VICTORIA - Think you had a lousy week at work?
It could be worse. You could be Prem Vinning, hired on Monday to a great-sounding job in the premier's office, and gone by Wednesday after admiting using a fake name to lob a spftball question to Premier Gordon Campbell on a call-in show.
Liberals should be steamed at the decision to hire Vinning in the first place, which showed wretched political judgment.
The whole mess was reported by Sean Holman, the obsessive watcher of B.C. politics, on his always interesting web site PublicEyeOnline.com.
Vinning was hired as director of Asia-Pacific trade and economic development in the premier's office, a brand new job. The idea that B.C. need a better focus on Asian opportunities makes sense.
But the logical place for that initiative is in the economic development ministry, which has other trade responsibilities and all the needed support staff.
And the logical candidate would likely be someone other than Vinning. That's no slight on his accomplishments. Vinning is fiftyish, one-time housebuilder and part-owner of Jackpine Forest Products up in Williams Lake. He was born in India, grew up and went to school in England. It's not the resume of an obvious candidate for the job of driving trade with Asia.
Vinning has other credentials though. He has been a hugely influential figure in federal Liberal politics in B.C. for 15 years or so, able to deliver nominations and influence elections. Vinning ran unsuccessfully for the federal party in 1993, and has been a power behind the scenes since. If you were looking for support from the IndoCanadian community in B.C., Vinning was probably the first person you called on.
Campbell apparently did. The Liberals publicly blamed star candidate Mary Polak's defeat in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection on a loss of support in the IndoCanadian community. In December, Campbell held meetings to try and win back a voter group that feels ignored by the government they helped elect. And Vinning was a key person on the guest list.
The meetings did not go well, at least according to a report in the IndoCanadian press.
Barely a month later, four months before the May election, Vinning winds up in a good job in the premier's office, working in a field where he does not seem to be the most obvious candidate. Suspicious minds might wonder if part of his allure was the chance to improve Liberal political fortunes - and then wonder if taxpayers should really be paying for that effort.
On top of those concerns, add a lingering controversy. The federal government came up with a $55-million program to help B.C. cope with duties levied under the softwood dispute in late 2002. The first business to get money - and the only one in the first round of payments - was Vinning's Jackpine. (All the other recepients were community groups.) The company got a $2-million loan for a new plant. Two months later, it went to court to seek protection from its creditors. The committee that approved the loan said it was never told about the financial problems.
And then came Campbell's weekend talk show appearance. Vinning, two days before starting his new job, called in. But he used a different name, calling himself Peter. "I'm in the trucking business and, you know, the economy is going great guns and that's good." But what will the premier do about transportation delays, he asked.
"A very, very good question," said Campbell, before launching into a pitch for the Liberals' transportation plans.
Two hours after Holman posted an item on the call, Vinning resigned.
There's a sad haplessness about it all, from the creation of the job through the hiring of Vinning and on to the phoney call dsigned to make the boss look good.
If the Liberals' plan to win back IndoCanadian voters, there going to have to do a lot better.
Footnote: Campbell says he didn't recognize Vinning's voice. Lots of other people did, from both political parties. Perhaps the mini-scandal will convince all parties to end the dubious practice of having political operatives call talk shows to offer easy and supportive questions whenever their masters are on the air.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Bond's job is to get facts on Nelson hospital case
VICTORIA - Health Minister Shirley Bond has two choices - order an independent review of a controversial death at Nelson's hospital, or pick up the phone and ask the coroner's office for some information.
The second choice is the simplest, most sensible option.
Edward Morritt died last March after a series of events that heightened Nelson residents' concerns about the quality of available medical care.
Morritt was 75, and suffered from health problems that could be expected at that age. He fell while working in his yard, made his way into his house, and waited three hours until he could reach a family member. He arrived at Kootenay Lake General Hospital in Nelson by ambulance at 6:18 p.m. Doctors feared internal bleeding. His condition meant x-rays weren't practical. The hospital had ultrasound equipment, but technicians weren't on call after hours.
By 8 p.m., doctors wanted to move him to Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail for a CT scan, admission to the Intensive Care Unit and surgical care.
But they couldn't connect with the surgeon, and were told no bed was available. The situation was eventually straightened out, but the result was that Morritt didn't arrive at the hospital until 10:40 p.m. He died less than three hours later. The cause of death was internal bleeding from a ruptured spleen.
People die every day, despite the best care we're able to provide. Perhaps Morritt, who was taking blood thinning medication, was just one of those people who received too serious an injury to allow effective treatment.
But his family, and others in the community, have raised questions about the reduced level of care in the Nelson hospital. They want to know if he could have been saved if more options had been available in his hometown. And they had hoped that a coroner's inquest would provide some answers.
It didn't. Coroner Jeff Dolan ruled the death accidental and made no recommendations.
Perhaps that could have ended the issue.
But CBC News learned that the investigator who reviewed the death for the coroner did make recommendations, which weren't included in the final report. The coroner's agent, Jim Draper, wouldn't reveal specifics but said three important recommendations related to questions about how the health care system may have failed Morritt.
So why weren't the recommendations included? Dolan says he can't answer that question. Lisa Lapointe, speaking for the coroner's office, says she can't discuss specifics, but adds that coroners rarely tell health authorities what to do. (raising the question, why not?)
The result leaves questions about whether service reductions in Nelson were a factor in Morritt's death.
Bond was quick to point to the coroner's report as an indication that everything was fine in Nelson. (The Interior Health Authority made the same claim.)
But Bond says she's content with final report, and doesn't want to compromise the independence of the coroner's office by asking questions about the abandoned recommendations.
That's a bad answer. The medical staff at Nelson's hospital have expressed concerns over the effect of cuts on Morritt and other patients, and the lack of recommendations in the coroner's report. The issue is important to the people of the region. The health minister should want answers.
All Bond has to do is call the coroner's office and ask for the draft recommendations. If the chief coroner says no, she would have to consider next steps, but any effective health minister would ask for the information.
If she is unwilling to do that, Bond should order an independent, public inquiry. It does not need to be involved, or costly. A review of the existing record should suffice. (The health authority hired an Alberta doctor to review the case, but hasn't released its findings.)
Major questions remain about Morritt's death. The health minister's should want to get the answers.
Footnote: Hospital medical staff say Morritt would have been able to get an ultrasound in Nelson before the cuts to services; the IHA says that's not true. The community needs a definitive answer to that and other questions. Restructuring health care is a huge undertaking, with significant risks and benefits. We need to look at the consequences and learn, instead of shying away from the facts.
The second choice is the simplest, most sensible option.
Edward Morritt died last March after a series of events that heightened Nelson residents' concerns about the quality of available medical care.
Morritt was 75, and suffered from health problems that could be expected at that age. He fell while working in his yard, made his way into his house, and waited three hours until he could reach a family member. He arrived at Kootenay Lake General Hospital in Nelson by ambulance at 6:18 p.m. Doctors feared internal bleeding. His condition meant x-rays weren't practical. The hospital had ultrasound equipment, but technicians weren't on call after hours.
By 8 p.m., doctors wanted to move him to Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail for a CT scan, admission to the Intensive Care Unit and surgical care.
But they couldn't connect with the surgeon, and were told no bed was available. The situation was eventually straightened out, but the result was that Morritt didn't arrive at the hospital until 10:40 p.m. He died less than three hours later. The cause of death was internal bleeding from a ruptured spleen.
People die every day, despite the best care we're able to provide. Perhaps Morritt, who was taking blood thinning medication, was just one of those people who received too serious an injury to allow effective treatment.
But his family, and others in the community, have raised questions about the reduced level of care in the Nelson hospital. They want to know if he could have been saved if more options had been available in his hometown. And they had hoped that a coroner's inquest would provide some answers.
It didn't. Coroner Jeff Dolan ruled the death accidental and made no recommendations.
Perhaps that could have ended the issue.
But CBC News learned that the investigator who reviewed the death for the coroner did make recommendations, which weren't included in the final report. The coroner's agent, Jim Draper, wouldn't reveal specifics but said three important recommendations related to questions about how the health care system may have failed Morritt.
So why weren't the recommendations included? Dolan says he can't answer that question. Lisa Lapointe, speaking for the coroner's office, says she can't discuss specifics, but adds that coroners rarely tell health authorities what to do. (raising the question, why not?)
The result leaves questions about whether service reductions in Nelson were a factor in Morritt's death.
Bond was quick to point to the coroner's report as an indication that everything was fine in Nelson. (The Interior Health Authority made the same claim.)
But Bond says she's content with final report, and doesn't want to compromise the independence of the coroner's office by asking questions about the abandoned recommendations.
That's a bad answer. The medical staff at Nelson's hospital have expressed concerns over the effect of cuts on Morritt and other patients, and the lack of recommendations in the coroner's report. The issue is important to the people of the region. The health minister should want answers.
All Bond has to do is call the coroner's office and ask for the draft recommendations. If the chief coroner says no, she would have to consider next steps, but any effective health minister would ask for the information.
If she is unwilling to do that, Bond should order an independent, public inquiry. It does not need to be involved, or costly. A review of the existing record should suffice. (The health authority hired an Alberta doctor to review the case, but hasn't released its findings.)
Major questions remain about Morritt's death. The health minister's should want to get the answers.
Footnote: Hospital medical staff say Morritt would have been able to get an ultrasound in Nelson before the cuts to services; the IHA says that's not true. The community needs a definitive answer to that and other questions. Restructuring health care is a huge undertaking, with significant risks and benefits. We need to look at the consequences and learn, instead of shying away from the facts.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Random notes: Chinese bonanza; a new party; and Nettleton
VICTORIA - Random notes: Great economic news, a new party rises and Paul Nettleton jumps ridings.
First, the best economic news for B.C. in ages came from Beijing Friday, where federal Industry Minister David Emerson announced that China has recognized Canada as an approved tourist destination. Sounds like a small thing, but it's a huge breakthrough. Chinese tourists can visit about 30 approved countries - which up until now have not included Canada - fairly easily. If the country isn't on the list, it's far more difficult to leap through an official approval process that can take months - and still end in refusal.
Even more importantly, tour companies are effectively barred from organizing group excursions - the most likely way Chinese would visit Canada - to non-approved countries.
The potential is enormous. Australia doubled its number of visitors from China once it was approved, and Canada has the potential to be a much larger draw for China's new rich and slowly emerging middle class. A 2002 survey found that 1.9 million newly affluent Chinese were interested in visiting Canada. That translates into about $1 billion per year in new tourism revenue, with B.C. in a position to grab a large share of the business.
Canada has been trying to get approval for five years, and has immediately announced plans to open a tourism office in Beijing. The provincial government could wisely set aside part of this year's surplus for a one-time marketing program aimed at China.
Second, yet another new political party for B.C., one that starts with an MLA sitting in the legislature.
The new party is Democratic Reform BC - or DRBC, which they hope you'll pronounce as Doctor BC. The leader is Tom Morino, a lawyer, Vancouver Island town councillor and former Liberal candidate. The MLA is Elayne Brenzinger, the Surrey MLA who quit the Liberal caucus last year.
The party claims a socially progressive, fiscally conservative approach, although its platform seems to have more ideas about spending money than raising it. And the presence of a large number of former Reform BC members will make some people nervous about the socially progressive claim.
I don't give the group much chance. Brenzinger has problems over her ugly allegation of sexual harassment by a colleague in the Liberal caucus, which she later retracted. The party has no money, and at best 2,000 members. And with four months to go it is hard to believe that any fledgling party can insert itself into the fray.
But it will be a factor in Brenzinger's riding of Surrey-Whalley and Morino's home riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
The NDP was already the likely winner Brenzinger's riding; if she draws significant support from the Liberal candidate a New Democrat win becomes a sure thing.
Morino, who barely lost in his riding in 1991 as a Liberal, could play a similar role in his Victoria-area riding.
Third, the other independent MLA, Paul Nettleton, revealed his election plans this week, and they are going to affect two Prince George races.
Nettleton, who quit the Liberals over what he saw as a threat to BC Hydro (and who, like Brenzinger, blames Gordon Campbell for the party's problems) is leaving his old riding of Prince George-Omineca and running against Health Minister Shirley Bond in Prince George-Robson.
Nettleton is going to attract votes, and given his overall approach - he broke with the federal Liberals because he's opposed to same sex marriage - more of those votes are going to come from the Liberal candidates.
That means the Liberal in Omineca - a candidate hasn't been selected yet - is now the favorite.
But Bond's campaign has become much tougher. She won a big victory in 2001, and her profile should help. But it was an NDP riding in the previous two elections, and if Nettleton provides an option for disgruntled potential Liberal voters then Bond could be in trouble.
And there's still four months to go.
