VICTORIA - It's hard to see how letting a company off the hook for $3 million owed to the government isn't a subsidy, something the Liberals considered odious during the NDP years.
That's what the government has just done for the owners of the Huckleberry Mine southwest of Houston.
And it's likely just the first, smallest installment in taxpayers' kindness to the mine's owners. Another $14.5 million may be written off in two years, as the mine nears the end of its life.
Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe says writing off the company's debt isn't a subsidy. The government - like any other creditor - had two choices, he says. It could forgive the debt. Or the company would close the mine and 175 people would lose their jobs.
It was a business decision, he says.
But it was also a political one, and it is a subsidy. Other mining companies are out there trying to compete without the benefit of government largesse, while Huckleberry Mine gets a break.
The tangle goes back to the NDP days, when subsidies were flowing to companies.
Imperial Metals of Vancouver wanted to develop the copper mine, and in 1996 the government came up with a $14.5-million loan - about 10 per cent of the total mine cot - to help with development. It was supposed to be a commercial loan, at competitive interest rates.
But eight years later, not a dime has been repaid. The mine has been operating, although apparently not terribly successfully due to low copper prices, since other creditors have also gone unpaid. Imperial has since taken on four Japanese investors, who have a 50-per-cent share in the property.
Imperial made a $3.4-million profit last year, and is developing another mine at Mount Polley. With a well-crafted loan agreement, you would expect the government and other creditors to be able to exert some pressure and get some of your money back.
But Imperial also restructured last year, turning over the management of the Huckleberry Mine to a separate company. The ultimate ownership stayed the same, but the debts are now on the new company's books. Its only asset is the Huckleberry Mine, which is slated to shut down in a little over two years, and it has large debts. Creditors have little leverage, because the owners have don't have much to lose if the mine is forced into bankruptcy and closes now.
Thorpe notes the Liberals have closed the door on any new grants and loans to companies.
That was a good decision. If no bank or investor considers the risk worthwhile, taxpayers shouldn't be tapped for the money. And a subsidy to one company inevitably disadvantages competitors, creating a tilted playing field. The NDP's decision to pump more than $400 million into Skeena Cellulose not only cost taxpayers money, it hurt other companies trying to operate pulp mills without government cash.
Why the break to Huckleberry, without any benefit to taxpayers or commitment from the company to make regular payments? The government hopes the company will pay the remaining $14.5-million debt in late 2006, but it has no commitment and will have even less leverage then.
Huckleberry president Jim O'Rourke says the deal with creditors means they'll get first shot at any profits. With good prices the province will see payments, he says. "It was a good business deal."
Thorpe says the government had little choice. It could forgive the $3-million in accrued interest on the loan, or the mine would close. The deal was reached after negotiations with the owners.
It's not an easy political decision. Pressing for repayment - calling the company on its threat - might have worked. Or it might have resulted in the mine closing early, and the debt still left unpaid.
The Liberals - like the NDP before them, though on a much smaller scale - opted to protect the jobs, and let the debt slide.
Footnote: The Liberals appeared uncomfortable with the deal. Cabinet quietly approved the write-off, with the only public notice a 15-word reference in a list of about 70 cabinet decisions posted on the web. A decision to spend $750,000 on materials for schools rated a news release; a decision to approve a $3-million break to a company didn't.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Safe streets bill not a real answer to urban problems
VICTORIA - I'd file the Liberals' safe streets legislation under empty gestures.
The Campbell government - after some initial scoffing - has glommed on to MLA Lorne Mayencourt's idea that tougher laws are needed to get rid of squeegee people and aggressive panhandlers.
Mayencourt introduced his version of a Safe Streets Act last spring. The private member's bill would have made it an offence to approach cars offering to clean windshields and put strict limits on soliciting money. It would bar panhandling near ATMs, or at bus stops, and outlaw threatening or intimidating behaviour or language. (Yes, those are already illegal.)
The government was cool to the idea, and the bill - along with Mayencourt's proposed new law that would let landlords bar people more easily - didn't go anywhere.
But the proposals seemed to play well with the public, so Premier Gordon Campbell sent Mayencourt off on a tour around the province to talk about the proposal. And when delegates to the Union of BC Municipalities backed the idea last month, the government decided it was time for its own version of the laws.
"People want to feel safe in their towns, they want to feel safe in their streets," Campbell said this week.
The government was expected to introduce the bill early this week, but backed away. It's tricky, as Attorney General Geoff Plant noted when Mayencourt floated the balloon, to write a law that won't get tossed on constitutional grounds or have unintended consequences. (Mayencourt's bill would have made a Girl Guide selling cookies at a bus stop into a law-breaker.)
The public reactionshows that people perceive a real problem, not just in Vancouver but in smaller communities across the province.
And this is one of those cases where that perception matters.
If people feel threatened in their communities, that is a real problem. Their right to use the streets - to go downtown shopping, or walk a child to the park - is being limited. That's unfair.
The law faces its own problems. It is a thin and crumbly line between dealing with people who are threatening, and sweeping away people because they make us feel uncomfortable. The streets belong to all of us, but much of the talk from the bill's supporters contemplates an underclass with fewer rights than the rest of us.
The law is also largely symbolic. Virtually all the things Mayencourt complained of in explaining the need for the bill could be dealt with under existing laws. He cited a case in which a woman's car window was smashed by a squeegee person as evidence of the need for the law. But assault, smashing windows, threatening people, even jaywalking are all already offences.
The laws are there. But police have better things to do than arrest panhandlers, or issue tickets that people with no money can't pay. They don't believe that would be effective.
The law is best viewed as a gesture, an acknowledgment that the public would like to see something done even if the government doesn't actually think the idea will work. In politics and life empty gestures sometimes have their uses.
Locking up panhandlers isn't going to happen, and wouldn't work if it did. The real solutions are likely to come from finding out why people - especially the most difficult people - are on the streets. Lack of treatment or housing for the addicted and mentally ill is one likely cause of problems. So is inadequate help for youths to keep them off the street, and give them a chance at a better life once they are there.
The best hope for change is a committee of five majors asked by Campbell "to tackle the challenge of mental illness, homeless and addictions in B.C. communities." The five - Kelowna's Walter Gray, Prince George's Colin Kinsley, Victoria's Alan Lowe, Surrey's Doug McCallum and Vancouver's Larry Campbell - have a chance to offer real solutions.
And that will make much more difference than another unenforced law.
Footnote: Vancouver's police chief says people shouldn't give to panhandlers, but Campbell says he does. People concerned about the problem also have the option of giving to community agencies that help people find their way off the streets. And each of us can change the tone simply by being pleasant to our scruffier neighbours.
The Campbell government - after some initial scoffing - has glommed on to MLA Lorne Mayencourt's idea that tougher laws are needed to get rid of squeegee people and aggressive panhandlers.
Mayencourt introduced his version of a Safe Streets Act last spring. The private member's bill would have made it an offence to approach cars offering to clean windshields and put strict limits on soliciting money. It would bar panhandling near ATMs, or at bus stops, and outlaw threatening or intimidating behaviour or language. (Yes, those are already illegal.)
The government was cool to the idea, and the bill - along with Mayencourt's proposed new law that would let landlords bar people more easily - didn't go anywhere.
But the proposals seemed to play well with the public, so Premier Gordon Campbell sent Mayencourt off on a tour around the province to talk about the proposal. And when delegates to the Union of BC Municipalities backed the idea last month, the government decided it was time for its own version of the laws.
"People want to feel safe in their towns, they want to feel safe in their streets," Campbell said this week.
The government was expected to introduce the bill early this week, but backed away. It's tricky, as Attorney General Geoff Plant noted when Mayencourt floated the balloon, to write a law that won't get tossed on constitutional grounds or have unintended consequences. (Mayencourt's bill would have made a Girl Guide selling cookies at a bus stop into a law-breaker.)
The public reactionshows that people perceive a real problem, not just in Vancouver but in smaller communities across the province.
And this is one of those cases where that perception matters.
If people feel threatened in their communities, that is a real problem. Their right to use the streets - to go downtown shopping, or walk a child to the park - is being limited. That's unfair.
The law faces its own problems. It is a thin and crumbly line between dealing with people who are threatening, and sweeping away people because they make us feel uncomfortable. The streets belong to all of us, but much of the talk from the bill's supporters contemplates an underclass with fewer rights than the rest of us.
The law is also largely symbolic. Virtually all the things Mayencourt complained of in explaining the need for the bill could be dealt with under existing laws. He cited a case in which a woman's car window was smashed by a squeegee person as evidence of the need for the law. But assault, smashing windows, threatening people, even jaywalking are all already offences.
The laws are there. But police have better things to do than arrest panhandlers, or issue tickets that people with no money can't pay. They don't believe that would be effective.
The law is best viewed as a gesture, an acknowledgment that the public would like to see something done even if the government doesn't actually think the idea will work. In politics and life empty gestures sometimes have their uses.
Locking up panhandlers isn't going to happen, and wouldn't work if it did. The real solutions are likely to come from finding out why people - especially the most difficult people - are on the streets. Lack of treatment or housing for the addicted and mentally ill is one likely cause of problems. So is inadequate help for youths to keep them off the street, and give them a chance at a better life once they are there.
The best hope for change is a committee of five majors asked by Campbell "to tackle the challenge of mental illness, homeless and addictions in B.C. communities." The five - Kelowna's Walter Gray, Prince George's Colin Kinsley, Victoria's Alan Lowe, Surrey's Doug McCallum and Vancouver's Larry Campbell - have a chance to offer real solutions.
And that will make much more difference than another unenforced law.
Footnote: Vancouver's police chief says people shouldn't give to panhandlers, but Campbell says he does. People concerned about the problem also have the option of giving to community agencies that help people find their way off the streets. And each of us can change the tone simply by being pleasant to our scruffier neighbours.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Capital punishment: Road kill victory, lame open cabinet and quiet days
VICTORIA - Free road kill, a lifeless open cabinet and a fogbound legislature. Notes from the halls.
Day one in the fall session, and we're talking about road kill.
Every day before Question Period about 10 minutes is set aside for members' statements, a chance for MLAs to talk about whatever they want for a few minutes. (Or at least whatever they want that the party strategists consider appropriate.)
East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett wanted to talk about road kill. Specifically he wanted to celebrate the fact that the New Era includes a partial return to the good old days when you could sling that dead deer in your trunk without having to pay any troubling fees, introduced by the NDP in 2000. (They argued that if hunters have to pay fees to kill animals, drivers should have to pay to scoop them up.)
Now the Liberals have lifted the fees for trappers, who like the dead animals for bait.
A blow for freedom, said Bennett. "Let us rejoice at the democratic spectacle of free trappers all over this heavenly province scooping up dead animals from our roadside ditches, no longer living in fear that a tax collector may be lurking," Bennett said.
The rest of us still have to pay - $61 for a dead deer, $25 for most species - but Benett hopes that will someday carrion will again be free for "British Columbians who wish to utilize road-kill for lunch, a fur coat or a living room rug."
Bennett offered more good news. A booming economy will mean more traffic and more dead animals, he said, and more chances to add new meaning to the promise to pick up something for dinner on the way home.
Maybe they should let Bennett help script the next televised cabinet meeting.
When the Liberals promised monthly open cabinet meetings it seemed like a good idea. The theory was that the public would get a chance to see decisions being made. The reality has been considerably, and increasingly, lamer.
I didn't expect sharp exchanges or big debates. The meetings were inevitably going to be managed, with the aim of making the government look good.
But I didn't expect this big a flop either, with the cabinet generally looking disengaged, sycophantic or irrelevant.
