the NDP government was just as unyielding.)
The government's treatment of Cheryl Hutchinson and others caught in the same cruel trap shows little attention was really paid to the desperation of the Baulnes, giving up on the world in their lonely RV.
Footnote: The government's claimed commitment to providing support to help people remain in their homes is being undercut on another front. Parents have made convincing complaints that they are forced to put their severely disabled children in foster care because they can't get adequate government help to care for them at home.
Because your government doesn't.
Maurice and Belva Baulne and their son Reece sat together in their little RV more than 2 1/2 years ago, while a hose running from the exhaust pipe filled the space with carbon monoxide. They were desperate - exhausted, running out of money and hurt. After 34 years of caring for Reece, who suffered from a terrible form of epilepsy and severe emotional problems, Maurice and Belva were sinking. They believed that Reece's emotional problems meant that handing him to strangers would destroy him. They knew they couldn't go on.
They needed help, and had tried to get $500 a month from the government. But while it was prepared to pay $60,000 a year to place Reece in an institution, government policy banned any payment to family caregivers.
After the deaths, then children and families minister Gordon Hogg promised change. "If any good can come out of these deaths, it's an understanding of the need for more flexibility," he said.
Empty words. Just ask Cheryl Hutchinson.
She's 34, a university graduate and composer. She also suffers from cerebral palsy, and requires 24-hour care to provide all her physical needs. The government will provide $6,000 a month so she can hire support workers.
But not the care worker she wants to hire, the one who has been looking after her since she was 13 - her father Phillip. The same policy that shattered the Baulnes remains in place. The B.C. government, almost alone among provinces, bars family members from providing paid care.
Cheryl and a few others have been fighting the rule for more than six years. And finally, after long delays, a BC Human Rights Tribunal has just ruled that the ban is illegal. It discriminates against Cheryl because she's severely disabled and against her father by barring him from work.
But it was a momentary victory. The government says it will appeal the ruling.
Cheryl's father, a single parent who is now 71, quit his job when she was 13 to provide care and give her the best chance at a full, independent life. They often lived on the edge of poverty. When there was no money for a wheelchair, he carried her to the school bus each day. He bathes her, rises in the night to roll her over in bed, helps her to the bathroom.
She's tried paid caregivers, but they've quit, or made her feel unsafe. (Imagine depending on a succession of strangers for almost all your physical needs.)
The government told the human rights tribunal it wants to make families to recognize their legal and moral obligation to provide care. It seems to me that Hutchinson has showed he understands that obligation better than most of us.
And the government says opening the door a crack could see more and more families seeking funding, causing costs to rise.
But it provided no convincing evidence. The government still decides when care is needed. Other provinces have successfully developed policies allowing paid family care.
And remember, the issue isn't whether Cheryl needs care. The government has agreed to provide $6,000 a month. Just not to her father.
Attorney General Geoff Plant says the government has to appeal the ruling, because it raises important issues.
But there need not have been a ruling. Instead of fighting families, the government could have developed a policy that allowed exceptions to the ban on family care based on clear criteria. (This isn't a Liberal issue; the NDP government was just as unyielding.)
The government's treatment of Cheryl Hutchinson and others caught in the same cruel trap shows little attention was really paid to the desperation of the Baulnes, giving up on the world in their lonely RV.
Footnote: The government's claimed commitment to providing support to help people remain in their homes is being undercut on another front. Parents have made convincing complaints that they are forced to put their severely disabled children in foster care because they can't get adequate government help to care for them at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