Footnote: The polls have convinced both parties that every seat may matter in this election. The Liberals hope to slide MLA Tony Bhullar into Surrey-Panorama Ridge, hoping he put up a good fight against new NDP MLA Jagrup Brar. Olympic gold-winning wrestler Daniel Igali is being courted to run for the Liberals in Bhullar's old riding of Surrey-Newton.
First, the best economic news for B.C. in ages came from Beijing Friday, where federal Industry Minister David Emerson announced that China has recognized Canada as an approved tourist destination. Sounds like a small thing, but it's a huge breakthrough. Chinese tourists can visit about 30 approved countries - which up until now have not included Canada - fairly easily. If the country isn't on the list, it's far more difficult to leap through an official approval process that can take months - and still end in refusal.
Even more importantly, tour companies are effectively barred from organizing group excursions - the most likely way Chinese would visit Canada - to non-approved countries.
The potential is enormous. Australia doubled its number of visitors from China once it was approved, and Canada has the potential to be a much larger draw for China's new rich and slowly emerging middle class. A 2002 survey found that 1.9 million newly affluent Chinese were interested in visiting Canada. That translates into about $1 billion per year in new tourism revenue, with B.C. in a position to grab a large share of the business.
Canada has been trying to get approval for five years, and has immediately announced plans to open a tourism office in Beijing. The provincial government could wisely set aside part of this year's surplus for a one-time marketing program aimed at China.
Second, yet another new political party for B.C., one that starts with an MLA sitting in the legislature.
The new party is Democratic Reform BC - or DRBC, which they hope you'll pronounce as Doctor BC. The leader is Tom Morino, a lawyer, Vancouver Island town councillor and former Liberal candidate. The MLA is Elayne Brenzinger, the Surrey MLA who quit the Liberal caucus last year.
The party claims a socially progressive, fiscally conservative approach, although its platform seems to have more ideas about spending money than raising it. And the presence of a large number of former Reform BC members will make some people nervous about the socially progressive claim.
I don't give the group much chance. Brenzinger has problems over her ugly allegation of sexual harassment by a colleague in the Liberal caucus, which she later retracted. The party has no money, and at best 2,000 members. And with four months to go it is hard to believe that any fledgling party can insert itself into the fray.
But it will be a factor in Brenzinger's riding of Surrey-Whalley and Morino's home riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
The NDP was already the likely winner Brenzinger's riding; if she draws significant support from the Liberal candidate a New Democrat win becomes a sure thing.
Morino, who barely lost in his riding in 1991 as a Liberal, could play a similar role in his Victoria-area riding.
Third, the other independent MLA, Paul Nettleton, revealed his election plans this week, and they are going to affect two Prince George races.
Nettleton, who quit the Liberals over what he saw as a threat to BC Hydro (and who, like Brenzinger, blames Gordon Campbell for the party's problems) is leaving his old riding of Prince George-Omineca and running against Health Minister Shirley Bond in Prince George-Robson.
Nettleton is going to attract votes, and given his overall approach - he broke with the federal Liberals because he's opposed to same sex marriage - more of those votes are going to come from the Liberal candidates.
That means the Liberal in Omineca - a candidate hasn't been selected yet - is now the favorite.
But Bond's campaign has become much tougher. She won a big victory in 2001, and her profile should help. But it was an NDP riding in the previous two elections, and if Nettleton provides an option for disgruntled potential Liberal voters then Bond could be in trouble.
And there's still four months to go.
Footnote: The polls have convinced both parties that every seat may matter in this election. The Liberals hope to slide MLA Tony Bhullar into Surrey-Panorama Ridge, hoping he put up a good fight against new NDP MLA Jagrup Brar. Olympic gold-winning wrestler Daniel Igali is being courted to run for the Liberals in Bhullar's old riding of Surrey-Newton.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Promise - 5,000 long-term beds; reality so far - 100
VICTORIA - The Liberals' promise of "an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006" has faded away.
Almost four years after the election only 100 additional beds have been added to the system. The New Era promise won't be kept, Health Minister Shirley Bond concedes, with the goal now 2008.
It was an important pledge. The new government even created a junior minister responsible for residential care for seniors, and unveiled a big - if hopelessly muddled -strategy in 2002.
The reality is that the province has gone backwards. The 100 new beds falls short of the increased demand created by an aging and growing population.
It's a significant broken promise. The most obvious impact is on seniors who need the care, and their families. They need the kind of care that was promised, and they can't get it.
But it also affects everyone in the province. When long-term care isn't available, seniors end up in the hospital. That is often miserable for them and the people who care about them.
It's also a major reason why people can't get needed surgery and emergency rooms are jammed, with sick and injured people waiting hours, only to end up on stretchers in halls because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Communities across the province have complained about lost long-term care beds. But most have been unable to get good information about the number of beds lost versus any beds added, or the effects.
Here in Victoria the Capital Regional District, reacting to public concern, studied the issue last year. It found that the Vancouver Island Health Authority had closed almost 600 existing residential care beds. It had opened 105 new residential care beds, and 207 assisted living units, which provide a lower level of support.
Do the math, and you find that means there are 205 fewer beds available - about a seven-per-cent decrease in the time the Liberals were promising a major increase. The region is short 325 beds, based on the government's own model.
"The shortfall is a result of closing too many residential care beds too quickly and not having the alternatives, including assisted living, in place," the report found. "This was predicted in 2002 and is in large part a function of the provincial government's fiscal restraint." One in three of the people admitted to residential care had been waiting more than 90 days, VIHA reports, and waits have been increasing.
The government and the health authorities have maintained that the need for long-term care was being reduced thanks to increased support to allow people to stay in their homes, or seniors' housing. But that hasn't really happened either, the capital region study found. The number of seniors needing home support services for example, had increased by nine per cent; funding for the service rose two per cent.
Seniors wait months for the care they need. If they are lucky, they're families struggle to cope with their increasingly complex medical care needs. If they aren't, the end up in hospitals, which must cope with over-crowding and delayed surgeries because acute care beds are blocked by people who don't need them, but have nowhere else to go. (The best estimate is that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of acute care beds are occupied by people who shouldn't be there.)
Bond says the government has created 4,300 new spaces, but had to close 4,200 because the facilities were outmoded. But those facilities had served for years; communities pleaded with the health authorities to keep them open until replacement beds were created; and most could have been maintained until the promised 5,000 additional beds were delivered.
Even acknowledging the challenges, the issue has been badly mishandled with no clear plan, inadequate funding and a refusal to listen to the legitimate complaints of seniors and communities and government MLAs.
It's a broken promise that has hurt us all.
Footnote: Former long-term care minister Katherine Whittred had an undistinguished tenure, but she did complain in writing that the ministry was closing beds without having adequate replacements. She never reported on the response. The junior minister's position for long-term care was eliminated a year ago in a cabinet shuffle.
Almost four years after the election only 100 additional beds have been added to the system. The New Era promise won't be kept, Health Minister Shirley Bond concedes, with the goal now 2008.
It was an important pledge. The new government even created a junior minister responsible for residential care for seniors, and unveiled a big - if hopelessly muddled -strategy in 2002.
The reality is that the province has gone backwards. The 100 new beds falls short of the increased demand created by an aging and growing population.
It's a significant broken promise. The most obvious impact is on seniors who need the care, and their families. They need the kind of care that was promised, and they can't get it.
But it also affects everyone in the province. When long-term care isn't available, seniors end up in the hospital. That is often miserable for them and the people who care about them.
It's also a major reason why people can't get needed surgery and emergency rooms are jammed, with sick and injured people waiting hours, only to end up on stretchers in halls because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Communities across the province have complained about lost long-term care beds. But most have been unable to get good information about the number of beds lost versus any beds added, or the effects.
Here in Victoria the Capital Regional District, reacting to public concern, studied the issue last year. It found that the Vancouver Island Health Authority had closed almost 600 existing residential care beds. It had opened 105 new residential care beds, and 207 assisted living units, which provide a lower level of support.
Do the math, and you find that means there are 205 fewer beds available - about a seven-per-cent decrease in the time the Liberals were promising a major increase. The region is short 325 beds, based on the government's own model.
"The shortfall is a result of closing too many residential care beds too quickly and not having the alternatives, including assisted living, in place," the report found. "This was predicted in 2002 and is in large part a function of the provincial government's fiscal restraint." One in three of the people admitted to residential care had been waiting more than 90 days, VIHA reports, and waits have been increasing.
The government and the health authorities have maintained that the need for long-term care was being reduced thanks to increased support to allow people to stay in their homes, or seniors' housing. But that hasn't really happened either, the capital region study found. The number of seniors needing home support services for example, had increased by nine per cent; funding for the service rose two per cent.
Seniors wait months for the care they need. If they are lucky, they're families struggle to cope with their increasingly complex medical care needs. If they aren't, the end up in hospitals, which must cope with over-crowding and delayed surgeries because acute care beds are blocked by people who don't need them, but have nowhere else to go. (The best estimate is that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of acute care beds are occupied by people who shouldn't be there.)
Bond says the government has created 4,300 new spaces, but had to close 4,200 because the facilities were outmoded. But those facilities had served for years; communities pleaded with the health authorities to keep them open until replacement beds were created; and most could have been maintained until the promised 5,000 additional beds were delivered.
Even acknowledging the challenges, the issue has been badly mishandled with no clear plan, inadequate funding and a refusal to listen to the legitimate complaints of seniors and communities and government MLAs.
It's a broken promise that has hurt us all.
Footnote: Former long-term care minister Katherine Whittred had an undistinguished tenure, but she did complain in writing that the ministry was closing beds without having adequate replacements. She never reported on the response. The junior minister's position for long-term care was eliminated a year ago in a cabinet shuffle.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Nominations posing risks for both parties
VICTORIA - No one was likely sadder than the Liberals to see Steve Orcherton lose his bid for an NDP nomination in Victoria, just as the New Democrats were sorry to see that Cindy Silver couldn't bump off sitting MLA Dan Jarvis.
Both parties know that nominations are being watched as one indication of which party is moving closest to the centre.
The burden is lightest for the Liberals. Their position is defined in voters' minds, and a majority of candidates are known quantities - sitting MLAs running for re-election. As a result, LIberal nomination battles are few and have less significance.
But they're not irrelevant. Media attention has focused - a little excessively - on Silver, and Mary Polak as indicators that the Liberals are shifting to the right on social issues.
Silver has worked for Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada, and is against same-sex marriage. She's seen as a social conservative, and makes many small 'l' liberals nervous about the party's direction.
Her emergence as the lone challenger to any sitting Liberal MLA, in a safe seat, had people wondering whether she had some unofficial party blessing. (Especially because the government was miffed last year when Jarvis said building BC Ferries ships in Germany was a stupid idea.)
Jarvis won the battle by a small margin, with 168 votes to Silver's 138, a turnout that doesn't reflect well on either hopeful's organizational skills.
Polak is known for her role on the Surrey school board that spent $1 million on a legal fight to keep three books depicting same sex couples out of elementary schools. She was also the losing candidate in the Surrey byelection last fall. Now she's jumping boundaries, trying to get the nomination in Langley hoping for a better shot there.
The federal Conservatives showed how many votes could be lost when 'social conservative' candidates are seen as out of touch with mainstream voters. Still, one candidate hardly makes a trend.
The NDP has a more serious problem. Carole James has to convince voters the party has changed. The most concrete evidence will be the candidates who emerge from the nomination process. If they are the same people who were part of the incompetent government that was turfed by the voters in 2001, it will be hard to argue that this is a new NDP.
That's why James is glad Rob Fleming, a Victoria city councillor seen as a moderate, beat Orcherton. The former MLA makes no bones of his strong loyalty to unions, and ran against James for the leadership urging that the party stay on the hard left of B.C.'s political spectrum. Likewise it's good news for James that Helmut Giesbrecht, another New Democrat from the bad old days, lost the nomination battle in Skeena on the weekend.
But James already has candidates who are a liability to the party's overall effort. Harry Lali, a former NDP cabinet minister, a hardliner and fierce Glen Clark loyalist, is already nominated in Yale-Lillooet. Clark's top political advisor Adrian Dix has the nomination in Vancouver Kingsway. The Liberals can point to both as proof the party hasn't changed.
I feel kind of bad to be writing this column. In many ways there would be merit in parties that embraced candidates who shared a few core values but reflected a wide range of views. They could them come together and work our a consensus on policy and action. The wider the debate, the better the ultimate decisions should be.
The alternative risks group-think, with a flock of candidates who share the same ideas, almost always those of the leader.
But the reality - for now - is that parties need to reassure voters that whether they are on the left or the right, they will stay within a broad mainstream. The candidates they nominate will be the critical in providing that reassurance.
Footnote: Former NDP cabinet minister Ted Stevenson has won the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Stevenson's personal reputation means he doesn't carry much baggage from the Clark years. The battle between Stevenson and Liberal Lorne Mayencourt, who won by 4,000 votes in 2001, should be one of the toughest in the province.