This week's meeting started out with a report on the federal-provincial health care summit, for example. Premier Gordon Campbell said what a good job Health Minister Colin Hansen had done; Hansen revealed that Campbell played a vital role. The results were rehashed, as if cabinet ministers had somehow been out of touch for the last several weeks.
Education Minister Tom Christensen reported on a useful plan to encourage elementary schools to hold open houses for three-year-olds and their families. It's a good idea, and cheap at $2,500 a school. But there were no questions from cabinet ministers about how the program would engage those families that need it most, or about whether programs were available to help kids catch up if parents realized help was needed.
Cabinet got a drought update, but weren't asked to make any decisions. They got a similar briefing on Avian flu and the mad cow disease scare. Both were fine; both could have ben covered with a briefing note to the ministers.
Then the televised meeting ended - after costing about $25,000 - and ministers adjourned to the real cabinet meeting behind closed doors, which lasted about six hours.
Half the NDP caucus - OK, Joy MacPhail - and a clutch of Liberal cabinet ministers missed the first day of the session, stranded in Vancouver by fog.
They shouldn't miss too many days. The Liberals are already hinting the session could be cut short for lack of business. Legislation on the new community living authority has to be debated, and other bills will set up the Northern Development Initiative, make some gesture towards fighting panhandlers and try to deal with privacy concerns around the U.S. Patriot Act.
But the focus is on the election now, not new initiatives.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell, who doesn't make legislature attendance a priority, missed day one. He was speaking to a business group in Calgary. The sitting date has been fixed for more than a year.
Day one in the fall session, and we're talking about road kill.
Every day before Question Period about 10 minutes is set aside for members' statements, a chance for MLAs to talk about whatever they want for a few minutes. (Or at least whatever they want that the party strategists consider appropriate.)
East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett wanted to talk about road kill. Specifically he wanted to celebrate the fact that the New Era includes a partial return to the good old days when you could sling that dead deer in your trunk without having to pay any troubling fees, introduced by the NDP in 2000. (They argued that if hunters have to pay fees to kill animals, drivers should have to pay to scoop them up.)
Now the Liberals have lifted the fees for trappers, who like the dead animals for bait.
A blow for freedom, said Bennett. "Let us rejoice at the democratic spectacle of free trappers all over this heavenly province scooping up dead animals from our roadside ditches, no longer living in fear that a tax collector may be lurking," Bennett said.
The rest of us still have to pay - $61 for a dead deer, $25 for most species - but Benett hopes that will someday carrion will again be free for "British Columbians who wish to utilize road-kill for lunch, a fur coat or a living room rug."
Bennett offered more good news. A booming economy will mean more traffic and more dead animals, he said, and more chances to add new meaning to the promise to pick up something for dinner on the way home.
Maybe they should let Bennett help script the next televised cabinet meeting.
When the Liberals promised monthly open cabinet meetings it seemed like a good idea. The theory was that the public would get a chance to see decisions being made. The reality has been considerably, and increasingly, lamer.
I didn't expect sharp exchanges or big debates. The meetings were inevitably going to be managed, with the aim of making the government look good.
But I didn't expect this big a flop either, with the cabinet generally looking disengaged, sycophantic or irrelevant.
This week's meeting started out with a report on the federal-provincial health care summit, for example. Premier Gordon Campbell said what a good job Health Minister Colin Hansen had done; Hansen revealed that Campbell played a vital role. The results were rehashed, as if cabinet ministers had somehow been out of touch for the last several weeks.
Education Minister Tom Christensen reported on a useful plan to encourage elementary schools to hold open houses for three-year-olds and their families. It's a good idea, and cheap at $2,500 a school. But there were no questions from cabinet ministers about how the program would engage those families that need it most, or about whether programs were available to help kids catch up if parents realized help was needed.
Cabinet got a drought update, but weren't asked to make any decisions. They got a similar briefing on Avian flu and the mad cow disease scare. Both were fine; both could have ben covered with a briefing note to the ministers.
Then the televised meeting ended - after costing about $25,000 - and ministers adjourned to the real cabinet meeting behind closed doors, which lasted about six hours.
Half the NDP caucus - OK, Joy MacPhail - and a clutch of Liberal cabinet ministers missed the first day of the session, stranded in Vancouver by fog.
They shouldn't miss too many days. The Liberals are already hinting the session could be cut short for lack of business. Legislation on the new community living authority has to be debated, and other bills will set up the Northern Development Initiative, make some gesture towards fighting panhandlers and try to deal with privacy concerns around the U.S. Patriot Act.
But the focus is on the election now, not new initiatives.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell, who doesn't make legislature attendance a priority, missed day one. He was speaking to a business group in Calgary. The sitting date has been fixed for more than a year.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Every party's future on the line in Surrey byelection
VICTORIA - The Surrey byelection called -finally - by the premier is going to give you a heck of a sneak preview of next May's election.
Each of the parties goes into the byelection under giant question marks. Opinion polls tell one story, but this is the first chance to find out what voters will actually do when they go into the ballot box and have to make a real choice.
Surrey-Panorama Ridge is a good test riding. In the 2001 election voters there reflected the provincial support for the NDP and the Liberals almost exactly. There are no huge local issues to distort the outcome, though the relative strength of the local candidates may be distorting factor.
The Liberals need to win, or at least post a strong showing.
Sure, byelections generally go against the governing party. It's a safe way for voters to send a protest message.
But the Liberals outpolled the NDP by a three-to-one margin in the riding in 2001. The byelection is coming barely six months before the provincial election, lessening the appeal of sending a protest message. And the Liberals have the advantage of a strong candidate and a big split between the Greens and New Democrats.
The candidate is Mary Polak, best known as a Surrey school trustee when that board spent almost $1 million trying to keep three kids' books depicting same sex parents out of Surrey schools.
It looked bizarre and foolish. But Polak, though a member of the ban-the-books bunch, was seen as a moderate. She has a high profile in the riding, and a good rep with a lot of voters.
If the Liberals can't win here - even in a byelection - then they face problems in a lot of ridings.
For the NDP, the question is simple. Are people mad enough at the Liberals to vote New Democrat?
NDP leader Carole James decided not to run in the byelection. She made the decision four month's ago - that's how long Campbell has been delaying - reasoning rightly that it made more sense to work on organizing around the province.
But the byelection is still a test of her ability to convince voters that the New Democrats - despite their dismal record - can be trusted. The party's candidate is Jagrup Brar, who runs a federal program that helps people start their own businesses. He's well-known in the large IndoCanadian community, not much known outside that group. He'll neither hurt nor help the NDP; James will be the one voters judge.
Green leader Adriane Carr is running for her party. It's a chance for her to gain experience and grab some media attention.
But she's running some risks. Carr is seen as a parachute candidate - she says she'll run in the general election in her Sunshine Coast home riding whether she wins or loses in Surrey. That won't help her campaign. (Although development and loss of green space are big issues in the riding.)
Carr also risks highlighting the effects of vote-splitting among those opposed to the Liberals.
Consider the prospect of a Liberal win, partly through an NDP-Green vote split, with the New Democrats in second place. That kind of outcome would leave many voters questioning the wisdom of voting Green.
The Liberals also have to worry about vote-splitting. Polls suggest voters are dissatisfied with the Campbell government, but don't see a credible alternative.
But at least a couple of parties will be trying to appeal to Liberal supporters.
Former Liberal Tom Morino is running for his fledgling BC Democratic Alliance, promising to run as a moderate alternative to the Liberals. He's run twice for the Liberals, so should know how a campaign works.
The Conservative Party, fresh from emerging the Unity Party. Unity took seven per cent of the vote in 2001. Those lost votes were meaningless to the Liberals then; they could matter this time around.
In 28 days, a lot of questions will be answered.
Footnote: The Liberals should lose votes for delaying the byelection and depriving people in the riding of representation for five months. The legislature begins sitting next Monday, and the seat for Surrey-Panorama Ridge will be empty. Campbell criticized the NDP for similar delays
Each of the parties goes into the byelection under giant question marks. Opinion polls tell one story, but this is the first chance to find out what voters will actually do when they go into the ballot box and have to make a real choice.
Surrey-Panorama Ridge is a good test riding. In the 2001 election voters there reflected the provincial support for the NDP and the Liberals almost exactly. There are no huge local issues to distort the outcome, though the relative strength of the local candidates may be distorting factor.
The Liberals need to win, or at least post a strong showing.
Sure, byelections generally go against the governing party. It's a safe way for voters to send a protest message.
But the Liberals outpolled the NDP by a three-to-one margin in the riding in 2001. The byelection is coming barely six months before the provincial election, lessening the appeal of sending a protest message. And the Liberals have the advantage of a strong candidate and a big split between the Greens and New Democrats.
The candidate is Mary Polak, best known as a Surrey school trustee when that board spent almost $1 million trying to keep three kids' books depicting same sex parents out of Surrey schools.
It looked bizarre and foolish. But Polak, though a member of the ban-the-books bunch, was seen as a moderate. She has a high profile in the riding, and a good rep with a lot of voters.
If the Liberals can't win here - even in a byelection - then they face problems in a lot of ridings.
For the NDP, the question is simple. Are people mad enough at the Liberals to vote New Democrat?
NDP leader Carole James decided not to run in the byelection. She made the decision four month's ago - that's how long Campbell has been delaying - reasoning rightly that it made more sense to work on organizing around the province.
But the byelection is still a test of her ability to convince voters that the New Democrats - despite their dismal record - can be trusted. The party's candidate is Jagrup Brar, who runs a federal program that helps people start their own businesses. He's well-known in the large IndoCanadian community, not much known outside that group. He'll neither hurt nor help the NDP; James will be the one voters judge.
Green leader Adriane Carr is running for her party. It's a chance for her to gain experience and grab some media attention.
But she's running some risks. Carr is seen as a parachute candidate - she says she'll run in the general election in her Sunshine Coast home riding whether she wins or loses in Surrey. That won't help her campaign. (Although development and loss of green space are big issues in the riding.)
Carr also risks highlighting the effects of vote-splitting among those opposed to the Liberals.
Consider the prospect of a Liberal win, partly through an NDP-Green vote split, with the New Democrats in second place. That kind of outcome would leave many voters questioning the wisdom of voting Green.
The Liberals also have to worry about vote-splitting. Polls suggest voters are dissatisfied with the Campbell government, but don't see a credible alternative.
But at least a couple of parties will be trying to appeal to Liberal supporters.
Former Liberal Tom Morino is running for his fledgling BC Democratic Alliance, promising to run as a moderate alternative to the Liberals. He's run twice for the Liberals, so should know how a campaign works.
The Conservative Party, fresh from emerging the Unity Party. Unity took seven per cent of the vote in 2001. Those lost votes were meaningless to the Liberals then; they could matter this time around.
In 28 days, a lot of questions will be answered.
Footnote: The Liberals should lose votes for delaying the byelection and depriving people in the riding of representation for five months. The legislature begins sitting next Monday, and the seat for Surrey-Panorama Ridge will be empty. Campbell criticized the NDP for similar delays
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Taser controls, new police policies will save lives
VICTORIA - The probe of Tasers in B.C. has already paid off with an interim report that recommends tougher controls on the use of the high-tech stun guns.
Tasers were hailed as a great tool for police when they were introduced in 1998. The concept was great - a weapon that shoots darts that zap dangerous suspects with electricity, making them easy to subdue. Police would have one more alternative to shooting suspects, and both they and the person being arrested would be safer.
But in the last 12 months four deaths in the province have been associated with Taser use, in Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver. Added to reports of almost 50 deaths in the U.S. in the last three years, the cases raised troubling questions.
The police complaints' commissioner set out to answer them, asking Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill to head up a review.
His interim report, released Wednesday, offers practical recommendations that would allow police to continue using Tasers while decreasing the risk.
And just as importantly, the report calls on police to make changes that could save lives even in cases where Tasers aren't used.
It's a balanced, thorough review of the evidence around Tasers.
The report concludes the weapons are still useful as an intermediate weapon for police. They can disable suspects from a distance - something not possible with pepper spray or clubs - and they can allow an end to a conflict before deadly force is needed.
But it also found that Tasers haven't been treated with the required seriousness.
That's not surprising. The manufacturer's pitch has always been that the weapons pose no health risk; that claim is now being widely questioned around the world.
The report cites "significant inconsistencies" across B.C. in training police to use the weapons. A standard training course on Taser use should be developed, the report says, and all police should receive the training.
It also calls for mandatory reporting any time a Taser is used. That's routine when a gun is used, but not all police forces in B.C. require similar follow-up. Even when the policy is in place, police may not be following it, the report found.
Police should also quit buying the Taser originally introduced in the province, and switch to a less powerful model that provides a greater margin of safety.
All the recommendations make sense. The two requiring reporting and training should have been in place from the beginning, when the former NDP government approved the weapons.
But the report's biggest impact may come from two recommendations that are only partly related to Taser use.
Across B.C., and North America, people captured and restrained by police have been dying. The common scenario is a frenzied, unreasonable suspect, often on cocaine or mentally ill, who is captured, restrained, appears to be calmer and then stops breathing. (Cocaine was a common factor in the cases of all four people who have died after Taser use in B.C.)
The condition is called "excited delirium," and police aren't aware enough of the risks of death, the report found, again recommending a standardized training program. "Although relatively rare, changes in pattern of drug abuse make it likely officers will encounter victims of excited delirium more frequently," the report warns.
The risk of death also appears to be increased by the way in which the people are restrained. The report calls for a ban on use of the "maximal restraint position," where hands and ankles are bound behind the suspect's back and he lies on his chest, saying it may be linked to needless deaths.
Adopting both recommendations will save lives. The Battershill report looked at 22 restraint-related deaths investigated by B.C. coroners between 1990 and 2003. It found a "disturbing familiarity" in the cases. The victim is generally on drugs and acting bizarrely. A violent struggle takes place, without any obvious injuries. Police use restraints, and the person dies.
They were deaths that didn't need to happen.
The recommendations on restraint, and Taser use, should be adopted immediately.
Footnote: Battershill is continuing his investigation of the death of Robert Bagnell, who died in Vancouver after being shot with a Taser. He released the interim report because there was an "urgent need" to get the recommendations out to police, Battershill said.
Tasers were hailed as a great tool for police when they were introduced in 1998. The concept was great - a weapon that shoots darts that zap dangerous suspects with electricity, making them easy to subdue. Police would have one more alternative to shooting suspects, and both they and the person being arrested would be safer.
But in the last 12 months four deaths in the province have been associated with Taser use, in Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver. Added to reports of almost 50 deaths in the U.S. in the last three years, the cases raised troubling questions.
The police complaints' commissioner set out to answer them, asking Victoria Police Chief Paul Battershill to head up a review.
His interim report, released Wednesday, offers practical recommendations that would allow police to continue using Tasers while decreasing the risk.
And just as importantly, the report calls on police to make changes that could save lives even in cases where Tasers aren't used.
It's a balanced, thorough review of the evidence around Tasers.
The report concludes the weapons are still useful as an intermediate weapon for police. They can disable suspects from a distance - something not possible with pepper spray or clubs - and they can allow an end to a conflict before deadly force is needed.
But it also found that Tasers haven't been treated with the required seriousness.
That's not surprising. The manufacturer's pitch has always been that the weapons pose no health risk; that claim is now being widely questioned around the world.
The report cites "significant inconsistencies" across B.C. in training police to use the weapons. A standard training course on Taser use should be developed, the report says, and all police should receive the training.
It also calls for mandatory reporting any time a Taser is used. That's routine when a gun is used, but not all police forces in B.C. require similar follow-up. Even when the policy is in place, police may not be following it, the report found.
Police should also quit buying the Taser originally introduced in the province, and switch to a less powerful model that provides a greater margin of safety.
All the recommendations make sense. The two requiring reporting and training should have been in place from the beginning, when the former NDP government approved the weapons.
But the report's biggest impact may come from two recommendations that are only partly related to Taser use.
Across B.C., and North America, people captured and restrained by police have been dying. The common scenario is a frenzied, unreasonable suspect, often on cocaine or mentally ill, who is captured, restrained, appears to be calmer and then stops breathing. (Cocaine was a common factor in the cases of all four people who have died after Taser use in B.C.)
The condition is called "excited delirium," and police aren't aware enough of the risks of death, the report found, again recommending a standardized training program. "Although relatively rare, changes in pattern of drug abuse make it likely officers will encounter victims of excited delirium more frequently," the report warns.
The risk of death also appears to be increased by the way in which the people are restrained. The report calls for a ban on use of the "maximal restraint position," where hands and ankles are bound behind the suspect's back and he lies on his chest, saying it may be linked to needless deaths.
Adopting both recommendations will save lives. The Battershill report looked at 22 restraint-related deaths investigated by B.C. coroners between 1990 and 2003. It found a "disturbing familiarity" in the cases. The victim is generally on drugs and acting bizarrely. A violent struggle takes place, without any obvious injuries. Police use restraints, and the person dies.
They were deaths that didn't need to happen.
The recommendations on restraint, and Taser use, should be adopted immediately.
Footnote: Battershill is continuing his investigation of the death of Robert Bagnell, who died in Vancouver after being shot with a Taser. He released the interim report because there was an "urgent need" to get the recommendations out to police, Battershill said.
Monday, September 27, 2004
B.C. voters checking off 'none of the above'
VICTORIA - The lesson from the latest poll is that British Columbians wish there was a "none-of-the-above" box on the election ballot.
Voters think the Liberals are doing a bad job of governing, and believe Gordon Campbell is doing a very bad job as premier.
But they're also not ready to hand government back to the NDP after their record of incompetence.
The result is that eight months before the election a significant number of voters are holding their noses and preparing to vote for a party that they don't really think will represent them, or will govern in their interests.
The latest results come from Ipsos-Reid and reveal that almost two out of three voters think the Liberals do not deserve to be re-elected based on their performance so far.
That's a huge rebuke. The Liberals attracted 58 per cent of the popular vote in the last election. Almost half the people who voted Liberal in 2001 feel like they were let down, and that the government has not done a good enough job to be re-elected.
But despite that terrible review, the Liberals and NDP are effectively tied in the Ipsos poll, each with the support of about 40 per cent of decided voters. (The Greens are at 16 per cent; Unity and others at four per cent.)
And that means that some 100,000 voters are saying that they don't think the Liberals deserve to be re-elected, but would vote for them anyway because the NDP is even worse.
It's not just the parties that are in trouble.
About two-thirds of voters disapprove of the job Campbell is doing as premier; almost half strongly disapprove. Only eight per cent say they strongly approve of his job performance.
NDP leader Carole James fares better. Almost half of those surveyed approved of the job she is doing as leader, and only one-third disapproved.
But her approval rating has dropped eight points since the last survey. James is a relative unknown; the results suggest that voters are not being favorably impressed as they watch her perform on the political stage.
The results also show once again that voters feel pressed into voting for the lesser evil.
The poll asked voters - regardless of which party they supported - to pick the leader they thought would make the best premier.
And while only 34 per cent approved of the job Campbell has done, he still had the support of 41 per cent of decided voters as the best potential premier. James was at 37 per cent, Green leader Adriane Carr was at 14 per cent, and former Unity leader Chris Delaney was ranked as the best potential premier by seven per cent of voters.
Again, some 100,000 people who believe Campbell is doing a poor job still feel he's the best of a bad lot.
This isn't a fluke. An earlier poll found that more than half the supporters of both the Liberals and NDP said they were just picking the lesser of two evils. They didn't think their party would do a good job; they just thought the other guys would be even worse.
Parties can't perfectly mirror every voter's interests and values, and people will almost always disagree with some policies of the party they support.
But it's dangerous when voters think they have no real chance to vote for a party or leader able to deliver the kind of government that they want.
And voting becomes a discouraging experience when people leave the booth sadly convinced that even if the party they supported wins, the province will be badly governed. There is no excitement or inspiration in voting for the lesser of two evils, no confidence in the future and little reason to vote.
All governments ultimately rely on the consent of the governed. That consent is at risk when voters feel they're views and values are no longer represented by any of the parties.
Footnote: The poll showed - again - the huge divide between the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province. Outside Vancouver and its sprawl 70 per cent of voters thought Campbell was doing a bad job, and a similar number said the Liberals didn't deserve to be re-elected based on their performance so far.
Voters think the Liberals are doing a bad job of governing, and believe Gordon Campbell is doing a very bad job as premier.
But they're also not ready to hand government back to the NDP after their record of incompetence.
The result is that eight months before the election a significant number of voters are holding their noses and preparing to vote for a party that they don't really think will represent them, or will govern in their interests.
The latest results come from Ipsos-Reid and reveal that almost two out of three voters think the Liberals do not deserve to be re-elected based on their performance so far.
That's a huge rebuke. The Liberals attracted 58 per cent of the popular vote in the last election. Almost half the people who voted Liberal in 2001 feel like they were let down, and that the government has not done a good enough job to be re-elected.
But despite that terrible review, the Liberals and NDP are effectively tied in the Ipsos poll, each with the support of about 40 per cent of decided voters. (The Greens are at 16 per cent; Unity and others at four per cent.)
And that means that some 100,000 voters are saying that they don't think the Liberals deserve to be re-elected, but would vote for them anyway because the NDP is even worse.
It's not just the parties that are in trouble.
About two-thirds of voters disapprove of the job Campbell is doing as premier; almost half strongly disapprove. Only eight per cent say they strongly approve of his job performance.
NDP leader Carole James fares better. Almost half of those surveyed approved of the job she is doing as leader, and only one-third disapproved.
But her approval rating has dropped eight points since the last survey. James is a relative unknown; the results suggest that voters are not being favorably impressed as they watch her perform on the political stage.
The results also show once again that voters feel pressed into voting for the lesser evil.
The poll asked voters - regardless of which party they supported - to pick the leader they thought would make the best premier.
And while only 34 per cent approved of the job Campbell has done, he still had the support of 41 per cent of decided voters as the best potential premier. James was at 37 per cent, Green leader Adriane Carr was at 14 per cent, and former Unity leader Chris Delaney was ranked as the best potential premier by seven per cent of voters.
Again, some 100,000 people who believe Campbell is doing a poor job still feel he's the best of a bad lot.
This isn't a fluke. An earlier poll found that more than half the supporters of both the Liberals and NDP said they were just picking the lesser of two evils. They didn't think their party would do a good job; they just thought the other guys would be even worse.
Parties can't perfectly mirror every voter's interests and values, and people will almost always disagree with some policies of the party they support.
But it's dangerous when voters think they have no real chance to vote for a party or leader able to deliver the kind of government that they want.
And voting becomes a discouraging experience when people leave the booth sadly convinced that even if the party they supported wins, the province will be badly governed. There is no excitement or inspiration in voting for the lesser of two evils, no confidence in the future and little reason to vote.
All governments ultimately rely on the consent of the governed. That consent is at risk when voters feel they're views and values are no longer represented by any of the parties.
Footnote: The poll showed - again - the huge divide between the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province. Outside Vancouver and its sprawl 70 per cent of voters thought Campbell was doing a bad job, and a similar number said the Liberals didn't deserve to be re-elected based on their performance so far.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Liberals raises fears of attack on ICBC's business
VICTORIA - So ICBC's board forces out their CEO and launches a national search for a replacement.