Both parties know that nominations are being watched as one indication of which party is moving closest to the centre.
The burden is lightest for the Liberals. Their position is defined in voters' minds, and a majority of candidates are known quantities - sitting MLAs running for re-election. As a result, LIberal nomination battles are few and have less significance.
But they're not irrelevant. Media attention has focused - a little excessively - on Silver, and Mary Polak as indicators that the Liberals are shifting to the right on social issues.
Silver has worked for Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada, and is against same-sex marriage. She's seen as a social conservative, and makes many small 'l' liberals nervous about the party's direction.
Her emergence as the lone challenger to any sitting Liberal MLA, in a safe seat, had people wondering whether she had some unofficial party blessing. (Especially because the government was miffed last year when Jarvis said building BC Ferries ships in Germany was a stupid idea.)
Jarvis won the battle by a small margin, with 168 votes to Silver's 138, a turnout that doesn't reflect well on either hopeful's organizational skills.
Polak is known for her role on the Surrey school board that spent $1 million on a legal fight to keep three books depicting same sex couples out of elementary schools. She was also the losing candidate in the Surrey byelection last fall. Now she's jumping boundaries, trying to get the nomination in Langley hoping for a better shot there.
The federal Conservatives showed how many votes could be lost when 'social conservative' candidates are seen as out of touch with mainstream voters. Still, one candidate hardly makes a trend.
The NDP has a more serious problem. Carole James has to convince voters the party has changed. The most concrete evidence will be the candidates who emerge from the nomination process. If they are the same people who were part of the incompetent government that was turfed by the voters in 2001, it will be hard to argue that this is a new NDP.
That's why James is glad Rob Fleming, a Victoria city councillor seen as a moderate, beat Orcherton. The former MLA makes no bones of his strong loyalty to unions, and ran against James for the leadership urging that the party stay on the hard left of B.C.'s political spectrum. Likewise it's good news for James that Helmut Giesbrecht, another New Democrat from the bad old days, lost the nomination battle in Skeena on the weekend.
But James already has candidates who are a liability to the party's overall effort. Harry Lali, a former NDP cabinet minister, a hardliner and fierce Glen Clark loyalist, is already nominated in Yale-Lillooet. Clark's top political advisor Adrian Dix has the nomination in Vancouver Kingsway. The Liberals can point to both as proof the party hasn't changed.
I feel kind of bad to be writing this column. In many ways there would be merit in parties that embraced candidates who shared a few core values but reflected a wide range of views. They could them come together and work our a consensus on policy and action. The wider the debate, the better the ultimate decisions should be.
The alternative risks group-think, with a flock of candidates who share the same ideas, almost always those of the leader.
But the reality - for now - is that parties need to reassure voters that whether they are on the left or the right, they will stay within a broad mainstream. The candidates they nominate will be the critical in providing that reassurance.
Footnote: Former NDP cabinet minister Ted Stevenson has won the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Stevenson's personal reputation means he doesn't carry much baggage from the Clark years. The battle between Stevenson and Liberal Lorne Mayencourt, who won by 4,000 votes in 2001, should be one of the toughest in the province.
Film industry hits up government for your money
VICTORIA - Colin Hansen is following a safe rule in dealing with B.C.'s film industry, which once again has its hand out for tax dollars.
When someone wants something from you and demands an immediate answer, it's best to say no, one of my early bosses advised. It's proved to be good advice.
B.C. film companies want a tax break, and say that if they don't get it immediately they'll pull out of the province and head down the road to Ontario or Quebec. The companies already get hefty subsidies from both the provincial and federal governments, which have played a role in helping develop a $1-billion film and TV industry in the province.
But just before Christmas the Ontario government decided to offer incentives to get a bigger share of the business. The Ontario Liberals responded to an industry lobbying effort and increased the money it will pay to film companies working in the province. Quebec quickly followed suit.
And B.C. companies reacted. Give us the same deal within the next couple of weeks or we're gone, said a half-dozen of the larger companies in B.C.
Ultimately it's a business decision, for the companies and for the government. B.C., Ontario and Quebec had been offering similar subsidies. For foreign productions -- TV series and movies -- the governments had been offering a tax credit that effectively reimbursed the companies for 11 per cent of their wage costs. The film industry in Ontario, suffering from the fallout from the SARS panic and the rising Canadian dollar, persuaded the government to raise that credit to 18 per cent. A few days later Quebec upped the ante to 20 per cent.
Governments like to talk about the value of B.C.'s film infrastructure, and the skilled workforce and the great climate and scenic opportunities. We like to think those are the things that makes us Hollywood North.
But the industry has confirmed those aren't the critical factors. The movie industry is chasing subsidies these days. If one province, or Texas or Mexico or Romania, comes up with a better offer, the work can move.
The money is significant. A typical made-in-B.C. movie may have a budget of $20 million, with about $7 million of that local wage costs that are eligible for the subsidy. In B.C., under the current rules, the company would get a $770,000 tax break from the province. In Ontario, the same company would now get an extra $500,000 back from the provincial government. (In both cases, the companies would also get an additional $1.3 million from Ottawa in tax breaks. The B.C. government also provides lots of other help and subsidies to the industry.)
On one hand, the subsidies are obviously galling. A working single parent in Lillooet is being asked to pay higher taxes to subsidize a successful corporation -- and the high-paid workforce -- making movies in Vancouver.
Taxpayers have every right to wonder why the employees in the industry don't take a seven-per-cent pay cut instead of looking to government to come up with the cash to protect their jobs and the companies' profits.
Hansen will probably deliver the tax cuts, either in next month's budget or sooner.
The justification will be that it makes business sense. The film companies say they're willing to send the work to Ontario, claiming that up to half the $1-billion business could be lost.
The government's first task will be to try and judge if the industry is bluffing. Then it will have to calculate the cost of the subsidy, and balance that against the tax revenue that would be lost if the companies follow through on their threats and the spin-off benefits.
And at least for now, the balance will likely come down on the side of the subsidies. Until some other government decides to offer even bigger subsidies to try and attract film companies.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell has oddly decided to thrust himself into the middle of the issue, asking Hansen to set up a meeting with the film industry honchos. It reinforces the impression that he wants to control all the issues, and reduces the province's bargaining ability. Hansen could have said he wants to help, but the boss would only go so far. Campbell can't use that tactic.
When someone wants something from you and demands an immediate answer, it's best to say no, one of my early bosses advised. It's proved to be good advice.
B.C. film companies want a tax break, and say that if they don't get it immediately they'll pull out of the province and head down the road to Ontario or Quebec. The companies already get hefty subsidies from both the provincial and federal governments, which have played a role in helping develop a $1-billion film and TV industry in the province.
But just before Christmas the Ontario government decided to offer incentives to get a bigger share of the business. The Ontario Liberals responded to an industry lobbying effort and increased the money it will pay to film companies working in the province. Quebec quickly followed suit.
And B.C. companies reacted. Give us the same deal within the next couple of weeks or we're gone, said a half-dozen of the larger companies in B.C.
Ultimately it's a business decision, for the companies and for the government. B.C., Ontario and Quebec had been offering similar subsidies. For foreign productions -- TV series and movies -- the governments had been offering a tax credit that effectively reimbursed the companies for 11 per cent of their wage costs. The film industry in Ontario, suffering from the fallout from the SARS panic and the rising Canadian dollar, persuaded the government to raise that credit to 18 per cent. A few days later Quebec upped the ante to 20 per cent.
Governments like to talk about the value of B.C.'s film infrastructure, and the skilled workforce and the great climate and scenic opportunities. We like to think those are the things that makes us Hollywood North.
But the industry has confirmed those aren't the critical factors. The movie industry is chasing subsidies these days. If one province, or Texas or Mexico or Romania, comes up with a better offer, the work can move.
The money is significant. A typical made-in-B.C. movie may have a budget of $20 million, with about $7 million of that local wage costs that are eligible for the subsidy. In B.C., under the current rules, the company would get a $770,000 tax break from the province. In Ontario, the same company would now get an extra $500,000 back from the provincial government. (In both cases, the companies would also get an additional $1.3 million from Ottawa in tax breaks. The B.C. government also provides lots of other help and subsidies to the industry.)
On one hand, the subsidies are obviously galling. A working single parent in Lillooet is being asked to pay higher taxes to subsidize a successful corporation -- and the high-paid workforce -- making movies in Vancouver.
Taxpayers have every right to wonder why the employees in the industry don't take a seven-per-cent pay cut instead of looking to government to come up with the cash to protect their jobs and the companies' profits.
Hansen will probably deliver the tax cuts, either in next month's budget or sooner.
The justification will be that it makes business sense. The film companies say they're willing to send the work to Ontario, claiming that up to half the $1-billion business could be lost.
The government's first task will be to try and judge if the industry is bluffing. Then it will have to calculate the cost of the subsidy, and balance that against the tax revenue that would be lost if the companies follow through on their threats and the spin-off benefits.
And at least for now, the balance will likely come down on the side of the subsidies. Until some other government decides to offer even bigger subsidies to try and attract film companies.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell has oddly decided to thrust himself into the middle of the issue, asking Hansen to set up a meeting with the film industry honchos. It reinforces the impression that he wants to control all the issues, and reduces the province's bargaining ability. Hansen could have said he wants to help, but the boss would only go so far. Campbell can't use that tactic.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Santori's departure says something worrying
VICTORIA - In an odd way, we're a little worse off after resort minister Sandy Santori's decision to quit politics and manage the local golf club.
Santori isn't going to make anybody's list of slick political guys, or influential insiders. The premier's office didn't even manage to crank out a pro forma news release lauding his contribution in time to catch the next day's news reports.
Santori worried too much - "I tend to things a lot more personal," he conceded - and he was one of the last smokers in the squeaky clean Liberal cabinet, the minister I'd see on my way out of the legislature on the back steps, butt cupped in hand. He was thin-skinned and a little rough around the edges, a lot rough really.
Not great traits, of course. But Santori shared them with a lot of people who live in this province, the people who sent him to Victoria. And there is value in MLAs who represent real people, even if they are lousy at talking in sound bites.
The people in Trail thought Santori was a pretty good guy. He was a president of the legendary Trail Smoke Eaters Hockey Club, city councillor for five years, mayor for eight years, chair of the community task force on lead pollution. A hockey player, and insurance agent, the person you would pick to send down to the legislature when you were really fed up.
But as the old old political joke goes, it doesn't matter what party you vote for, you end up electing a government. And once in government, people tend to be swallowed up.
Santori says he decided to call it quits after a health scare at the beginning of December, when he spent three days in hospitals after waking up with chest pains. The doctors ultimately cleared him to return to work - telling him again to quit smoking and improve his overall health. A week later he was nominated to carry the Liberal banner in the May election, saying he was raring to go.
But then Santori bumped in to a friend who told him the manager's job at the golf club was open, and started to think about the appeal of running a country club - no flights back and forth to Victoria, no pressure, no crabby questions from reporters or angry calls from constituents. (I suppose golfers will complain about rough spots on the greens, but that's not the same.)
Then came Christmas, and family gatherings. Santori, with a big history of heart disease in his family, looked around and made his decision. "I don't want to risk not being there next year."
It's not a resignation that's going to rock the government. Unlike Christy Clark or Gary Collins, also gone or going, Santori never had a key political or policy role . And it's a stretch to paint the resignation as another indication that the 'real Liberals' are leaving a Campbell government that's sliding to the right. Santori was still staunchly defending the government's record - although admitting mistakes - in his farewell scrum.
It is bad news for the Liberals in the West Kootenay riding, a safe NDP seat until Santori rode in on the Liberal wave in 2001. Santori faced a tough re-election battle, but he was well-known and had the advantage of being able to talk about representing the region at the cabinet table. The riding now looks like a safe bet for the New Democrats.
Santori's reasons make sense.
But we're now up to more than a dozen Liberal MLAs and cabinet ministers who have quit or decided not to run again, several after just three years in government. The next four years should be the good part, if things go according to the Liberal plan. But not good enough to convince those MLAs that it's worth sticking around.
That should raise questions about the rewards - and the frustrations - of being an MLA.
Footnote: The Liberals now have to find a candidate, and Campbell has to decide which backbencher gets the profile and re-election boost of a cabinet post for the next four months. Look for a woman, from outside the Lower Mainland, who is facing a tough battle to win re-election.
Santori isn't going to make anybody's list of slick political guys, or influential insiders. The premier's office didn't even manage to crank out a pro forma news release lauding his contribution in time to catch the next day's news reports.
Santori worried too much - "I tend to things a lot more personal," he conceded - and he was one of the last smokers in the squeaky clean Liberal cabinet, the minister I'd see on my way out of the legislature on the back steps, butt cupped in hand. He was thin-skinned and a little rough around the edges, a lot rough really.