They hire a search firm - figure more than $100,000 - and come up with 80 candidates.
And what do you know, the successful candidate, Paul Taylor, was under their nose all the time, working as one of the most powerful officials in the Campbell government.
You can't blame people for being suspicious that a willingness to do the government's will and scale back ICBC was an important hiring criteria.
Taylor was brought in by Gordon Campbell after the election to drive the budget-cutting exercise. He had experience, having done the same thing in the early '90s for Ralph Klein.
But he doesn't have any experience in insurance, or a financial institution, or in consumer marketing, the backgrounds you might expect for the new CEO of a $3-billion corporation. Beyond a fairly brief stint as a senior vice-president for corporate development at TransAlta Utilities, Taylor doesn't have much private sector management experience on his resume. (That's not a prerequisite; good managers have crossed back and forth from government to the private sector.)
Still the move suggests the Liberal want someone they can count on to reduce ICBC's role and open up the car insurance market from private companies.
That was, after all their campaign promise, to introduce "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums."
But it hasn't worked out. The Liberals picked Nick Geer, a senior vice-president in Jimmy Pattison's empire, as ICBC CEO. And once on the job he decided that the current level of competition served ICBC and its customers well. He won the battles for a while, but was shoved out this summer by the government, leaving with a $450,000 severance deal.
The concept of more competition makes sense. Companies competing for your business should come up with better products and lower costs for consumers.
And right now there is no real car insurance competition in B.C.
ICBC has a monopoly on basic insurance - the coverage every owner must have to pay for damages related to injuries resulting from a crash. That's 60 per cent of the insurance market.
Optional insurance, like insurance to cover repair costs or increased liability coverage, is open to competition, in theory. But practically ICBC's monopoly on the basic coverage makes it simplest for most people to buy that insurance from the Crown corporation as well. Private companies have about 15 per cent of the optional coverage market, and their share hasn't increased under the Liberals.
Overall, that leaves ICBC with almost 95 per cent of the vehicle insurance market.
But if increased competition makes good theoretical sense, there are some giant practical problems.
For starters, any change to increase competitors' market share is going to hurt ICBC's bottom line, and thus taxpayers. (ICBC profits are expected to boost government revenues by $218 million this year.)
One option is ending ICBC's monopoly on basic insurance. But asked what effect that would have, Geer was blunt: "You would find chaos in the marketplace, you would probably see the bankruptcy of ICBC."
Or ICBC could get out of the optional insurance business. But that would reduce revenues dramatically, without allowing a corresponding cost reduction given the overhead. The result would be plunging contributions to government revenues, and rate increases for drivers on basic insurance.
Delivering on the election promise is risky business.
And pushing for more private insurance in the absence of a clear economic justification - and in the presence of clear risks - speaks of ideology, not good management.
The political risks are especially high in the months before an election. British Columbians can still remember the horror stories from other provinces about soaring private insurance rates, and seem generally satisfied with ICBC.
The Liberals have had enough problems with Crown corporations. They should go very slowly on messing with ICBC
Footnote: The Liberals should be daunted by their record of controversy at BC Hydro, BC Ferries and BC Rail. ICBC is ticking along quietly if unspectacularly under their watch: rates have risen about 13 per cent over three years and coverage has been quietly reduced, but no one has complained too loudly.
They hire a search firm - figure more than $100,000 - and come up with 80 candidates.
And what do you know, the successful candidate, Paul Taylor, was under their nose all the time, working as one of the most powerful officials in the Campbell government.
You can't blame people for being suspicious that a willingness to do the government's will and scale back ICBC was an important hiring criteria.
Taylor was brought in by Gordon Campbell after the election to drive the budget-cutting exercise. He had experience, having done the same thing in the early '90s for Ralph Klein.
But he doesn't have any experience in insurance, or a financial institution, or in consumer marketing, the backgrounds you might expect for the new CEO of a $3-billion corporation. Beyond a fairly brief stint as a senior vice-president for corporate development at TransAlta Utilities, Taylor doesn't have much private sector management experience on his resume. (That's not a prerequisite; good managers have crossed back and forth from government to the private sector.)
Still the move suggests the Liberal want someone they can count on to reduce ICBC's role and open up the car insurance market from private companies.
That was, after all their campaign promise, to introduce "greater competition in auto insurance, to create increased choice and reduce motor vehicle premiums."
But it hasn't worked out. The Liberals picked Nick Geer, a senior vice-president in Jimmy Pattison's empire, as ICBC CEO. And once on the job he decided that the current level of competition served ICBC and its customers well. He won the battles for a while, but was shoved out this summer by the government, leaving with a $450,000 severance deal.
The concept of more competition makes sense. Companies competing for your business should come up with better products and lower costs for consumers.
And right now there is no real car insurance competition in B.C.
ICBC has a monopoly on basic insurance - the coverage every owner must have to pay for damages related to injuries resulting from a crash. That's 60 per cent of the insurance market.
Optional insurance, like insurance to cover repair costs or increased liability coverage, is open to competition, in theory. But practically ICBC's monopoly on the basic coverage makes it simplest for most people to buy that insurance from the Crown corporation as well. Private companies have about 15 per cent of the optional coverage market, and their share hasn't increased under the Liberals.
Overall, that leaves ICBC with almost 95 per cent of the vehicle insurance market.
But if increased competition makes good theoretical sense, there are some giant practical problems.
For starters, any change to increase competitors' market share is going to hurt ICBC's bottom line, and thus taxpayers. (ICBC profits are expected to boost government revenues by $218 million this year.)
One option is ending ICBC's monopoly on basic insurance. But asked what effect that would have, Geer was blunt: "You would find chaos in the marketplace, you would probably see the bankruptcy of ICBC."
Or ICBC could get out of the optional insurance business. But that would reduce revenues dramatically, without allowing a corresponding cost reduction given the overhead. The result would be plunging contributions to government revenues, and rate increases for drivers on basic insurance.
Delivering on the election promise is risky business.
And pushing for more private insurance in the absence of a clear economic justification - and in the presence of clear risks - speaks of ideology, not good management.
The political risks are especially high in the months before an election. British Columbians can still remember the horror stories from other provinces about soaring private insurance rates, and seem generally satisfied with ICBC.
The Liberals have had enough problems with Crown corporations. They should go very slowly on messing with ICBC
Footnote: The Liberals should be daunted by their record of controversy at BC Hydro, BC Ferries and BC Rail. ICBC is ticking along quietly if unspectacularly under their watch: rates have risen about 13 per cent over three years and coverage has been quietly reduced, but no one has complained too loudly.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Hagen a good choice, but new ministry problems huge
VICTORIA - Stan Hagen looks like a good choice for the tough children and families job.
The veteran minister from the Comox Valley wasn't on most peoples' lists of prospects once Christy Clark packed it in.
And there's been some carping since, based mostly on the notion that Hagen is a businessman and former Socred, and thus a suspect choice for a ministry that's all about delivering services to children and adults in tough spots.
But the Socreds - for all their pro-business, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps attitudes - always stayed close to their base in smaller communities across the province. Politically and practically they recognized the importance of helping people who really needed it.
Hagen reflects those values, I'd say. He's seen the difference government can make in an individual's life, and can be engaged in that level. And that's useful in this ministry.
Not that other Liberals are a pack of Snidely Whiplashes, keen to evict the orphans from their homes. But most have shown more ability to see the big picture - like the benefits of tax cuts - than to recognize individual suffering or fears.
Hagen also has experience in more than half-a-dozen ministries to bring to bear on the huge problems facing children and families. He served in succession of ministries in the constantly changing Socred cabinets from 1986 to 1991.
Under the Liberals he managed to handle sustainable resource management with few scars. And he stepped into human resources after the Liberals' mean-spirited and wasteful attempts to cull the welfare rolls and shifted the focus back to finding jobs for people.
Gordon Campbell is likely looking for the same kind of calming effect in children and families, one of the Liberals' larger betrayals and failures. (They promised both more money and stability for the ministry, and instead delivered budget cuts and botched re-organizations.)
It's also a plus that Hagen - already at normal retirement age - doesn't have to care much about what the premier or anyone else in government really thinks about what he's doing. He's not climbing the slippery political ladder, and is in a position to do the job the way he thinks it needs to be done. If his masters don't like it, they can fire him. That's not a freedom that most cabinet ministers feel.
Hagen may turn out to be a caretaker, in the job only until the election next May produces a new cabinet of one kind or another.
But it's a critical six months for the ministry, which has been grossly mismanaged by the Liberals, just as it was by the New Democrats. (Hagen is the seventh minister in the ministry's eight-year life.)
The Liberals' plans to decentralize the ministry and move to regional authorities are stalled after a huge amount of time and energy have been squandered.
And the ministry is struggling to cope with budget cuts this year, and faces budgets that are effectively frozen for the next two years, despite rising costs and rising need. The first test for the new minister will be to win a large share of the surpluses to allow the ministry to really help children and families - to deliver on the promises the Liberals made, and broke.
The rest of the changes in the mini-shuffle are less significant.
Victoria area MLA Susan Brice was promoted to replace Hagen as human resources minister, stepping up from her job as junior minister for mental health and addiction services. It's a boost for her, but the ministry isn't likely to be a hot spot again until after the election. The Liberals have backed off most of their threats to cut people off benefits, and the next crunch won't come until job placement efforts for welfare recipients begin, inevitably, to lag.
Surrey MLA Brenda Locke replaces Brice, and Vancouver MLA Patrick Wong steps into the politically useful but practically insignificant role as junior minister for immigration and multicultural services.
Footnote: Campbell broke the tradition of swearing-in new cabinet members at Government House, shifting the ceremony to Vancouver's Terminal City Club, a posh private business club. The scene was fitting on one level. The club didn't admit women members until the '90s; the cabinet still has women in only seven out of 27 posts.
The veteran minister from the Comox Valley wasn't on most peoples' lists of prospects once Christy Clark packed it in.
And there's been some carping since, based mostly on the notion that Hagen is a businessman and former Socred, and thus a suspect choice for a ministry that's all about delivering services to children and adults in tough spots.
But the Socreds - for all their pro-business, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps attitudes - always stayed close to their base in smaller communities across the province. Politically and practically they recognized the importance of helping people who really needed it.
Hagen reflects those values, I'd say. He's seen the difference government can make in an individual's life, and can be engaged in that level. And that's useful in this ministry.
Not that other Liberals are a pack of Snidely Whiplashes, keen to evict the orphans from their homes. But most have shown more ability to see the big picture - like the benefits of tax cuts - than to recognize individual suffering or fears.
Hagen also has experience in more than half-a-dozen ministries to bring to bear on the huge problems facing children and families. He served in succession of ministries in the constantly changing Socred cabinets from 1986 to 1991.
Under the Liberals he managed to handle sustainable resource management with few scars. And he stepped into human resources after the Liberals' mean-spirited and wasteful attempts to cull the welfare rolls and shifted the focus back to finding jobs for people.
Gordon Campbell is likely looking for the same kind of calming effect in children and families, one of the Liberals' larger betrayals and failures. (They promised both more money and stability for the ministry, and instead delivered budget cuts and botched re-organizations.)
It's also a plus that Hagen - already at normal retirement age - doesn't have to care much about what the premier or anyone else in government really thinks about what he's doing. He's not climbing the slippery political ladder, and is in a position to do the job the way he thinks it needs to be done. If his masters don't like it, they can fire him. That's not a freedom that most cabinet ministers feel.
Hagen may turn out to be a caretaker, in the job only until the election next May produces a new cabinet of one kind or another.