Not great traits, of course. But Santori shared them with a lot of people who live in this province, the people who sent him to Victoria. And there is value in MLAs who represent real people, even if they are lousy at talking in sound bites.
The people in Trail thought Santori was a pretty good guy. He was a president of the legendary Trail Smoke Eaters Hockey Club, city councillor for five years, mayor for eight years, chair of the community task force on lead pollution. A hockey player, and insurance agent, the person you would pick to send down to the legislature when you were really fed up.
But as the old old political joke goes, it doesn't matter what party you vote for, you end up electing a government. And once in government, people tend to be swallowed up.
Santori says he decided to call it quits after a health scare at the beginning of December, when he spent three days in hospitals after waking up with chest pains. The doctors ultimately cleared him to return to work - telling him again to quit smoking and improve his overall health. A week later he was nominated to carry the Liberal banner in the May election, saying he was raring to go.
But then Santori bumped in to a friend who told him the manager's job at the golf club was open, and started to think about the appeal of running a country club - no flights back and forth to Victoria, no pressure, no crabby questions from reporters or angry calls from constituents. (I suppose golfers will complain about rough spots on the greens, but that's not the same.)
Then came Christmas, and family gatherings. Santori, with a big history of heart disease in his family, looked around and made his decision. "I don't want to risk not being there next year."
It's not a resignation that's going to rock the government. Unlike Christy Clark or Gary Collins, also gone or going, Santori never had a key political or policy role . And it's a stretch to paint the resignation as another indication that the 'real Liberals' are leaving a Campbell government that's sliding to the right. Santori was still staunchly defending the government's record - although admitting mistakes - in his farewell scrum.
It is bad news for the Liberals in the West Kootenay riding, a safe NDP seat until Santori rode in on the Liberal wave in 2001. Santori faced a tough re-election battle, but he was well-known and had the advantage of being able to talk about representing the region at the cabinet table. The riding now looks like a safe bet for the New Democrats.
Santori's reasons make sense.
But we're now up to more than a dozen Liberal MLAs and cabinet ministers who have quit or decided not to run again, several after just three years in government. The next four years should be the good part, if things go according to the Liberal plan. But not good enough to convince those MLAs that it's worth sticking around.
That should raise questions about the rewards - and the frustrations - of being an MLA.
Footnote: The Liberals now have to find a candidate, and Campbell has to decide which backbencher gets the profile and re-election boost of a cabinet post for the next four months. Look for a woman, from outside the Lower Mainland, who is facing a tough battle to win re-election.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Coal boom raises new BC Rail sale questions
VICTORIA - Score one round for Carole James in what will be a long political brawl over the BC Rail deal.
James met the press in the legislature's Hemlock Room this week to complain that the government did a poor job of getting the best price for BC Rail. The railway was about to make a lot of money from a coal revival, but the price CN paid didn't reflect the windfall, James charged.
She had a point, one that stood up even after Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon came to the Liberals' defence.
James said the price CN Rail paid for the Crown corporation didn't reflect a big expected increase in coal shipments from B.C.'s northeast. That could easily add $45 million a year to CN's revenues, but the government negotiated on the sale as if there would be no coal shipments. Taxpayers lost as a result, James said.
Good point.
Falcon, not surprisingly, disagreed when he called into the Press Gallery an hour later - but not that effectively.
He confirmed that the coal revenues weren't reflected in the sale price. BC Rail had been carrying less coal, he noted, almost none in 2004. The projections of future business were unproven. No coal contracts were signed at the time of the sale, he said. "People don't pay for what-ifs."
But of course they do. My past life includes time as a corporate guy, and when it came to buying a business the 'what-ifs' were the important part. Looking ahead, anticipating changes and reflecting them in the valuation, those were the real challenges.
Anyway, the Liberals were pretty positive about the coal mining resurgence. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld spoke glowingly about the coming boom about in the legislature almost two years ago. Companies had announced their development plans long before the sale closed.
The government has pointed to the evaluation by a Boston 'fairness advisor' to show that B.C. got the best price for the railway. But the Fairness Evaluation report notes that it assumed no coal shipping revenues. Based on a coal revival, using the report's numbers, British Columbians could have expected another $70 million to $120 million for BC Rail.
It's reasonable to expect CN would have balked at including any potential coal revenues in establishing the value of BC Rail. Coal prices could fall, and the mines close -or never open, CN would argue. (Falcon made the same argument - what if coal prices fall and the industry tanks?)
But the government's role was to push the potential and try to get more money for the railway. There's no guarantee that the effort would have been successful, but the seller's job is to paint the prettiest picture.
What struck me, listening to Falcon on a balky speakerphone in the Press Gallery, was how the Liberals have been wounded on the BC Rail deal.
Falcon should have been able to say look, we had three serious bidders for BC Rail, and CN offered the highest price. That's the market value. End of argument.
Except that one bidder, CP Rail, pulled out, complaining the process was unfair. Another, OmniTRAX, has been named in the corruption indictments filed against three Liberal political staffers in connection with the sale. (OmniTRAX has not been charged with any wrongdoing.) The end result doesn't look like a real competitive auction - as Falcon acknowledged with his chosen defence.
The Liberals' problem is that they have so many vulnerabilities on this issue.
Some people are mad because they broke their promise not to sell BC Rail. Others are angry about the corruption charges. And now others will be mad because the price wasn't good enough.
The questions threaten to overshadow the deal's significant benefits, and so far the government has done a poor job of answering them.
The result is that even people - like me - who don't believe government should really be in the railway business are left questioning how this deal unfolded.
Footnote: The LIberals have two choices. Tough it out, and hope that people will accept the sale, and the terms of the deal. Or ask the province's auditor general to do a review of the deal and offer an opinion on the process and the value taxpayers got for the Crown corporation. If they're really comfortable with the sale, it should be an easy choice.
James met the press in the legislature's Hemlock Room this week to complain that the government did a poor job of getting the best price for BC Rail. The railway was about to make a lot of money from a coal revival, but the price CN paid didn't reflect the windfall, James charged.
She had a point, one that stood up even after Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon came to the Liberals' defence.
James said the price CN Rail paid for the Crown corporation didn't reflect a big expected increase in coal shipments from B.C.'s northeast. That could easily add $45 million a year to CN's revenues, but the government negotiated on the sale as if there would be no coal shipments. Taxpayers lost as a result, James said.
Good point.
Falcon, not surprisingly, disagreed when he called into the Press Gallery an hour later - but not that effectively.
He confirmed that the coal revenues weren't reflected in the sale price. BC Rail had been carrying less coal, he noted, almost none in 2004. The projections of future business were unproven. No coal contracts were signed at the time of the sale, he said. "People don't pay for what-ifs."
But of course they do. My past life includes time as a corporate guy, and when it came to buying a business the 'what-ifs' were the important part. Looking ahead, anticipating changes and reflecting them in the valuation, those were the real challenges.
Anyway, the Liberals were pretty positive about the coal mining resurgence. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld spoke glowingly about the coming boom about in the legislature almost two years ago. Companies had announced their development plans long before the sale closed.
The government has pointed to the evaluation by a Boston 'fairness advisor' to show that B.C. got the best price for the railway. But the Fairness Evaluation report notes that it assumed no coal shipping revenues. Based on a coal revival, using the report's numbers, British Columbians could have expected another $70 million to $120 million for BC Rail.
It's reasonable to expect CN would have balked at including any potential coal revenues in establishing the value of BC Rail. Coal prices could fall, and the mines close -or never open, CN would argue. (Falcon made the same argument - what if coal prices fall and the industry tanks?)
But the government's role was to push the potential and try to get more money for the railway. There's no guarantee that the effort would have been successful, but the seller's job is to paint the prettiest picture.
What struck me, listening to Falcon on a balky speakerphone in the Press Gallery, was how the Liberals have been wounded on the BC Rail deal.
Falcon should have been able to say look, we had three serious bidders for BC Rail, and CN offered the highest price. That's the market value. End of argument.
Except that one bidder, CP Rail, pulled out, complaining the process was unfair. Another, OmniTRAX, has been named in the corruption indictments filed against three Liberal political staffers in connection with the sale. (OmniTRAX has not been charged with any wrongdoing.) The end result doesn't look like a real competitive auction - as Falcon acknowledged with his chosen defence.
The Liberals' problem is that they have so many vulnerabilities on this issue.
Some people are mad because they broke their promise not to sell BC Rail. Others are angry about the corruption charges. And now others will be mad because the price wasn't good enough.
The questions threaten to overshadow the deal's significant benefits, and so far the government has done a poor job of answering them.
The result is that even people - like me - who don't believe government should really be in the railway business are left questioning how this deal unfolded.
Footnote: The LIberals have two choices. Tough it out, and hope that people will accept the sale, and the terms of the deal. Or ask the province's auditor general to do a review of the deal and offer an opinion on the process and the value taxpayers got for the Crown corporation. If they're really comfortable with the sale, it should be an easy choice.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Liberals, NDP both failed with Huckleberry Mine subsidies
VICTORIA - It looks like the government did a pretty lame job of looking after your money when it came to dealing with the Huckleberry Mine.
The New Democrats got the ball rolling, coming up with a $14.5-million loan - 10 per cent of the mine development cost - back in 1997. That' s your money subsidizing the investors in a mine, a wrong-headed approach to the role of government in the first place.
The mine opened, and the company started scratching copper and molybdenum out of an open pit about 120 km southwest of Houston. There were buyers for the metals, but never quite enough money to send a cheque off to the government to pay down the loan. (Other creditors also faced similar payment problems.)
Unlike most creditors - try not paying your BC Hydro bill and see what happens - the government was patient. Years went by without a single dollar being repaid.
The election came, and the New Era, but the Liberal government didn't take any more action on collecting your money than the NDP had.
Things were challenging for the shareholders as well, it should be noted. Commodity prices were lower than they hoped and the mine's parent company, Imperial Metals, had to seek court protection from its creditors in 2002 while it re-organized.
But that's the risk shareholders and owners run, in return for the opportunity to profit when things do work out.
Still, it was just business as usual under the Liberals, sadly no better, but also no worse. The interest owed on the debt piled up on the government's books.
Until October. That's when the Liberal cabinet passed an order - not in one of those televised meetings, where we could have heard an explanation, but behind closed doors - that forgave the Huckleberry Mine for $3 million in interest payments that had piled up since 1997. Forget about it, we'll write it off.
You may find that surprising, from a government that promised to eliminate business subsidies. After all, if one mining company can borrow from the loosey-goosey government with no interest payments and no need to pay back the principle, while its competitors have to deal with those crabby banks, that's a pretty big advantage.
But Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe said he had no choice but to ask cabinet to give the company the break. The mine was in a precarious position, with only about four years of life left. If the government said no, it might close and 175 jobs would be lost. It wasn't a subsidy, just a business decision, he said, that made the best of the situation.
Here's where the government's assessment of the situation starts to look shaky.
Because while cabinet was giving up on collecting your money, the company was doing more test drilling. And now it says the results are encouraging, with a good possibility that new deposits will extend the life of the mine.
That's good news. But it's hard to justify writing off $3 million in debt when the mine might be able to spin profits for its owners for another decade.
That's not the only development to raise doubts about the government's judgment.
Huckleberry Mine is owned jointly by Imperial Metals of Vancouver, which has 50 per cent, and a consortium of Japanese companies. Barely one month after cabinet was persuaded that Huckleberry shouldn't have to pay the $3 million it owned you, the company repaid another loan. Huckleberry Mine came up with more than $3 million to pay the principle and all the interest it owed to co-owner Imperial Metals as a result of a 1998 loan.
It looks - admittedly from the outside - like the government faces some big questions about the decision to hand over your money. The mine has discovered indications of future potential; the company can pay a debt its owners. Why should taxpayers be giving up on collecting what is owed?
Footnote: How could Huckleberry come up with money to repay Imperial Metals one month after the province wrote off $3 million? "Higher copper prices have improved Huckleberry's cash flow during 2004 allowing Huckleberry repay this loan and accrued interest," Imperial reported in a public release.
The New Democrats got the ball rolling, coming up with a $14.5-million loan - 10 per cent of the mine development cost - back in 1997. That' s your money subsidizing the investors in a mine, a wrong-headed approach to the role of government in the first place.
The mine opened, and the company started scratching copper and molybdenum out of an open pit about 120 km southwest of Houston. There were buyers for the metals, but never quite enough money to send a cheque off to the government to pay down the loan. (Other creditors also faced similar payment problems.)
Unlike most creditors - try not paying your BC Hydro bill and see what happens - the government was patient. Years went by without a single dollar being repaid.
The election came, and the New Era, but the Liberal government didn't take any more action on collecting your money than the NDP had.