But it's a critical six months for the ministry, which has been grossly mismanaged by the Liberals, just as it was by the New Democrats. (Hagen is the seventh minister in the ministry's eight-year life.)
The Liberals' plans to decentralize the ministry and move to regional authorities are stalled after a huge amount of time and energy have been squandered.
And the ministry is struggling to cope with budget cuts this year, and faces budgets that are effectively frozen for the next two years, despite rising costs and rising need. The first test for the new minister will be to win a large share of the surpluses to allow the ministry to really help children and families - to deliver on the promises the Liberals made, and broke.
The rest of the changes in the mini-shuffle are less significant.
Victoria area MLA Susan Brice was promoted to replace Hagen as human resources minister, stepping up from her job as junior minister for mental health and addiction services. It's a boost for her, but the ministry isn't likely to be a hot spot again until after the election. The Liberals have backed off most of their threats to cut people off benefits, and the next crunch won't come until job placement efforts for welfare recipients begin, inevitably, to lag.
Surrey MLA Brenda Locke replaces Brice, and Vancouver MLA Patrick Wong steps into the politically useful but practically insignificant role as junior minister for immigration and multicultural services.
Footnote: Campbell broke the tradition of swearing-in new cabinet members at Government House, shifting the ceremony to Vancouver's Terminal City Club, a posh private business club. The scene was fitting on one level. The club didn't admit women members until the '90s; the cabinet still has women in only seven out of 27 posts.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Why you should care that Christy Clark quit
VICTORIA - Set the conspiracy theories aside.
Christy Clark says she quit because she found it just too hard to balance politics and the challenges of raising a three-year-old. And that is a very good reason.
Speculation on hidden reasons for the resignation started flying as soon as Clark pulled the plug as children and families minister and said she won't run in the next election.
But I was in the middle of a brief stretch of looking after two boys, four and one, when Clark quit. And charming as Zachary and Gage are, I have no trouble buying her explanation.
There were two main alternate theories. One held that Clark was worried about the fallout from the legislative raids. Her husband, Mark Marrisen, and brother, Bruce Clark, are both high-profile federal Liberal wheels in B.C., and were named in the search warrant information. But neither are under investigation or accused of wrongdoing, and the raids are hardly a sudden development. Don't look there for the reason.
Others mused about a rift between Clark and Gordon Campbell. The theory is that she was more left-leaning, and frustrated with some of the government's policies.
The problem with that theory is the total lack of evidence. Clark has been in cabinet for more than three years. As education minister she left school districts so short of money that they closed schools, increased class sizes and went to four-day weeks. As children and families minister, she's implemented budget cuts to a ministry the Liberals used to say was starved of needed money.
I've never heard a peep that would indicate she disagreed with any of the government's policies. Anyway, I would say Clark's interest - and perhaps skills - lie more in politics than policy.
Trying to raise a preschooler while working at any job is difficult.
For Clark, the challenges were greater. Cabinet jobs are demanding and time-consuming. Building and maintaining political influence - something she values - demands more time and commitment. Evening meetings, drinks after work with colleagues, schmoozing at conventions - those are all part of the deal, and they don't fit well with a child at home.
The resignation isn't great news for the Campbell government, which has fared badly among women voters in most polls. Clark wasn't really as bright a cabinet star as many expected - she was one of those politicians more effective in opposition than in government. But she was the only woman of apparent influence in a cabinet dominated by a few men from the Lower Mainland.
Her resignation also should be worrying news for the rest of us, because of the wider implications.
After a few decades of earnest discussions and conferences about the importance of diversity in our elected officials, not much has changed. When the premiers and the prime minister got together last week to talk about health care, for example, there were no woman at the table. That's a loss.
It's not a question of political correctness. Women and men have different experiences in our society. Women remain the primary caregivers, for children and for the kind of seriously ill or dying family members who were a focus of the home care discussions at the prime minister's health summit.
But they are not part of the top-level political discussions about health care, education or other critical issues. And the decisions will be poorer as a result.
This argument is all based on generalizations.
But it's not really just about gender.
Politics as we practise them today - and this applies at least in part to all parties - tend to be most welcoming to a relatively small group of people, especially at the top. They play an important role in the big decisions. And their judgments are based in part on their life experience as middle-aged, successful males.
Valuable, sure. But it's also ferociously limited. And we're all a little worse off as a result.
Footnote: In the interests of full disclosure, I note that not only am I a middle-aged white guy, but so are my colleagues who write about B.C. politics. Aside from the CBC's Justine Hunter, the legislative Press Gallery is made up of a wonderful insightful pack of middle-aged men.
Christy Clark says she quit because she found it just too hard to balance politics and the challenges of raising a three-year-old. And that is a very good reason.
Speculation on hidden reasons for the resignation started flying as soon as Clark pulled the plug as children and families minister and said she won't run in the next election.
But I was in the middle of a brief stretch of looking after two boys, four and one, when Clark quit. And charming as Zachary and Gage are, I have no trouble buying her explanation.
There were two main alternate theories. One held that Clark was worried about the fallout from the legislative raids. Her husband, Mark Marrisen, and brother, Bruce Clark, are both high-profile federal Liberal wheels in B.C., and were named in the search warrant information. But neither are under investigation or accused of wrongdoing, and the raids are hardly a sudden development. Don't look there for the reason.
Others mused about a rift between Clark and Gordon Campbell. The theory is that she was more left-leaning, and frustrated with some of the government's policies.
The problem with that theory is the total lack of evidence. Clark has been in cabinet for more than three years. As education minister she left school districts so short of money that they closed schools, increased class sizes and went to four-day weeks. As children and families minister, she's implemented budget cuts to a ministry the Liberals used to say was starved of needed money.
I've never heard a peep that would indicate she disagreed with any of the government's policies. Anyway, I would say Clark's interest - and perhaps skills - lie more in politics than policy.
Trying to raise a preschooler while working at any job is difficult.
For Clark, the challenges were greater. Cabinet jobs are demanding and time-consuming. Building and maintaining political influence - something she values - demands more time and commitment. Evening meetings, drinks after work with colleagues, schmoozing at conventions - those are all part of the deal, and they don't fit well with a child at home.
The resignation isn't great news for the Campbell government, which has fared badly among women voters in most polls. Clark wasn't really as bright a cabinet star as many expected - she was one of those politicians more effective in opposition than in government. But she was the only woman of apparent influence in a cabinet dominated by a few men from the Lower Mainland.
Her resignation also should be worrying news for the rest of us, because of the wider implications.
After a few decades of earnest discussions and conferences about the importance of diversity in our elected officials, not much has changed. When the premiers and the prime minister got together last week to talk about health care, for example, there were no woman at the table. That's a loss.
It's not a question of political correctness. Women and men have different experiences in our society. Women remain the primary caregivers, for children and for the kind of seriously ill or dying family members who were a focus of the home care discussions at the prime minister's health summit.
But they are not part of the top-level political discussions about health care, education or other critical issues. And the decisions will be poorer as a result.
This argument is all based on generalizations.
But it's not really just about gender.
Politics as we practise them today - and this applies at least in part to all parties - tend to be most welcoming to a relatively small group of people, especially at the top. They play an important role in the big decisions. And their judgments are based in part on their life experience as middle-aged, successful males.
Valuable, sure. But it's also ferociously limited. And we're all a little worse off as a result.
Footnote: In the interests of full disclosure, I note that not only am I a middle-aged white guy, but so are my colleagues who write about B.C. politics. Aside from the CBC's Justine Hunter, the legislative Press Gallery is made up of a wonderful insightful pack of middle-aged men.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Big hopes, small results from health summit
VICTORIA - I try to be positive, but Paul Martin's health summit strikes me as a dumb exercise.
Not that the people are stupid. B.C.'s delegation is probably typical, and the politicians and senior staffers are dead bright and fully committed to making health care better.
But I started to write this Wednesday evening. I had spent the day looking after two boys, four and one, reading stories, frying up cheese sandwiches and wreaking minor havoc in the local Toys'R'Us.
This meeting was supposed to be all about those boys. The goal was to fix health care for a generation.
It didn't.
The result - useful enough - is a little more money from the taxes you pay to Ottawa, so the taxes you pay to Victoria don't have to rise. Martin succeeded in getting the provinces to offer a nod towards accountability, for which we should be thankful.
But fixing health care for a generation? Not a chance.
The bare bones of the deal are pretty simple. Ottawa will come up with about $3 billion a year more as its share of health care funding. That translates into about $400 million a year for B.C., or enough to fund a 3.3-per-cent spending increase.
That's welcome, although hardly revolutionary. If $400 million a year was enough to fix health care for a generation, the B.C. government had half-a-dozen ways to raise the money. (Just dedicating the extra cash from the Liberals' gambling expansion to health care would produce a similar amount.)
Martin talked a lot about accountability in the unproductive run-up to the summit.
But based on the sketchy details released so far, the deal did little to ensure greater accountability to you - the consumer of the services, and the one who pays for them.
The premiers did promise that by the end of next year they would come up with standards for the wait time for key treatments, and begin reporting on how they are doing at meeting those standards. The idea is that British Columbians may be able compare their wait for hip surgery with people in P.E.I. Provinces making their citizens wait for long times will have to explain why.
But the promise is still vague, and premiers didn't commit to "meaningful reductions" in waits for critical health care like cancer treatments and knee and hip replacements until March 31, 2007.
Health ministers are going to talk about a national prescription drug strategy and report on their progress in June, 2006. The premiers say they'll phase in some sort of minimal guaranteed home care standards, if they can afford to, and report on their progress by the end of 2006.
It's all useful. But it's also the kind of thing Canadians have heard before, in the same context of federal-provincial financial wrangling.
The summit highlighted just how bizarre the health care model remains. You buy home insurance, and you know what you get. Car insurance, the same. But you pay for health insurance - about $2,700 each year per British Columbian - and you're promised nothing.
You pay, and the government makes up the coverage rules on the fly. Maybe hip replacements will be a political or medical hot button, and you'll wait three months. Maybe tax cuts will be the priority of the day, and you'll limp for a couple of years.
There is generally little information about how well, or poorly, the system is working, partly because health care providers have remarkably little useful data about what they do and what it costs.
Martin and the premiers took some small steps to improving accountability.
But mostly the meeting seemed like another federal-provincial money wrangle. Despite the promise of an open meeting, with Canadians able to see the issues being discussed, the real deal was done behind closed doors in the usual last-minute round of dealmaking.
And that will not fix health care for a generation.
Footnote: The premier's idea for a new federally funded national pharmacare plan - credited in part to Premier Gordon Campbell - never made it out of the starting gates. Campbell was one of four premiers - along with Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, New Brunswick's Bernard Lord and Quebec's Jean Charest - who represented the provinces in behnd-the-scenes talks.
Not that the people are stupid. B.C.'s delegation is probably typical, and the politicians and senior staffers are dead bright and fully committed to making health care better.
But I started to write this Wednesday evening. I had spent the day looking after two boys, four and one, reading stories, frying up cheese sandwiches and wreaking minor havoc in the local Toys'R'Us.
This meeting was supposed to be all about those boys. The goal was to fix health care for a generation.
It didn't.
The result - useful enough - is a little more money from the taxes you pay to Ottawa, so the taxes you pay to Victoria don't have to rise. Martin succeeded in getting the provinces to offer a nod towards accountability, for which we should be thankful.
But fixing health care for a generation? Not a chance.
The bare bones of the deal are pretty simple. Ottawa will come up with about $3 billion a year more as its share of health care funding. That translates into about $400 million a year for B.C., or enough to fund a 3.3-per-cent spending increase.
That's welcome, although hardly revolutionary. If $400 million a year was enough to fix health care for a generation, the B.C. government had half-a-dozen ways to raise the money. (Just dedicating the extra cash from the Liberals' gambling expansion to health care would produce a similar amount.)
Martin talked a lot about accountability in the unproductive run-up to the summit.
But based on the sketchy details released so far, the deal did little to ensure greater accountability to you - the consumer of the services, and the one who pays for them.
The premiers did promise that by the end of next year they would come up with standards for the wait time for key treatments, and begin reporting on how they are doing at meeting those standards. The idea is that British Columbians may be able compare their wait for hip surgery with people in P.E.I. Provinces making their citizens wait for long times will have to explain why.
But the promise is still vague, and premiers didn't commit to "meaningful reductions" in waits for critical health care like cancer treatments and knee and hip replacements until March 31, 2007.
Health ministers are going to talk about a national prescription drug strategy and report on their progress in June, 2006. The premiers say they'll phase in some sort of minimal guaranteed home care standards, if they can afford to, and report on their progress by the end of 2006.
It's all useful. But it's also the kind of thing Canadians have heard before, in the same context of federal-provincial financial wrangling.
The summit highlighted just how bizarre the health care model remains. You buy home insurance, and you know what you get. Car insurance, the same. But you pay for health insurance - about $2,700 each year per British Columbian - and you're promised nothing.
You pay, and the government makes up the coverage rules on the fly. Maybe hip replacements will be a political or medical hot button, and you'll wait three months. Maybe tax cuts will be the priority of the day, and you'll limp for a couple of years.
There is generally little information about how well, or poorly, the system is working, partly because health care providers have remarkably little useful data about what they do and what it costs.
Martin and the premiers took some small steps to improving accountability.
But mostly the meeting seemed like another federal-provincial money wrangle. Despite the promise of an open meeting, with Canadians able to see the issues being discussed, the real deal was done behind closed doors in the usual last-minute round of dealmaking.
And that will not fix health care for a generation.
Footnote: The premier's idea for a new federally funded national pharmacare plan - credited in part to Premier Gordon Campbell - never made it out of the starting gates. Campbell was one of four premiers - along with Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, New Brunswick's Bernard Lord and Quebec's Jean Charest - who represented the provinces in behnd-the-scenes talks.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Big surplus big good news for Liberals
VICTORIA - Yes, that is a real $1.2-billion surplus the Liberals are suddenly projecting for this year.
And it makes both the job of governing and their re-election campaign a lot easier.
Finance Minister Gary Collins unveiled the latest financial update Tuesday. Five months into the fiscal year things are going a lot better than he predicted. Instead of a skimpy $100 million surplus - not much in the context of $30 billion in government spending - B.C. is on track for a $1.2-billion surplus.
Things look even better for next year's election budget. The Liberals had been projecting a $275-million surplus. Now Collins is projecting $1.3 billion.
That leaves the Liberals with some enviable choices. They can spend more money, cut taxes or pay down the debt. Or, most likely, do some combination of all three.
It is good news.
Government revenues have are on track to jump about 9.5 per cent over last year. Lumber prices - in part due to a couple of hurricanes in Florida - are nearing record levels, which means both a bigger harvest and higher royalties. Natural gas prices are also high, pushing royalties about $200 million above plan. And low interest rates and a strong economy have pushed up tax revenues.
You can decide how much credit - or blame - any government can take for economic performance. No government policy change can cushion B.C.'s export-based economy from big weakness in our major markets. But the Liberals' tax cuts and move to more business-friendly policies have helped encourage investment in the province.
However before you get too fired up about plans for the money, recognize that even $1 billion isn't all that much in the government scheme of things.
Collins has already set aside $200 million as a cushion in case things take a turn for the worse.
And the Liberals are already under pressure to undo the sales tax increase they imposed in 2002. Knocking the rate back to the original seven per cent - the Liberals raised it to 7.5 per cent - would cost another $280 million.
That leaves $520 million, enough for a 1.7-per-cent overall spending increase. (The Liberals' budget for this year called for a 1.3-per-cent increase, not enough to keep up with population growth or inflation.)
Still, the Liberals can now talk about spending, not cutting. Collins unveiled the background pamphlet for a legislative committee heading out to get input on next year's budget. Should we spend, or cut taxes, or pay down the debt, it asks? How much more for schools, or health care? Those are good questions for a government to be putting before voters.
The Liberal campaign will talk about the shared sacrifice, the tough decisions and the benefits to come, with the larger-than-expected surpluses as the first big example. (And, of course, about the New Democrat's dismal record.)
That still leaves NDP leader Carole James with opportunities. She was quick off the mark in responding to the surplus.
James argued that the Liberals had simply benefited from a strong global economy. And the surpluses had been produced by shifting the tax burden on to middle and lower-income families - a fair charge - and unreasonable spending cuts, she said. Health care and education have been starved of money.
And the issue, says James, is trust. Who do voters trust to make decisions about dealing with the surplus in an effective and equitable way?
That is a pivotal question in the campaign. But there's no way of knowing yet how voters will answer.
James is lugging the NDP's past baggage, her own fiscal plans are still fuzzy and she has no track record.
But trust isn't exactly Campbell's biggest asset either. He's profoundly unpopular, according to the polls, and has already broken trust on BC Rail and other campaign promises.
Both leaders have the next eight months to persuade voters that they can be trusted.
Footnote: The government's numbers look sound, although there always risks froma volatile global economy. GIve the Liberals full credit for consistent openness in setting out the state of the province's finances, and the assumptions underlying them. They have set a high standard for transparency and - aside from a consistent conservative lean in the budgeting - for accurate forecasts.
And it makes both the job of governing and their re-election campaign a lot easier.
Finance Minister Gary Collins unveiled the latest financial update Tuesday. Five months into the fiscal year things are going a lot better than he predicted. Instead of a skimpy $100 million surplus - not much in the context of $30 billion in government spending - B.C. is on track for a $1.2-billion surplus.
Things look even better for next year's election budget. The Liberals had been projecting a $275-million surplus. Now Collins is projecting $1.3 billion.
That leaves the Liberals with some enviable choices. They can spend more money, cut taxes or pay down the debt. Or, most likely, do some combination of all three.
It is good news.
Government revenues have are on track to jump about 9.5 per cent over last year. Lumber prices - in part due to a couple of hurricanes in Florida - are nearing record levels, which means both a bigger harvest and higher royalties. Natural gas prices are also high, pushing royalties about $200 million above plan. And low interest rates and a strong economy have pushed up tax revenues.
You can decide how much credit - or blame - any government can take for economic performance. No government policy change can cushion B.C.'s export-based economy from big weakness in our major markets. But the Liberals' tax cuts and move to more business-friendly policies have helped encourage investment in the province.
However before you get too fired up about plans for the money, recognize that even $1 billion isn't all that much in the government scheme of things.
Collins has already set aside $200 million as a cushion in case things take a turn for the worse.
And the Liberals are already under pressure to undo the sales tax increase they imposed in 2002. Knocking the rate back to the original seven per cent - the Liberals raised it to 7.5 per cent - would cost another $280 million.
That leaves $520 million, enough for a 1.7-per-cent overall spending increase. (The Liberals' budget for this year called for a 1.3-per-cent increase, not enough to keep up with population growth or inflation.)
Still, the Liberals can now talk about spending, not cutting. Collins unveiled the background pamphlet for a legislative committee heading out to get input on next year's budget. Should we spend, or cut taxes, or pay down the debt, it asks? How much more for schools, or health care? Those are good questions for a government to be putting before voters.
The Liberal campaign will talk about the shared sacrifice, the tough decisions and the benefits to come, with the larger-than-expected surpluses as the first big example. (And, of course, about the New Democrat's dismal record.)
That still leaves NDP leader Carole James with opportunities. She was quick off the mark in responding to the surplus.
James argued that the Liberals had simply benefited from a strong global economy. And the surpluses had been produced by shifting the tax burden on to middle and lower-income families - a fair charge - and unreasonable spending cuts, she said. Health care and education have been starved of money.
And the issue, says James, is trust. Who do voters trust to make decisions about dealing with the surplus in an effective and equitable way?
That is a pivotal question in the campaign. But there's no way of knowing yet how voters will answer.
James is lugging the NDP's past baggage, her own fiscal plans are still fuzzy and she has no track record.
But trust isn't exactly Campbell's biggest asset either. He's profoundly unpopular, according to the polls, and has already broken trust on BC Rail and other campaign promises.
Both leaders have the next eight months to persuade voters that they can be trusted.
Footnote: The government's numbers look sound, although there always risks froma volatile global economy. GIve the Liberals full credit for consistent openness in setting out the state of the province's finances, and the assumptions underlying them. They have set a high standard for transparency and - aside from a consistent conservative lean in the budgeting - for accurate forecasts.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Da Kine follies a fine symbol for our pot policies
VICTORIA - It's hard to see the people who run the Da Kine pot shop as criminal masterminds.
The little store on Vancouver's Commercial Drive has been the city's most famous site for the last two weeks. Hundreds of hours of police time, lots of media coverage, police and politicians running to and fro, all for a small store that's committed the crime of openly selling marijuana.
No doubt it was a good business, especially once the media told everybody about the opportunity. When police - some 30 of them - finally raided Da Kine they scooped up $63,000.
But despite the cash, Da Kine looks mostly like disorganized crime. If the goal was big profits, they could have quietly kept on selling. Instead, the store operators embraced the publicity, and pretty much dared the police to do something.
Which, or course, they did.
The whole weird saga says something about our doomed war on marijuana.
The story broke that Da Kine was selling over-the-counter marijuana about two weeks ago. Customers had to say they needed the drug for medicinal reasons, but the rules were, shall we say, relaxed.
So the reporters asked police what they knew, and what they were going to do.
We know they're selling marijuana, said Vancouver police. And we're not going to do anything, because - in case you haven't looked around lately - Vancouver has bigger crime problems.
Vancouver city councillors mostly expressed the same ho-hum attitude. As long as nobody gets too upset, they had other issues to worry about.
But then Da Kine kept making the news. Solicitor General Rich Coleman said he was sure police would act. Vancouver politicians started getting a little more worried.
Instead of quietly skirting the law, the Da Kine operators were making police look like they weren't doing their jobs. So they did, scooping up half-a-dozen people.
The next day the store was open for business again. If it keeps making news, the police will probably have to arrest some more people.
It's a bizarre little story, and one that shows just how muddled our approach to marijuana has become. Marijuana possession is a crime, sort of, at least until Paul Martin changes the law. Selling marijuana is a crime, but not one ordinarily of high police interest unless you work at attracting their attention.
The confusion is understandable, since police and prosecutors are in an impossible position. One in six B.C. adults, according to StatsCan, used marijuana in the last 12 months. That's more than half-a-million people, too many to arrest.
Those people are also a significant market, one that is virtually certain to attract people keen on supplying it. The tougher enforcement efforts against them, the higher the profits for those who are successful, the more people who enter the business, and the more likely organized crime becomes involved. (See the U.S. attempt at alcohol Prohibition, and the rise of big-time gangsters.)
Arresting the staff of the Da Kine cafe didn't even shut down the store, let alone make a dent in the marijuana supply.
There was no real alternative to raiding Da Kine, given the operators' provocations.
But there is an opportunity to rethink our overall approach to marijuana.
In a perfect world, few would choose to use a drug to alter their reality - not marijuana, or alcohol, or crystal meth.
But we do, and that leaves three challenges. We need to make sure people, especially young people, get an accurate understanding of the risks of all drugs. We need to have adequate support for people who are dealing with drug problems.
And we need to come up with an effective enforcement approach.