Things were challenging for the shareholders as well, it should be noted. Commodity prices were lower than they hoped and the mine's parent company, Imperial Metals, had to seek court protection from its creditors in 2002 while it re-organized.
But that's the risk shareholders and owners run, in return for the opportunity to profit when things do work out.
Still, it was just business as usual under the Liberals, sadly no better, but also no worse. The interest owed on the debt piled up on the government's books.
Until October. That's when the Liberal cabinet passed an order - not in one of those televised meetings, where we could have heard an explanation, but behind closed doors - that forgave the Huckleberry Mine for $3 million in interest payments that had piled up since 1997. Forget about it, we'll write it off.
You may find that surprising, from a government that promised to eliminate business subsidies. After all, if one mining company can borrow from the loosey-goosey government with no interest payments and no need to pay back the principle, while its competitors have to deal with those crabby banks, that's a pretty big advantage.
But Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe said he had no choice but to ask cabinet to give the company the break. The mine was in a precarious position, with only about four years of life left. If the government said no, it might close and 175 jobs would be lost. It wasn't a subsidy, just a business decision, he said, that made the best of the situation.
Here's where the government's assessment of the situation starts to look shaky.
Because while cabinet was giving up on collecting your money, the company was doing more test drilling. And now it says the results are encouraging, with a good possibility that new deposits will extend the life of the mine.
That's good news. But it's hard to justify writing off $3 million in debt when the mine might be able to spin profits for its owners for another decade.
That's not the only development to raise doubts about the government's judgment.
Huckleberry Mine is owned jointly by Imperial Metals of Vancouver, which has 50 per cent, and a consortium of Japanese companies. Barely one month after cabinet was persuaded that Huckleberry shouldn't have to pay the $3 million it owned you, the company repaid another loan. Huckleberry Mine came up with more than $3 million to pay the principle and all the interest it owed to co-owner Imperial Metals as a result of a 1998 loan.
It looks - admittedly from the outside - like the government faces some big questions about the decision to hand over your money. The mine has discovered indications of future potential; the company can pay a debt its owners. Why should taxpayers be giving up on collecting what is owed?
Footnote: How could Huckleberry come up with money to repay Imperial Metals one month after the province wrote off $3 million? "Higher copper prices have improved Huckleberry's cash flow during 2004 allowing Huckleberry repay this loan and accrued interest," Imperial reported in a public release.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
The lessons from the those scenes of disaster
VICTORIA - So what should we learn from the tsunami? A host of lessons, big and small, remarkably random - like the event itself.
We should learn to rethink our eagerness to dispatch supposedly specialized grief counsellors to deal with this and other events. The Vancouver school district had its critical incident teams at the ready to fan out into schools and work with traumatized or troubled students.
It is a good time for teachers to discuss the events, linking them to the lessons students are learning in geography or history. And it's useful to be alert for individuals who are affected in some profound way. But death and disaster are part of life, and our children know that, and can deal with the images they see. The penchant for dispatching grief counsellors - who have been found to do more harm than good in many studies - is an unnecessary waste of scarce resources.
We should get a grip on our self-righteous and self-indulgent tendencies to assume the worst. News photos showing tourists on beaches days after the tsunamis sparked outraged letters to the editor about insensitive and selfish visitors. But maybe the people had spent the rest of the day clearing debris; maybe they were injured; maybe in shock. Why assume the worst? In any case, the tourists - and those who will press on with their vacations in coming months - are bringing needed income to the people in those communities.
The media also worked itself into a frenzy about the threat of children being abducted in the wake of the disaster, and forced into the sex trade or child labour. But the case that sparked the initial furore, involving fears a 12-year-old Swedish boy had been taken from a hospital - was proved unfounded. The risk may exist, and countries involved may need to take action. But there is little evidence of an immediate problem justifying the headlines and hand-wringing, and our response looks more prurient than prudent.
We should take lessons about our own level of preparation for a disaster, collectively and individually. Someday the earthquake or tsunami or forest fire could be here, and it's prudent to make sure we have sensible precautions in place. (Note the adjective sensible - sometimes safety measures aren't justifiable, given a reasonable assessment of the real risk and the costs.)
We should celebrate our generousity. Individuals, businesses, countries have all stepped forward to help people half-a-world away. There are lots of opportunities to learn from what we have done, and be more focused and effective in future. But it's important to recognize that faced with a crisis people responded.
At the same time we should recognize that need and suffering exist every day, even if we aren't faced with terrible images, and it's within our power to make a huge difference globally and locally. The tsunami disaster death toll so far is about 150,000 people, a number beyond imagining.
But it pales besides starvation and disease and the slow-motion disasters that kill far more people every year. Estimates of the death rate from AIDs in Africa range as high as 6,500 a day. Every three weeks, a loss of life on the scale of the tsunami takes place. About 700,000 children will die around the worlds this year of measles, a loss of life that is preventable with adequate resources. Some eight million child deaths each year are due to malnutrition, and are preventable.
We should still rightly celebrate our generousity. But we should also recognize that the need is great, and will continue long after the media have moved on.
And finally, we should take some time to give thanks for what we have, not just our homes and our comforts, but the people around us. The stories of miraculous escapes, and massive death, should remind us how fragile all this is and how quickly it can change. Every day must count.
Footnote: One of the greatest lessons from the disaster is the courage of the people who live there. The waves had barely receded; their friends and families had died; they had lost everything; and they began rebuilding their homes and small businesses. It's an act of desperation, to be sure, but it is also an act of hope.
We should learn to rethink our eagerness to dispatch supposedly specialized grief counsellors to deal with this and other events. The Vancouver school district had its critical incident teams at the ready to fan out into schools and work with traumatized or troubled students.
It is a good time for teachers to discuss the events, linking them to the lessons students are learning in geography or history. And it's useful to be alert for individuals who are affected in some profound way. But death and disaster are part of life, and our children know that, and can deal with the images they see. The penchant for dispatching grief counsellors - who have been found to do more harm than good in many studies - is an unnecessary waste of scarce resources.
We should get a grip on our self-righteous and self-indulgent tendencies to assume the worst. News photos showing tourists on beaches days after the tsunamis sparked outraged letters to the editor about insensitive and selfish visitors. But maybe the people had spent the rest of the day clearing debris; maybe they were injured; maybe in shock. Why assume the worst? In any case, the tourists - and those who will press on with their vacations in coming months - are bringing needed income to the people in those communities.
The media also worked itself into a frenzy about the threat of children being abducted in the wake of the disaster, and forced into the sex trade or child labour. But the case that sparked the initial furore, involving fears a 12-year-old Swedish boy had been taken from a hospital - was proved unfounded. The risk may exist, and countries involved may need to take action. But there is little evidence of an immediate problem justifying the headlines and hand-wringing, and our response looks more prurient than prudent.
We should take lessons about our own level of preparation for a disaster, collectively and individually. Someday the earthquake or tsunami or forest fire could be here, and it's prudent to make sure we have sensible precautions in place. (Note the adjective sensible - sometimes safety measures aren't justifiable, given a reasonable assessment of the real risk and the costs.)
We should celebrate our generousity. Individuals, businesses, countries have all stepped forward to help people half-a-world away. There are lots of opportunities to learn from what we have done, and be more focused and effective in future. But it's important to recognize that faced with a crisis people responded.
At the same time we should recognize that need and suffering exist every day, even if we aren't faced with terrible images, and it's within our power to make a huge difference globally and locally. The tsunami disaster death toll so far is about 150,000 people, a number beyond imagining.
But it pales besides starvation and disease and the slow-motion disasters that kill far more people every year. Estimates of the death rate from AIDs in Africa range as high as 6,500 a day. Every three weeks, a loss of life on the scale of the tsunami takes place. About 700,000 children will die around the worlds this year of measles, a loss of life that is preventable with adequate resources. Some eight million child deaths each year are due to malnutrition, and are preventable.
We should still rightly celebrate our generousity. But we should also recognize that the need is great, and will continue long after the media have moved on.
And finally, we should take some time to give thanks for what we have, not just our homes and our comforts, but the people around us. The stories of miraculous escapes, and massive death, should remind us how fragile all this is and how quickly it can change. Every day must count.
Footnote: One of the greatest lessons from the disaster is the courage of the people who live there. The waves had barely receded; their friends and families had died; they had lost everything; and they began rebuilding their homes and small businesses. It's an act of desperation, to be sure, but it is also an act of hope.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
B.C.'s leaky schools a reminder of rot
VICTORIA - The greatest scandal to hit B.C. continues to unfold.
Not the legislature raids, or the fast ferries. They're small potatoes compared to the rip-off of more than $1.5 billion from people who made the mistake of believing that they could safely buy a home in B.C.
Those people believed that builders were competent and honest, and government regulators could be trusted. They thought they could invest their life savings in a home and at least be confident that it would keep the rain out.
And they were wrong.
The scandal is back in the news, as B.C.'s architects complain that the provincial government shouldn't be chasing them just because schools they designed are leaking. Up to 500 schools built since 1985 leak and need repairs, which will cost taxpayers $50 million to $100 million. The provincial government has written the architects involved and warned that they may be sued.
That doesn't seem unreasonable. But the Architectural Institute of BC, which represents the profession, isn't happy.
Their concern is partly justified. B.C. liability law currently allows people who have been hurt to seek damages from anyone responsible. If most of them have no money or have vanished, then those that are left can be forced to pay most of the damages, even if they are found to be only partly responsible.
That raises the risk of unfairness. But it also recognizes that the real victim deserves compensation.
The architectural institute also argues that the government wanted low-cost construction, so it should share some of the blame. That will be a convincing argument only if an architect can find a copy of a letter he wrote advising that the school would leak.
And the institute maintains that collecting the money - even if the architect was clearly responsible - would be too harsh. Architects might have to file for bankruptcy, and lose their homes.
It's a bit much. The institute's members designed some 65,000 housing units across the province that leaked. Seniors spent everything they owned on retirement condos only to find they had to come up with $20,000 or $120,000 more as their share of repairs. Buyers have gone bankrupt, they've lost their homes and their lives have been ruined.
That's not all the fault of architects, although the institute's web site makes much of the architect's role in co-ordinating a team of engineering specialists. But if they are confident that they bear no responsibility, the architects can let the province take them to court. If they're blameless, they have few worries.
The education ministry has taken on the school problem, reckoning in part that it's too costly for each school district to try and find out who is responsible for the leaks and collect damages.
But homeowners don't have that option. Each strata council would have to wage its own battle for justice; and for most justice is just too expensive.
Personal responsibility is an important thing. But these people didn't do anything wrong. They bought condos from apparently responsible builders, with architects and engineers in place, and government inspectors supposedly vigilantly watching. Many of them asked all the right questions.
And they were ripped off, sold buildings that couldn't keep out the rain.
The provincial government has come up with $300 million in interest-free loans to help some people survive the disaster.
But it should have done much more. If school districts need help in dealing with the issue, then homeowners need assistance all the more.
Government can't step in and pay the rebuilding costs (although it is hard to see how some of the responsibility doesn't rest with all three levels of government, which had a role in setting and enforcing construction rules).
But it could find a way to offer the same kind of support in seeking justice to homeowners that it has to school districts, providing at least some hope for thousands of battered people.
Footnote: The leaky condo scandal remains one of the most astonishing events in the province's history. Some $1.5 billion to $2 billion has been plucked from thousands of homeowners' pockets, and almost no one has been held to account.
Not the legislature raids, or the fast ferries. They're small potatoes compared to the rip-off of more than $1.5 billion from people who made the mistake of believing that they could safely buy a home in B.C.
Those people believed that builders were competent and honest, and government regulators could be trusted. They thought they could invest their life savings in a home and at least be confident that it would keep the rain out.
And they were wrong.
The scandal is back in the news, as B.C.'s architects complain that the provincial government shouldn't be chasing them just because schools they designed are leaking. Up to 500 schools built since 1985 leak and need repairs, which will cost taxpayers $50 million to $100 million. The provincial government has written the architects involved and warned that they may be sued.
That doesn't seem unreasonable. But the Architectural Institute of BC, which represents the profession, isn't happy.
Their concern is partly justified. B.C. liability law currently allows people who have been hurt to seek damages from anyone responsible. If most of them have no money or have vanished, then those that are left can be forced to pay most of the damages, even if they are found to be only partly responsible.
That raises the risk of unfairness. But it also recognizes that the real victim deserves compensation.
The architectural institute also argues that the government wanted low-cost construction, so it should share some of the blame. That will be a convincing argument only if an architect can find a copy of a letter he wrote advising that the school would leak.
And the institute maintains that collecting the money - even if the architect was clearly responsible - would be too harsh. Architects might have to file for bankruptcy, and lose their homes.
It's a bit much. The institute's members designed some 65,000 housing units across the province that leaked. Seniors spent everything they owned on retirement condos only to find they had to come up with $20,000 or $120,000 more as their share of repairs. Buyers have gone bankrupt, they've lost their homes and their lives have been ruined.