Rushing around ripping up grow ops - or raiding a store - accomplishes nothing. The marijuana supply isn't reduced; organized criminals are only inconvenienced; drug use is unaffected.
And what is the point of that?
Footnote: What are the alternatives? If the aim is organized crime, then come up with more money for law enforcement. The now defunct Organized Crime Agency of BC has complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. For a more radical approach, simply legalize possession of a few marijuana plants. The commercial grow op business would wither away.
The little store on Vancouver's Commercial Drive has been the city's most famous site for the last two weeks. Hundreds of hours of police time, lots of media coverage, police and politicians running to and fro, all for a small store that's committed the crime of openly selling marijuana.
No doubt it was a good business, especially once the media told everybody about the opportunity. When police - some 30 of them - finally raided Da Kine they scooped up $63,000.
But despite the cash, Da Kine looks mostly like disorganized crime. If the goal was big profits, they could have quietly kept on selling. Instead, the store operators embraced the publicity, and pretty much dared the police to do something.
Which, or course, they did.
The whole weird saga says something about our doomed war on marijuana.
The story broke that Da Kine was selling over-the-counter marijuana about two weeks ago. Customers had to say they needed the drug for medicinal reasons, but the rules were, shall we say, relaxed.
So the reporters asked police what they knew, and what they were going to do.
We know they're selling marijuana, said Vancouver police. And we're not going to do anything, because - in case you haven't looked around lately - Vancouver has bigger crime problems.
Vancouver city councillors mostly expressed the same ho-hum attitude. As long as nobody gets too upset, they had other issues to worry about.
But then Da Kine kept making the news. Solicitor General Rich Coleman said he was sure police would act. Vancouver politicians started getting a little more worried.
Instead of quietly skirting the law, the Da Kine operators were making police look like they weren't doing their jobs. So they did, scooping up half-a-dozen people.
The next day the store was open for business again. If it keeps making news, the police will probably have to arrest some more people.
It's a bizarre little story, and one that shows just how muddled our approach to marijuana has become. Marijuana possession is a crime, sort of, at least until Paul Martin changes the law. Selling marijuana is a crime, but not one ordinarily of high police interest unless you work at attracting their attention.
The confusion is understandable, since police and prosecutors are in an impossible position. One in six B.C. adults, according to StatsCan, used marijuana in the last 12 months. That's more than half-a-million people, too many to arrest.
Those people are also a significant market, one that is virtually certain to attract people keen on supplying it. The tougher enforcement efforts against them, the higher the profits for those who are successful, the more people who enter the business, and the more likely organized crime becomes involved. (See the U.S. attempt at alcohol Prohibition, and the rise of big-time gangsters.)
Arresting the staff of the Da Kine cafe didn't even shut down the store, let alone make a dent in the marijuana supply.
There was no real alternative to raiding Da Kine, given the operators' provocations.
But there is an opportunity to rethink our overall approach to marijuana.
In a perfect world, few would choose to use a drug to alter their reality - not marijuana, or alcohol, or crystal meth.
But we do, and that leaves three challenges. We need to make sure people, especially young people, get an accurate understanding of the risks of all drugs. We need to have adequate support for people who are dealing with drug problems.
And we need to come up with an effective enforcement approach.
Rushing around ripping up grow ops - or raiding a store - accomplishes nothing. The marijuana supply isn't reduced; organized criminals are only inconvenienced; drug use is unaffected.
And what is the point of that?
Footnote: What are the alternatives? If the aim is organized crime, then come up with more money for law enforcement. The now defunct Organized Crime Agency of BC has complained that a budget freeze left it unable to do its job. For a more radical approach, simply legalize possession of a few marijuana plants. The commercial grow op business would wither away.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Search warrant opening good news for Liberals
VICTORIA - The latest information on the raids on the legislature doesn't make the Campbell government look great, but it's far from political bad news.
Supreme Court Justice Patrick Dohm ruled the public could see a small portion of the search warrant applications in the raid on legislature offices last Dec. 28.
The information was still heavily censored, with nothing about the other searches linked to the drug investigation that was the start of the entire exercise.
And - this is important - all the information represents are the police suspicions that led to the searches. Nothing is proven. No one has even been charged in connection with the legislature raids.
The documents show police suspected Dave Basi, the former top aide to Finance Minister Gary Collins, was secretly helping Omnitrax, one of the bidders for BC Rail's Roberts bank line, and Omnitrax lobbyist Erik Bornman.
Police alleged that Robert Virk, the senior aide to former transportation minister Judith Reid, was helping Basi, and passed on documents about the BC Rail deal.
The police theory was that Virk and Basi were helping Bornman because he was a mover and shaker within the Paul Martin wing of the federal Liberal party. The duo believed he could help them get good jobs after Martin won the coming election, police told the court in justifying the search warrants.
Police said they suspected that both Basi and Virk illegally accepted a benefit and committed breach of trust.
Remember, nothing is proven and only Basi and Virk remain under investigation.
It's still a messy cloud to have hanging over the government, for a couple of reasons.
Ministerial assistants are senior staff members, who in most cases work very closely with the minister. They attend most meetings, often decide who gets to see the minister and are involved in policy discussions. Hiring them should be a pretty careful process. The police are suggesting that the Liberals may have got it very wrong. (Basi was fired after the raids; Virk has been on paid leave for more than eight months. The government has never successfully explained the different treatments.)
And the information in the warrants is a reminder of just how tight the ties are between the federal Liberals and a core group within the provincial Liberals. (The investigation included searches and interviews with several senior B.C. federal Liberal insiders.)
It's not a welcome reminder. The Campbell Liberals are a coalition, and one issue that could split them apart is the question of ties to a federal party.
Many provincial Liberals are federal Conservatives. If they believe that the provincial party is dominated by federal Liberals who are working closely with the federal party in a partisan way, those federal Conservatives will be angry. They will be even angrier if they believe the association has brought trouble down on the provincial party. And they will have an option if the new Conservative provincial party gets off the ground.
But those concerns aside, the provincial Liberals can mostly see the release of the information as good news.
There are no suspicions or allegations of broader involvement, nothing that links any politicians in any way with the raids or investigation, and nothing that suggests negligence or inattention.
Nobody apparently benefited or lost from the scheme, except for the taxpayers who were out about $1 million when the sale of BC Rail's Roberts' Bank spur had to be cancelled because of the charges.
Even the timing of the release of the information is helpful for the Liberals. Voters have the chance to consider the search warrant material, and form whatever opinion they will, long before next May's election.
In terms of voter support, it's not likely that this information changes a great deal.
People predisposed to dislike or suspect Gordon Campbell will have another reason for their position. Supporters will be buoyed. and most voters will be considering other issues.
Footnote: The Liberals made the odd decision to announce $20 million in health care funding in the day the search warrant information was released. The timing was likely aimed at setting the stage for the Martin health summit, but it meant less media attention to a good news story.
Supreme Court Justice Patrick Dohm ruled the public could see a small portion of the search warrant applications in the raid on legislature offices last Dec. 28.
The information was still heavily censored, with nothing about the other searches linked to the drug investigation that was the start of the entire exercise.
And - this is important - all the information represents are the police suspicions that led to the searches. Nothing is proven. No one has even been charged in connection with the legislature raids.
The documents show police suspected Dave Basi, the former top aide to Finance Minister Gary Collins, was secretly helping Omnitrax, one of the bidders for BC Rail's Roberts bank line, and Omnitrax lobbyist Erik Bornman.
Police alleged that Robert Virk, the senior aide to former transportation minister Judith Reid, was helping Basi, and passed on documents about the BC Rail deal.
The police theory was that Virk and Basi were helping Bornman because he was a mover and shaker within the Paul Martin wing of the federal Liberal party. The duo believed he could help them get good jobs after Martin won the coming election, police told the court in justifying the search warrants.
Police said they suspected that both Basi and Virk illegally accepted a benefit and committed breach of trust.
Remember, nothing is proven and only Basi and Virk remain under investigation.
It's still a messy cloud to have hanging over the government, for a couple of reasons.
Ministerial assistants are senior staff members, who in most cases work very closely with the minister. They attend most meetings, often decide who gets to see the minister and are involved in policy discussions. Hiring them should be a pretty careful process. The police are suggesting that the Liberals may have got it very wrong. (Basi was fired after the raids; Virk has been on paid leave for more than eight months. The government has never successfully explained the different treatments.)
And the information in the warrants is a reminder of just how tight the ties are between the federal Liberals and a core group within the provincial Liberals. (The investigation included searches and interviews with several senior B.C. federal Liberal insiders.)
It's not a welcome reminder. The Campbell Liberals are a coalition, and one issue that could split them apart is the question of ties to a federal party.
Many provincial Liberals are federal Conservatives. If they believe that the provincial party is dominated by federal Liberals who are working closely with the federal party in a partisan way, those federal Conservatives will be angry. They will be even angrier if they believe the association has brought trouble down on the provincial party. And they will have an option if the new Conservative provincial party gets off the ground.
But those concerns aside, the provincial Liberals can mostly see the release of the information as good news.
There are no suspicions or allegations of broader involvement, nothing that links any politicians in any way with the raids or investigation, and nothing that suggests negligence or inattention.
Nobody apparently benefited or lost from the scheme, except for the taxpayers who were out about $1 million when the sale of BC Rail's Roberts' Bank spur had to be cancelled because of the charges.
Even the timing of the release of the information is helpful for the Liberals. Voters have the chance to consider the search warrant material, and form whatever opinion they will, long before next May's election.
In terms of voter support, it's not likely that this information changes a great deal.
People predisposed to dislike or suspect Gordon Campbell will have another reason for their position. Supporters will be buoyed. and most voters will be considering other issues.
Footnote: The Liberals made the odd decision to announce $20 million in health care funding in the day the search warrant information was released. The timing was likely aimed at setting the stage for the Martin health summit, but it meant less media attention to a good news story.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Liberals betraying trust with wild gambling expansion
VICTORIA - The Liberals used to think gambling was terrible.
Gordon Campbell said gambling creates addicts and hurts families, back when the Liberals were in opposition. And his position was clear.
"No new casinos," said Campbell. "The only way the government gets money from gambling is from losers. We don't want an economy based on losers. There will be no further expansion of gambling. We'll try to reduce it.''
The Liberal New era platform even promised to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
But after the election everything changed and the Liberals rushed to ramp up gambling throughout the province, striving to recruit more losers, to use the premier's word.
There were 2,400 slot machines when the Liberals were elected. Now B.C. there are almost 5,000 slots.
The Liberals have opened mega-casinos and are pushing more addictive forms of gambling into small communities by encouraging bingo halls around B.C. to add slot machines. They have allowed drinking in casinos - something it also used to oppose. Alcohol and gambling; a match made in heaven if the aim is to encourage people to lose more.
It's worked. The government's take - its share of peoples' losses - has climbed by 50 per cent, to $850 million, under the Liberals. They plan to push that to more than $1 billion in the next two years.
It wasn't just the premier who used to be opposed.
Children and Families Minister Christy Clark used to speak out against casino expansion. She said gambling destroyed families, and resulted in violence against women. Any government that really cared about women wouldn't expand gambling, she said.
Katherine Whittred grilled the New Democrats about their much more modest expansion plans. "Faced with the avalanche of research into the negative effects of increased gambling on women, can the minister tell the House why she won't stand up for B.C.'s women and oppose the premier's dangerous gambling expansion?"
Kamloops MLA Kevin Krueger opposed gambling expansion on clear moral grounds.
Krueger warned of the dangers of problem and pathological gambling. He spoke sadly about the terrible tragedy in which a man entangled in a gambling addiction was accused of trying to kill his wife and child by setting them on fire.