That's not all the fault of architects, although the institute's web site makes much of the architect's role in co-ordinating a team of engineering specialists. But if they are confident that they bear no responsibility, the architects can let the province take them to court. If they're blameless, they have few worries.
The education ministry has taken on the school problem, reckoning in part that it's too costly for each school district to try and find out who is responsible for the leaks and collect damages.
But homeowners don't have that option. Each strata council would have to wage its own battle for justice; and for most justice is just too expensive.
Personal responsibility is an important thing. But these people didn't do anything wrong. They bought condos from apparently responsible builders, with architects and engineers in place, and government inspectors supposedly vigilantly watching. Many of them asked all the right questions.
And they were ripped off, sold buildings that couldn't keep out the rain.
The provincial government has come up with $300 million in interest-free loans to help some people survive the disaster.
But it should have done much more. If school districts need help in dealing with the issue, then homeowners need assistance all the more.
Government can't step in and pay the rebuilding costs (although it is hard to see how some of the responsibility doesn't rest with all three levels of government, which had a role in setting and enforcing construction rules).
But it could find a way to offer the same kind of support in seeking justice to homeowners that it has to school districts, providing at least some hope for thousands of battered people.
Footnote: The leaky condo scandal remains one of the most astonishing events in the province's history. Some $1.5 billion to $2 billion has been plucked from thousands of homeowners' pockets, and almost no one has been held to account.
Friday, December 31, 2004
What to watch for on the political front in '05
VICTORIA - Nine things things to look for as we head into another year of politics, and perhaps both federal and provincial elections.
First, can NDP leader Carole James escape the party's past and her own fuzzy image in voters' minds and achieve some sort of breakthrough in the May election?
My guess would be that an election today would produce a clear Liberal majority, with about 45 seats to the New Democrats' 35 or so. Bad news for the 30 Liberals who stand to lose their seats, but a convincing win.
But there are 15 weeks before voting day, and a lot can change. The ability of James to win voters' confidence is a key variable. Right now about 32 per cent of voters approve of James' work as opposition leader, and 27 per cent disapprove, according to the latest Mustel poll.
Those are likely the voters already committed to a party. James' ability to convince the 40 per cent who haven't made up their minds that she's a credible leader - or her good fortune in coming up with a Gordon Wilson-type breakthrough moment - could change things dramatically.
Second, will an NDP candidate list that includes too many tarnished veterans - like Glen Clark advisor Adrian Dix and former MLA Harry Lali - make it easy for the Liberals to convince voters that the voting New Democrat is risking a return to the incompetent past?
Third, can Gordon Campbell convince voters that his government isn't mean-spirited, does have a social agenda and can be trusted? The polls indicate voters have serious doubts about the government's interest in struggling British Columbians and don't believe Campbell when he promises a new direction. (The big broken promises on gambling, BC Rail and respecting contracts haven't helped.)
Fourth, can the Liberals stick together? The party - a coalition of free enterprisers with a wide range of views on health, education and social policy - has stayed unified. But they were helped because they were focused on cutting taxes and spending. Now the surpluses are large, and the choices more diverse. The divide between the traditional small 'l' liberals, who want to spend on a social agenda, and the conservatives who don't really see much of a role for government, is threatening to widen .
Fifth, can the Liberals deal with their own candidate problems? The emergence of social conservatives - like Mary Polak and Cindy Silver - is already being criticized by sitting Liberal MLAs. Stephen Harper learned painfully how much damage that candidates who are seen as extreme social conservatives can do to a party's hopes.
Sixth, will the B.C. economy continue to perform? Most indicators point to decent growth in 2005, with the only worrying factor the risk of a decline in U.S. housing starts and problems for the forest industry. Economic growth means more jobs and gives voters a reason to stay the course with the current government.
Seventh, will the BC Rail scandal emerge as a significant issue. The corruption charges are serious and allege that the $1-billion sale was compromised, and that taxpayers and other bidders lost money as a result. The Liberals' claim that this somehow had nothing to do with government makes no sense. A huge public asset was sold in a tainted process, prosecutors charge, and that has everything to do with government. The fact that the case is before the courts will help the Liberals deflect questions, but it also means regular headlines.
Eighth, will Paul Martin's minority government survive the year? The best bet is that it will, and that British Columbians can expect more attention from the federal Liberals in preparation for a vote in 2006. But the problem for Martin is that the longer the governs, the more adrift the federal Liberals seem to be. The strategy of putting off the eventual election is looking politically dangerous.
And ninth, will a positive referendum vote on electoral reform change everything in B.C.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The other things to watch for are the risk of school disruptions as the BCTF negotiates its contract and the potential for mounting problems in the health care system. Health and education are critical areas for voters who are already skeptical of the Liberal record.
First, can NDP leader Carole James escape the party's past and her own fuzzy image in voters' minds and achieve some sort of breakthrough in the May election?
My guess would be that an election today would produce a clear Liberal majority, with about 45 seats to the New Democrats' 35 or so. Bad news for the 30 Liberals who stand to lose their seats, but a convincing win.
But there are 15 weeks before voting day, and a lot can change. The ability of James to win voters' confidence is a key variable. Right now about 32 per cent of voters approve of James' work as opposition leader, and 27 per cent disapprove, according to the latest Mustel poll.
Those are likely the voters already committed to a party. James' ability to convince the 40 per cent who haven't made up their minds that she's a credible leader - or her good fortune in coming up with a Gordon Wilson-type breakthrough moment - could change things dramatically.
Second, will an NDP candidate list that includes too many tarnished veterans - like Glen Clark advisor Adrian Dix and former MLA Harry Lali - make it easy for the Liberals to convince voters that the voting New Democrat is risking a return to the incompetent past?
Third, can Gordon Campbell convince voters that his government isn't mean-spirited, does have a social agenda and can be trusted? The polls indicate voters have serious doubts about the government's interest in struggling British Columbians and don't believe Campbell when he promises a new direction. (The big broken promises on gambling, BC Rail and respecting contracts haven't helped.)
Fourth, can the Liberals stick together? The party - a coalition of free enterprisers with a wide range of views on health, education and social policy - has stayed unified. But they were helped because they were focused on cutting taxes and spending. Now the surpluses are large, and the choices more diverse. The divide between the traditional small 'l' liberals, who want to spend on a social agenda, and the conservatives who don't really see much of a role for government, is threatening to widen .
Fifth, can the Liberals deal with their own candidate problems? The emergence of social conservatives - like Mary Polak and Cindy Silver - is already being criticized by sitting Liberal MLAs. Stephen Harper learned painfully how much damage that candidates who are seen as extreme social conservatives can do to a party's hopes.
Sixth, will the B.C. economy continue to perform? Most indicators point to decent growth in 2005, with the only worrying factor the risk of a decline in U.S. housing starts and problems for the forest industry. Economic growth means more jobs and gives voters a reason to stay the course with the current government.
Seventh, will the BC Rail scandal emerge as a significant issue. The corruption charges are serious and allege that the $1-billion sale was compromised, and that taxpayers and other bidders lost money as a result. The Liberals' claim that this somehow had nothing to do with government makes no sense. A huge public asset was sold in a tainted process, prosecutors charge, and that has everything to do with government. The fact that the case is before the courts will help the Liberals deflect questions, but it also means regular headlines.
Eighth, will Paul Martin's minority government survive the year? The best bet is that it will, and that British Columbians can expect more attention from the federal Liberals in preparation for a vote in 2006. But the problem for Martin is that the longer the governs, the more adrift the federal Liberals seem to be. The strategy of putting off the eventual election is looking politically dangerous.
And ninth, will a positive referendum vote on electoral reform change everything in B.C.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The other things to watch for are the risk of school disruptions as the BCTF negotiates its contract and the potential for mounting problems in the health care system. Health and education are critical areas for voters who are already skeptical of the Liberal record.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Time for transportation push for B.C.'s regions
VICTORIA - B.C.'s regions should be pushing hard to make sure a new Progress Board report on transportation issues doesn't end up gathering dust.
Communities outside the Lower Mainland need lots of help to prepare for current and coming challenges. but transportation improvements offer one of the best bets for economic development and diversification.
Make it possible for people and goods to move efficiently and cheaply and all kinds of opportunities - from tourism to resource development to small business - are opened up.
The Progress Board is useful creation of the Campbell government, set up to provide regular independent reports on how things are really going in B.C. and occasional special bulletins.
The transportation study, by UBC prof Michael Goldberg, offers a challenge to the provincial government and to communities to come up with transportation strategies - and actually execute them - that will boost regional economies.
Much of it is not complicated. But the report's recommendations are sweeping and will test both the provincial government's commitment and communities willingness to work together.
That's going to be especially true in the area of air transportation. Goldberg has a number of recommendations aimed at opening up B.C. to more international flights as part of a global trade push.
But he also says it's time for more consolidation within the province's regions. Almost three dozen airports have some form of scheduled service, he says, and that leaves many too small to cope with increasing security costs and other infrastructure demands.
Some airports - Comox, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George - need to expand, Goldberg says. Others - like Williams Lake and Castlegar - are the right size.
But others need to shrink or even close, with service consolidated in a nearby centre, he suggests. Smithers, Terrace/Kitimat and Prince Rupert all have airports, he says, but the region would be best-served by one larger airport in Terrace. Castlegar should be the airport for Trail and Nelson. Williams Lake should serve Quesnel. And either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek should emerge as the region's airport, the report says.
It's always a tough sell to get communities to set aside their local interests and focus on the region. But the principle makes sense.
The short-term blow to communities that see their airports downgraded could be cushioned by other recommendations in the report, which include a call for improved highways.
"A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extend possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," the report says. Priority should be given Trans-Canada Highway improvements in the Rockies, four-laning portions of Hwy 97 from Prince George to the U.S. and a lot of improvements in the Lower Mainland.
And to pay for the roadwork, the government should look to more tolls, the report says.
The report also makes a case for a much larger role for the Port of Prince Rupert, a change that would require major expansion of the port number of other projects. Rail tunnels need higher ceilings to accommodate modern container cars and highway improvements in the northwest corridor are also needed.
And Prince Rupert's port needs to be supported with an inland container handling facility in Prince George, Kamloops or the Fraser Valley - a big boost for one or more of those communities.
The report also recommends that a new Pacific Port authority be created to take on responsibility for all five ports in the province, with the ability to borrow money, build facilities and manage the entire system.
Tax breaks for airlines and rail and trucking companies are also recommended, along with a big push to ensure that effective security controls are put in place without compromising the flow of goods.
It's a good blueprint. But communities will have to push if they want to see action on problems that have been around for a decade.
Footnote: The report confirms Prince Rupert's advantage as a gateway that gets goods to mid-America far more quickly than any U.S. port. But the port is hurt because shippers bringing goods from Asia now have to return empty, because there is little outbound trade through the port.
Communities outside the Lower Mainland need lots of help to prepare for current and coming challenges. but transportation improvements offer one of the best bets for economic development and diversification.
Make it possible for people and goods to move efficiently and cheaply and all kinds of opportunities - from tourism to resource development to small business - are opened up.
The Progress Board is useful creation of the Campbell government, set up to provide regular independent reports on how things are really going in B.C. and occasional special bulletins.
The transportation study, by UBC prof Michael Goldberg, offers a challenge to the provincial government and to communities to come up with transportation strategies - and actually execute them - that will boost regional economies.
Much of it is not complicated. But the report's recommendations are sweeping and will test both the provincial government's commitment and communities willingness to work together.
That's going to be especially true in the area of air transportation. Goldberg has a number of recommendations aimed at opening up B.C. to more international flights as part of a global trade push.
But he also says it's time for more consolidation within the province's regions. Almost three dozen airports have some form of scheduled service, he says, and that leaves many too small to cope with increasing security costs and other infrastructure demands.
Some airports - Comox, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George - need to expand, Goldberg says. Others - like Williams Lake and Castlegar - are the right size.
But others need to shrink or even close, with service consolidated in a nearby centre, he suggests. Smithers, Terrace/Kitimat and Prince Rupert all have airports, he says, but the region would be best-served by one larger airport in Terrace. Castlegar should be the airport for Trail and Nelson. Williams Lake should serve Quesnel. And either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek should emerge as the region's airport, the report says.
It's always a tough sell to get communities to set aside their local interests and focus on the region. But the principle makes sense.
The short-term blow to communities that see their airports downgraded could be cushioned by other recommendations in the report, which include a call for improved highways.
"A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extend possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," the report says. Priority should be given Trans-Canada Highway improvements in the Rockies, four-laning portions of Hwy 97 from Prince George to the U.S. and a lot of improvements in the Lower Mainland.
And to pay for the roadwork, the government should look to more tolls, the report says.
The report also makes a case for a much larger role for the Port of Prince Rupert, a change that would require major expansion of the port number of other projects. Rail tunnels need higher ceilings to accommodate modern container cars and highway improvements in the northwest corridor are also needed.
And Prince Rupert's port needs to be supported with an inland container handling facility in Prince George, Kamloops or the Fraser Valley - a big boost for one or more of those communities.
The report also recommends that a new Pacific Port authority be created to take on responsibility for all five ports in the province, with the ability to borrow money, build facilities and manage the entire system.
Tax breaks for airlines and rail and trucking companies are also recommended, along with a big push to ensure that effective security controls are put in place without compromising the flow of goods.
It's a good blueprint. But communities will have to push if they want to see action on problems that have been around for a decade.
Footnote: The report confirms Prince Rupert's advantage as a gateway that gets goods to mid-America far more quickly than any U.S. port. But the port is hurt because shippers bringing goods from Asia now have to return empty, because there is little outbound trade through the port.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Enough about same sex marriage, already
VICTORIA - It's probably wrong to classify the same sex marriage debate as completely irrelevant.
But where are our priorities? Children are going hungry, drug addiction is a national crisis, our health care faces big challenges over the next 20 years, our political system is wounded - and we're wringing our hands over a word.
This isn't a debate about whether gays and lesbians in a committed relationship should have all the rights of heterosexuals. Every significant participant, including Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper, agree that they already do, and should.
It isn't a debate about whether churches should be somehow forced to recognize same sex marriages. Every serious participant agrees they shouldn't.
All this thrashing and political posturing is about whether two people can get a piece of paper from a government office that says they are married. Some people would like a different word on the piece of paper; some think that marriage is OK. That's it.
The courts - from the BC Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - have ruled that the gay and lesbians have a right to be married. The federal Liberals plan to change the law to recognize that right.
And for all the fuss, the new law doesn't have any real impact.
Churches would not have to perform same sex marriages. The legal or economic status of the couples would be unaffected, since the economic rights of people living together have already been established. With or without the piece of paper, same sex couples will be living together, raising children, going about their business.
Nothing really changes. That's what's puzzling about the claims that this represents some big threat.
Same-sex couples will be able to get a form from a government office that says they are married. That's it. That piece of paper will have the meaning and significance that they - and others - choose to give it. No one is forced to share their view.
Many people believe same sex relationships are wrong, or that real marriage can only involve a man and a woman. They are fully entitled to continue to hold those beliefs. I have a friend whose grandmother went to her grave refusing to acknowledge his marriage, or his children, because his wife was from outside their religion. It was sad, but she had a right to that belief.
As people will have right to believe that same sex marriages aren't 'real.'
The arguments against same sex marriage seem weak.
Gay relationships are less stable, some argue, stable relationships are good for children, so gay marriage is damaging to society.
Except that gay and lesbian couples will still choose to raise families, with or without the piece of paper. There's no change. If anything, marriage vows encourage stability.
Others - like Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who is floundering badly on this issue - argue that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are simply saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out.
Other opponents of the change resort to tired slippery slope arguments, the last refuge of those unable to support their position. Allow one change to the definition of marriage, they say, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their cats. It's foolish. No sensible person could believe a court would uphold such a definition, or that Parliament would pass such a law.
I figure that if two men or women want to marry, as they define it, more power to them. It's a blessing to find someone to share this life. If you disagree, I respect your view and you're continued right to hold that opinion.
But this isn't a big change. Let's move on to more serious problems.
Footnote: Why not then, if this is not significant, leave things as they are? We can't. The charter of rights provides a right to same-sex marriage. The only way to wipe out that right requires an extraordinary use of the notwithstanding clause to waive the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians. And that's dangerous.
But where are our priorities? Children are going hungry, drug addiction is a national crisis, our health care faces big challenges over the next 20 years, our political system is wounded - and we're wringing our hands over a word.
This isn't a debate about whether gays and lesbians in a committed relationship should have all the rights of heterosexuals. Every significant participant, including Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper, agree that they already do, and should.
It isn't a debate about whether churches should be somehow forced to recognize same sex marriages. Every serious participant agrees they shouldn't.
All this thrashing and political posturing is about whether two people can get a piece of paper from a government office that says they are married. Some people would like a different word on the piece of paper; some think that marriage is OK. That's it.
The courts - from the BC Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - have ruled that the gay and lesbians have a right to be married. The federal Liberals plan to change the law to recognize that right.
And for all the fuss, the new law doesn't have any real impact.
Churches would not have to perform same sex marriages. The legal or economic status of the couples would be unaffected, since the economic rights of people living together have already been established. With or without the piece of paper, same sex couples will be living together, raising children, going about their business.
Nothing really changes. That's what's puzzling about the claims that this represents some big threat.
Same-sex couples will be able to get a form from a government office that says they are married. That's it. That piece of paper will have the meaning and significance that they - and others - choose to give it. No one is forced to share their view.
Many people believe same sex relationships are wrong, or that real marriage can only involve a man and a woman. They are fully entitled to continue to hold those beliefs. I have a friend whose grandmother went to her grave refusing to acknowledge his marriage, or his children, because his wife was from outside their religion. It was sad, but she had a right to that belief.
As people will have right to believe that same sex marriages aren't 'real.'
The arguments against same sex marriage seem weak.
Gay relationships are less stable, some argue, stable relationships are good for children, so gay marriage is damaging to society.
Except that gay and lesbian couples will still choose to raise families, with or without the piece of paper. There's no change. If anything, marriage vows encourage stability.
Others - like Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who is floundering badly on this issue - argue that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are simply saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out.
Other opponents of the change resort to tired slippery slope arguments, the last refuge of those unable to support their position. Allow one change to the definition of marriage, they say, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their cats. It's foolish. No sensible person could believe a court would uphold such a definition, or that Parliament would pass such a law.
I figure that if two men or women want to marry, as they define it, more power to them. It's a blessing to find someone to share this life. If you disagree, I respect your view and you're continued right to hold that opinion.
But this isn't a big change. Let's move on to more serious problems.
Footnote: Why not then, if this is not significant, leave things as they are? We can't. The charter of rights provides a right to same-sex marriage. The only way to wipe out that right requires an extraordinary use of the notwithstanding clause to waive the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians. And that's dangerous.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Making your life, and the world, a better place
VICTORIA - It's the season to remember that a lot of what we're so busy worrying about doesn't really matter all that much.
And more importantly, that we may not be paying enough attention to the things, and people, that really do matter.
I am a fine one to talk, of course. I've written about 280,000 words on B.C. politics and policies this year, about the equivalent of two hefty novels. I've tried to write about things that matter, the decisions and issues that can change peoples' lives.
But the legislature's historic building doesn't just look like a fortress. Sometimes working here can be a bit like living a fantasy castle, its own little magic kingdom. The rest of the world - the real world - looks blurry and distant through the 100-year-old leaded glass windows. So some of those words were probably about issues and events that really didn't matter all that much.
It's easy to get caught up in the discouraging aspects of political life, the squabbling and the foolishness and the silly evasions. (And it gets especially discouraging because the people are so much better than than that individually; they seem to fall under some powerful curse when they enter the legislature.)
All of us can too easily get caught up in the urgent, and the discouraging, the problems and missteps and frustrations that dog our existence at work, or at home. They pile up like a tangled, weighty mass of cordwood and we spend every day pushing at them, rearranging the shape of the heap without actually changing much.
And pretty soon all we can see is the pile.
For the last few years I've given up on a traditional New Year's resolutions - for one thing, most years I seem to be still trying to decide on a resolution in April and by then it's late enough to abandon the whole idea.
Instead, each year I simply resolve to pay attention.
The foundation of a better life - for you, your family, your community, the world - might just lie in making a resolution to pay attention to the people around you, and the world that lies just a little farther away.
It's too easy to miss someone's pain, or sadness, or joy, simply because we're not really paying attention at that moment. The chances to notice that a child is lost or sad, or a parent is alone or frightened come and go. Miss them once, and they may be gone forever, and with them your chance to respond, to make the simple small gesture that can change everything.
I'm convinced that when people notice, when they pay attention, they are mostly compelled to act. That's the reason this kind of work, is worth doing, and those 280,000 words make sense. If people see a wrong, or a sadness, they will respond. It is a fact of our fundamental collective decency.
But it takes that first step in really seeing the people sprawled on the sidewalk in the cold outside the local shelter, or the children struggling to find their place in a world that doesn't seem to really want them.
When we pay attention, we hurt, or we rejoice, but we act.
We also get something very precious. Because the chance to pay attention can be as brief as a shooting star. Another person may for just one moment be ready to talk about her hopes or pain, and if it it is missed the chance to share in a life life, and change it, is gone forever.
It's not just about helping others. Paying attention means noticing the way the sun strikes a flower, or the rain sounds on the roof, or the pure comfort of a warm kitchen when the wind is pushing at the trees. we need to recognize the wonder and joy that can be part of our lives at almost every moment.
And that is important too. We need solace and joy and hope to make our way in this world. And the surest way to find those things is to make a point of looking for them in the people and places and moments of every day.
It is a gift. And I wish it for you this year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assessed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement. That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
And more importantly, that we may not be paying enough attention to the things, and people, that really do matter.
I am a fine one to talk, of course. I've written about 280,000 words on B.C. politics and policies this year, about the equivalent of two hefty novels. I've tried to write about things that matter, the decisions and issues that can change peoples' lives.
But the legislature's historic building doesn't just look like a fortress. Sometimes working here can be a bit like living a fantasy castle, its own little magic kingdom. The rest of the world - the real world - looks blurry and distant through the 100-year-old leaded glass windows. So some of those words were probably about issues and events that really didn't matter all that much.
It's easy to get caught up in the discouraging aspects of political life, the squabbling and the foolishness and the silly evasions. (And it gets especially discouraging because the people are so much better than than that individually; they seem to fall under some powerful curse when they enter the legislature.)
All of us can too easily get caught up in the urgent, and the discouraging, the problems and missteps and frustrations that dog our existence at work, or at home. They pile up like a tangled, weighty mass of cordwood and we spend every day pushing at them, rearranging the shape of the heap without actually changing much.
And pretty soon all we can see is the pile.
For the last few years I've given up on a traditional New Year's resolutions - for one thing, most years I seem to be still trying to decide on a resolution in April and by then it's late enough to abandon the whole idea.
Instead, each year I simply resolve to pay attention.
The foundation of a better life - for you, your family, your community, the world - might just lie in making a resolution to pay attention to the people around you, and the world that lies just a little farther away.
It's too easy to miss someone's pain, or sadness, or joy, simply because we're not really paying attention at that moment. The chances to notice that a child is lost or sad, or a parent is alone or frightened come and go. Miss them once, and they may be gone forever, and with them your chance to respond, to make the simple small gesture that can change everything.
I'm convinced that when people notice, when they pay attention, they are mostly compelled to act. That's the reason this kind of work, is worth doing, and those 280,000 words make sense. If people see a wrong, or a sadness, they will respond. It is a fact of our fundamental collective decency.
But it takes that first step in really seeing the people sprawled on the sidewalk in the cold outside the local shelter, or the children struggling to find their place in a world that doesn't seem to really want them.
When we pay attention, we hurt, or we rejoice, but we act.
We also get something very precious. Because the chance to pay attention can be as brief as a shooting star. Another person may for just one moment be ready to talk about her hopes or pain, and if it it is missed the chance to share in a life life, and change it, is gone forever.
It's not just about helping others. Paying attention means noticing the way the sun strikes a flower, or the rain sounds on the roof, or the pure comfort of a warm kitchen when the wind is pushing at the trees. we need to recognize the wonder and joy that can be part of our lives at almost every moment.
And that is important too. We need solace and joy and hope to make our way in this world. And the surest way to find those things is to make a point of looking for them in the people and places and moments of every day.
It is a gift. And I wish it for you this year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assessed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement. That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assesed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement.par That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assesed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement.par That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Why Collins quit, and what comes next
VICTORIA - So why did Gary Collins pack it in after less than one term in government, giving up the finance minister's job to run a fledgling airline?
To start with, Collins will easily triple his income. Cabinet ministers are paid about $110,000; airline CEOs get more, and have a chance at big bonuses and stock options. For a middle-aged man with a two-year-old son and another child due in February - and no pension plan - that's tough to resist. (And while he will continue to work long hours, his home and office will at least be in the same city.)
For another, Collins has also been in provincial politics for 13 years now, a long time to have the same demanding and somewhat weird job.
Even two weeks ago, when Collins unveiled the second quarter financial report predicting a record surplus, he seemed somewhat detached, to the point that a reporter asked if he would be running in the next election. (Of course, Collins said.)
He's a good catch for his new employer, Harmony Airways. The two-year-old business has been without a CEO for two months. So far, it's flown some routes within Canada, and to Mexico and Hawaii and Las Vegas.