More places to gamble meant more horrors, he said then. "The people it hurts the most are the ones we have a responsibility to protect, such as the poor, women and abused families," he said.
Please, Krueger urged New Democrat backbenchers. Stand up to your premier. Halt the gambling expansion. It is simply immoral.
Big deal, you may say. Politicians say one thing and do another. Circumstances change, the realities of governing and making tough choices come into play.
But this is different.
The Liberals' objections to gambling expansion were based on principle. They believed it was wrong for government to profit by exploiting peoples' weaknesses, by putting money ahead of the harm to individuals and families.
It's defensible to flip-flop on selling off a government-owned railway.
But how do you walk away from your principles, and not leave something important behind?
Campbell is right.
Government gambling is built on creating losers, and persuading them to lose more and more.
About 1.9 million gamble through some B.C. government lottery or casino or game of chance each month.
The government currently plans to lure 200,000 more people into becoming regular gamblers over the next four years, winning them over with marketing campaigns and by pushing seductive slot machines into neighbourhoods from Cranbrook to Prince Rupert.
And the Liberals are doing it knowing they are hurting people. About 90.000 people are already problem gamblers in B.C. The government's expansion plans mean another 9,000 will slide into that abyss.
What's sad is that based on their past statements, the Liberals know that what they are doing is wrong.
Footnote: Communities looking at putting slots into bingo halls to get the 10-per-cent of revenue that goes to the host municipal governments should talk to University of Nevada gambling expert William Thompson. Gambling sucks money out of the local economy that would have been spent on other goods and services, he says. An average B.C. slot machine rakes in $140,000 a year from losing gamblers. And most of that money leaves town.
Gordon Campbell said gambling creates addicts and hurts families, back when the Liberals were in opposition. And his position was clear.
"No new casinos," said Campbell. "The only way the government gets money from gambling is from losers. We don't want an economy based on losers. There will be no further expansion of gambling. We'll try to reduce it.''
The Liberal New era platform even promised to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
But after the election everything changed and the Liberals rushed to ramp up gambling throughout the province, striving to recruit more losers, to use the premier's word.
There were 2,400 slot machines when the Liberals were elected. Now B.C. there are almost 5,000 slots.
The Liberals have opened mega-casinos and are pushing more addictive forms of gambling into small communities by encouraging bingo halls around B.C. to add slot machines. They have allowed drinking in casinos - something it also used to oppose. Alcohol and gambling; a match made in heaven if the aim is to encourage people to lose more.
It's worked. The government's take - its share of peoples' losses - has climbed by 50 per cent, to $850 million, under the Liberals. They plan to push that to more than $1 billion in the next two years.
It wasn't just the premier who used to be opposed.
Children and Families Minister Christy Clark used to speak out against casino expansion. She said gambling destroyed families, and resulted in violence against women. Any government that really cared about women wouldn't expand gambling, she said.
Katherine Whittred grilled the New Democrats about their much more modest expansion plans. "Faced with the avalanche of research into the negative effects of increased gambling on women, can the minister tell the House why she won't stand up for B.C.'s women and oppose the premier's dangerous gambling expansion?"
Kamloops MLA Kevin Krueger opposed gambling expansion on clear moral grounds.
Krueger warned of the dangers of problem and pathological gambling. He spoke sadly about the terrible tragedy in which a man entangled in a gambling addiction was accused of trying to kill his wife and child by setting them on fire.
More places to gamble meant more horrors, he said then. "The people it hurts the most are the ones we have a responsibility to protect, such as the poor, women and abused families," he said.
Please, Krueger urged New Democrat backbenchers. Stand up to your premier. Halt the gambling expansion. It is simply immoral.
Big deal, you may say. Politicians say one thing and do another. Circumstances change, the realities of governing and making tough choices come into play.
But this is different.
The Liberals' objections to gambling expansion were based on principle. They believed it was wrong for government to profit by exploiting peoples' weaknesses, by putting money ahead of the harm to individuals and families.
It's defensible to flip-flop on selling off a government-owned railway.
But how do you walk away from your principles, and not leave something important behind?
Campbell is right.
Government gambling is built on creating losers, and persuading them to lose more and more.
About 1.9 million gamble through some B.C. government lottery or casino or game of chance each month.
The government currently plans to lure 200,000 more people into becoming regular gamblers over the next four years, winning them over with marketing campaigns and by pushing seductive slot machines into neighbourhoods from Cranbrook to Prince Rupert.
And the Liberals are doing it knowing they are hurting people. About 90.000 people are already problem gamblers in B.C. The government's expansion plans mean another 9,000 will slide into that abyss.
What's sad is that based on their past statements, the Liberals know that what they are doing is wrong.
Footnote: Communities looking at putting slots into bingo halls to get the 10-per-cent of revenue that goes to the host municipal governments should talk to University of Nevada gambling expert William Thompson. Gambling sucks money out of the local economy that would have been spent on other goods and services, he says. An average B.C. slot machine rakes in $140,000 a year from losing gamblers. And most of that money leaves town.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
New parties of the centre-right threaten Liberals
VICTORIA - Who would have thought that the Campbell government could face a big threat from what most observers would dismiss as fringe parties.
Unity Party leader Chris Delaney grabbed some attention last week by announcing plans to merge with the B.C. Conservatives and adopt their name.
So who cares, you may ask? The Conservatives barely exist and Unity claims about 4,500 members. It doesn't sound much like a big deal.
But it could be.
Because even a small gain in the new party's share of the vote could cost the Liberals closely contested ridings.
It's a little bit weird even to be writing this. After the Liberals' huge 2001 win, it seemed impossible to imagine that they could be challenged in next May's election.
But the polls show the New Democrats and the Liberals effectively tied now. And that sets up a classic B.C. showdown between the evenly matched forces of what we can arbitrarily call the right and the left. If the vote is split within either flank, that side is in trouble. (See the 1991 and 1996 elections, when the right vote split and the NDP won.)
Enter Unity and the Conservatives.
Unity, the child of another unite-the-right marriage, has made a dent in public consciousness, keeping up a steady stream of statements on the issues. The party registers in the polls, claiming seven per cent of decided voters in the southern Interior in the last Ipsos poll.
The Conservatives haven't made much of an impact. But they've got a name, and more importantly they have the potential support of B.C.'s strong federal Alliance-Conservative network. Some federal Conservatives believe the Campbell Liberals are too tightly tied to the federal Liberal party, and that B.C. needs a provincial Conservative wing aligned with the federal party. MP Darrel Stinson has already signed on.
It's a big problem for the Campbell Liberals, because even a small loss of support to another party on the right is serious.
The UBC Sauder School of Business sponsors on-line election stock markets, and to help the punters professor Werner Antweiler has an on-line 'voter migration matrix election forecaster.' The chart lets you model the effects of different vote shifts since the last election. (Google 'ubc election stock market' to try it yourself.)
The most recent poll, from the Mustel Group poll, showed the NDP at 42 per cent, Liberals at 40 per cent, the Greens at 11 per cent and the rest of the parties sharing six per cent of the vote. Plug those values into the model and it predicts a Liberal majority, with 46 seats to the NDP's 33.
But if a new Unity-Conservative party - or any other on the centre-right - takes even two per cent from the Liberals, everything changes. The forecast is for a virtual tie, with the NDP with a slight advantage.
It's not science, but it should be a concern for the Liberals. Unity, which barely attracted more votes than the Marijuana Party in the 2001 election, is poised to play a major role in next May's vote.
And if the merger fails, or Unity proves to be too socially Conservative for British Columbians, then there is the BC Democrat Alliance, another centre-right party looking to capitalize on the Liberals' weakness. Leader Tom Morino is a two-time Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive who hopes to follow the path blazed by Gordon Wilson and his PDA party.
Come on, you may say. Voters who don't want the NDP back aren't going to vote for some new party. They'll recognize the pragmatic need to unite behind the Liberals. But almost 200,000 people voted Green last time, even though most knew their local candidate couldn't win. They had a message to send.
The new parties of the centre-right offer voters the same chance to send a message. Gordon Campbell should be worried.
Footnote: The Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection - when Campbell finally calls it - will be a good test for the new parties. The Liberals will likely run Mary Polak, known as a 'conservative' school trustee. The Unity-Conservative candidate will likely be Heather Stilwell, Polak's cohort on the board, while Molino plans to run for the new BC Democrat Alliance.
Unity Party leader Chris Delaney grabbed some attention last week by announcing plans to merge with the B.C. Conservatives and adopt their name.
So who cares, you may ask? The Conservatives barely exist and Unity claims about 4,500 members. It doesn't sound much like a big deal.
But it could be.
Because even a small gain in the new party's share of the vote could cost the Liberals closely contested ridings.
It's a little bit weird even to be writing this. After the Liberals' huge 2001 win, it seemed impossible to imagine that they could be challenged in next May's election.
But the polls show the New Democrats and the Liberals effectively tied now. And that sets up a classic B.C. showdown between the evenly matched forces of what we can arbitrarily call the right and the left. If the vote is split within either flank, that side is in trouble. (See the 1991 and 1996 elections, when the right vote split and the NDP won.)
Enter Unity and the Conservatives.
Unity, the child of another unite-the-right marriage, has made a dent in public consciousness, keeping up a steady stream of statements on the issues. The party registers in the polls, claiming seven per cent of decided voters in the southern Interior in the last Ipsos poll.
The Conservatives haven't made much of an impact. But they've got a name, and more importantly they have the potential support of B.C.'s strong federal Alliance-Conservative network. Some federal Conservatives believe the Campbell Liberals are too tightly tied to the federal Liberal party, and that B.C. needs a provincial Conservative wing aligned with the federal party. MP Darrel Stinson has already signed on.
It's a big problem for the Campbell Liberals, because even a small loss of support to another party on the right is serious.
The UBC Sauder School of Business sponsors on-line election stock markets, and to help the punters professor Werner Antweiler has an on-line 'voter migration matrix election forecaster.' The chart lets you model the effects of different vote shifts since the last election. (Google 'ubc election stock market' to try it yourself.)
The most recent poll, from the Mustel Group poll, showed the NDP at 42 per cent, Liberals at 40 per cent, the Greens at 11 per cent and the rest of the parties sharing six per cent of the vote. Plug those values into the model and it predicts a Liberal majority, with 46 seats to the NDP's 33.
But if a new Unity-Conservative party - or any other on the centre-right - takes even two per cent from the Liberals, everything changes. The forecast is for a virtual tie, with the NDP with a slight advantage.
It's not science, but it should be a concern for the Liberals. Unity, which barely attracted more votes than the Marijuana Party in the 2001 election, is poised to play a major role in next May's vote.
And if the merger fails, or Unity proves to be too socially Conservative for British Columbians, then there is the BC Democrat Alliance, another centre-right party looking to capitalize on the Liberals' weakness. Leader Tom Morino is a two-time Liberal candidate and former member of the party's provincial executive who hopes to follow the path blazed by Gordon Wilson and his PDA party.
Come on, you may say. Voters who don't want the NDP back aren't going to vote for some new party. They'll recognize the pragmatic need to unite behind the Liberals. But almost 200,000 people voted Green last time, even though most knew their local candidate couldn't win. They had a message to send.
The new parties of the centre-right offer voters the same chance to send a message. Gordon Campbell should be worried.
Footnote: The Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection - when Campbell finally calls it - will be a good test for the new parties. The Liberals will likely run Mary Polak, known as a 'conservative' school trustee. The Unity-Conservative candidate will likely be Heather Stilwell, Polak's cohort on the board, while Molino plans to run for the new BC Democrat Alliance.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Premiers, PM fumbling health care summit
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