But company owner David Ho has his sights set on a much bigger prize. He wants Harmony to win the right, along with Air Canada, to fly into China, targeting several booming cities.
That will require a major effort in lobbying the federal government. Collins, with good federal Liberal ties and support from the B.C. government, is a good choice to make that happen.
What struck me at the second quarter presentation was a sense that Collins may have thought his work here was done. Taxes were cut, the budget was balanced, the government had made a plan and executed it. It's a good record for a finance minister.
Collins isn't noted as a policy or issues guy. You can't go back into Hansard from the days when the Liberals were in opposition and find him speaking passionately about health, or education or forestry. He had no apparent agenda for the second term.
What does it mean politically?
A bit of scrambling, for sure. Collins was the Liberal campaign co-chair, and he's a close advisor to the premier. That's a loss.
His departure also gives a boost to NDP star candidate Gregor Robertson, running in Collins' riding of Vancouver-Fairview. His election chances have just soared.
But the Liberals score some big benefits too.
Collins did the work that left more than 60 per cent of British Columbians convinced the Liberals balanced the budget on the back of the poor and vulnerable.
Now Colin Hansen, the new finance minister, can bring a kinder, gentler face to the job. At the Collins' resignation press conference, Hansen was already talking about the importance of health and education and social services. "For me, government is about providing services to people," he said.
And in turn, new health minister Shirley Bond can bring a new face to that job.
Hansen has done a good job in the challenging health ministry, but the bitter battle with HEU and other tough issues from the first three years still hang over him.
Now the appointment of Shirley Bond as the new health minister gives the Liberals a fresh start there as well. Health is the top issue for voters, who also think the New Democrats would do a better job of managing health care than the Liberals. Bond's considerable challenge - as well as guiding the system - is changing that perception. It would have been an impossible task for Hansen, in the five months left before the election; Bond at least has a shot.
Collins should leave with head held high. For three years he directed the preparation of a financial plan, and the government hit its targets.
And ultimately, that's the test of the finance minister.
Footnote: I - like most journalists - will miss Collins. He was prickly and partisan, but never shied away from an interview and always had command of the facts and numbers. If he said you were wrong about something, you almost certainly were.
To start with, Collins will easily triple his income. Cabinet ministers are paid about $110,000; airline CEOs get more, and have a chance at big bonuses and stock options. For a middle-aged man with a two-year-old son and another child due in February - and no pension plan - that's tough to resist. (And while he will continue to work long hours, his home and office will at least be in the same city.)
For another, Collins has also been in provincial politics for 13 years now, a long time to have the same demanding and somewhat weird job.
Even two weeks ago, when Collins unveiled the second quarter financial report predicting a record surplus, he seemed somewhat detached, to the point that a reporter asked if he would be running in the next election. (Of course, Collins said.)
He's a good catch for his new employer, Harmony Airways. The two-year-old business has been without a CEO for two months. So far, it's flown some routes within Canada, and to Mexico and Hawaii and Las Vegas.
But company owner David Ho has his sights set on a much bigger prize. He wants Harmony to win the right, along with Air Canada, to fly into China, targeting several booming cities.
That will require a major effort in lobbying the federal government. Collins, with good federal Liberal ties and support from the B.C. government, is a good choice to make that happen.
What struck me at the second quarter presentation was a sense that Collins may have thought his work here was done. Taxes were cut, the budget was balanced, the government had made a plan and executed it. It's a good record for a finance minister.
Collins isn't noted as a policy or issues guy. You can't go back into Hansard from the days when the Liberals were in opposition and find him speaking passionately about health, or education or forestry. He had no apparent agenda for the second term.
What does it mean politically?
A bit of scrambling, for sure. Collins was the Liberal campaign co-chair, and he's a close advisor to the premier. That's a loss.
His departure also gives a boost to NDP star candidate Gregor Robertson, running in Collins' riding of Vancouver-Fairview. His election chances have just soared.
But the Liberals score some big benefits too.
Collins did the work that left more than 60 per cent of British Columbians convinced the Liberals balanced the budget on the back of the poor and vulnerable.
Now Colin Hansen, the new finance minister, can bring a kinder, gentler face to the job. At the Collins' resignation press conference, Hansen was already talking about the importance of health and education and social services. "For me, government is about providing services to people," he said.
And in turn, new health minister Shirley Bond can bring a new face to that job.
Hansen has done a good job in the challenging health ministry, but the bitter battle with HEU and other tough issues from the first three years still hang over him.
Now the appointment of Shirley Bond as the new health minister gives the Liberals a fresh start there as well. Health is the top issue for voters, who also think the New Democrats would do a better job of managing health care than the Liberals. Bond's considerable challenge - as well as guiding the system - is changing that perception. It would have been an impossible task for Hansen, in the five months left before the election; Bond at least has a shot.
Collins should leave with head held high. For three years he directed the preparation of a financial plan, and the government hit its targets.
And ultimately, that's the test of the finance minister.
Footnote: I - like most journalists - will miss Collins. He was prickly and partisan, but never shied away from an interview and always had command of the facts and numbers. If he said you were wrong about something, you almost certainly were.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Communities need trust fund for pine beetle disaster
VICTORIA - It's time to ditch all the politics and start coming up with a plan to rescue communities across B.C. from the coming pine beetle disaster.
It's hard for politicians to resist blaming the other guys for real or imagined errors.
But this is much too important. A natural disaster is going to slam into dozens of forest communities, far bigger than the 2003 fires or floods or anything else we've experienced. We know it's inevitable. And we have to be ready.
The pine beetle is infesting trees today, and those trees are dying. It's no real problem for us now. We can keep harvesting the timber, which holds its value for perhaps a decade.
But the crisis is smashing the natural cycle of harvest and regeneration. Almost 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine are expected to die. Once those trees are gone - either harvested or left to rot - the next generation will be decades away from harvest.
Across the province, communities are facing 20 per cent to 40 per cent reductions in their annual allowable cuts within the next 15 to 20 years. That means huge job losses in communities where forestry is the dominant kingpin of the economy. In some case, mills will simply close. And in every case the damage will last for years, perhaps decades.
In the Quesnel area, to take one example, the timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 area jobs are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of some calamity wiping out 300,000 jobs in the Lower Mainland.
One response is obvious. Both the Liberals and NDP agree that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the crisis, paying for their efforts to develop other economic opportunities.
It doesn't need to take a big bite out of spending on other programs. Part of the government's plan to address the problem is an increase in harvesting across the province to capture the value of the infested wood. Annual allowable cuts have been increased by up to 40 per cent.
It's proving hard to increase harvest levels quickly. Companies aren't prepared for extra volumes, and markets are uncertain. But by the end of next year harvest levels are expected to be significantly higher.
That means more stumpage and tax revenues for government, money that would - without the crisis - have not flowed into its coffers until well into the future.
And that's the money that could be the start of a permanent funds to help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could work at tourism promotion, or improve their infrastructure, or support retraining programs. They could pay for studies on alternate economic opportunities, or efforts to attract new industries.
And they could come up with assessments of some of the hard truths. Not all the economic damage can likely be avoided, and families, municipalities, school districts and businesses all need time to make informed decisions about their futures.
There even seems to be rare bipartisan agreement on the value of a legacy fund. Both NDP leader Carole James and Roger Harris, the junior forest minister responsible for responding to the crisis, back the idea. Harris says advisory group is working on plans.
The sooner they report, and the quicker the government response, the better.
The crisis sounds a long way off. But the kinds of economic shifts that are required is immense. Progress will be slow, and victories will be hard-won.
The extra stumpage probably isn't enough money to fund the needed transition, and certainly won't flow quickly enough. But it is a start; a reasonable guess is that the extra harvesting will produce some $15 million a year.
The coming crisis is very bad news, far more damaging than the softwood lumber dispute, or the SARS scare.
The only good news is that for once we have time to prepare.
Footnote: Harris will meet with the 13-member advisory group - representatives of municipalities, First Nations, industry, environmental groups and academics -in January. Communities should expect word on the economic futures fund and other measures after that meeting. And they should demand a firm commitment before the May election.
It's hard for politicians to resist blaming the other guys for real or imagined errors.
But this is much too important. A natural disaster is going to slam into dozens of forest communities, far bigger than the 2003 fires or floods or anything else we've experienced. We know it's inevitable. And we have to be ready.
The pine beetle is infesting trees today, and those trees are dying. It's no real problem for us now. We can keep harvesting the timber, which holds its value for perhaps a decade.
But the crisis is smashing the natural cycle of harvest and regeneration. Almost 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine are expected to die. Once those trees are gone - either harvested or left to rot - the next generation will be decades away from harvest.
Across the province, communities are facing 20 per cent to 40 per cent reductions in their annual allowable cuts within the next 15 to 20 years. That means huge job losses in communities where forestry is the dominant kingpin of the economy. In some case, mills will simply close. And in every case the damage will last for years, perhaps decades.
In the Quesnel area, to take one example, the timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 area jobs are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of some calamity wiping out 300,000 jobs in the Lower Mainland.
One response is obvious. Both the Liberals and NDP agree that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the crisis, paying for their efforts to develop other economic opportunities.
It doesn't need to take a big bite out of spending on other programs. Part of the government's plan to address the problem is an increase in harvesting across the province to capture the value of the infested wood. Annual allowable cuts have been increased by up to 40 per cent.
It's proving hard to increase harvest levels quickly. Companies aren't prepared for extra volumes, and markets are uncertain. But by the end of next year harvest levels are expected to be significantly higher.
That means more stumpage and tax revenues for government, money that would - without the crisis - have not flowed into its coffers until well into the future.
And that's the money that could be the start of a permanent funds to help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could work at tourism promotion, or improve their infrastructure, or support retraining programs. They could pay for studies on alternate economic opportunities, or efforts to attract new industries.
And they could come up with assessments of some of the hard truths. Not all the economic damage can likely be avoided, and families, municipalities, school districts and businesses all need time to make informed decisions about their futures.
There even seems to be rare bipartisan agreement on the value of a legacy fund. Both NDP leader Carole James and Roger Harris, the junior forest minister responsible for responding to the crisis, back the idea. Harris says advisory group is working on plans.
The sooner they report, and the quicker the government response, the better.
The crisis sounds a long way off. But the kinds of economic shifts that are required is immense. Progress will be slow, and victories will be hard-won.
The extra stumpage probably isn't enough money to fund the needed transition, and certainly won't flow quickly enough. But it is a start; a reasonable guess is that the extra harvesting will produce some $15 million a year.
The coming crisis is very bad news, far more damaging than the softwood lumber dispute, or the SARS scare.
The only good news is that for once we have time to prepare.
Footnote: Harris will meet with the 13-member advisory group - representatives of municipalities, First Nations, industry, environmental groups and academics -in January. Communities should expect word on the economic futures fund and other measures after that meeting. And they should demand a firm commitment before the May election.
Poll shows dead heat, big woes for both parties
VICTORIA - There's plenty in the most recent poll to scare the pants off strategists for both the New Democrats and the Liberals.
With five months to go before the May election, the two parties are effectively tied with about 43 per cent of the vote each, according to the Ipsos-Reid poll.
That's astonishing, really. The Liberals have lost more support during their first time than most people would have believed possible, and the New Democrats have managed to clamber out of the trash can the voters dumped them in.
But Ipsos offered up a lot more than just the basic polling data this time.
So we learned that 63 per cent of British Columbians don't think Gordon Campbell and the Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises, and about the same number think they balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.
It's not much cheerier for Carole James. About 60 per cent of voters think she and the NDP are too closely tied to unions, and 45 per cent agree that the New Democrats today are really the same as the old regime.
Those are big negatives. But there's more.
Ipsos-Reid asked which party would do a better job on specific issues.
On health care and education the James and the NDP were judged better able to do the job by about 50 per cent of voters - twice the number who thought the Liberals were the best choice. On social services, the gap was even wider. Almost 60 per cent of voters thought the NDP would do a better job; only 18 per cent thought the Liberals would be more competent.
When it came to the economy and managing the government's finances, the situation was reversed. About 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Liberals are more competent; about 22 per cent picked the NDP.
There are other factors, like leadership. Carole James is judged to be doing a better job as opposition leader than Campbell is as premier. But Campbell was selected as the best choice for premier by 48 per cent of decided voters, compared with 35 per cent for James and 18 per cent for Green leader Adriane Carr.
Liberal supporters should be the most worried by the polls.
The New Democrats are scoring highest on their ability to manage the issues people care about the most. In the most recent Mustel Group poll about 45 per cent of British Columbians picked health or education as the top issues facing the province. Only about 25 per cent picked the economy and government. (That could help explain the Liberals' inability to break clear of the NDP despite an improved economy.)
And while James has big issues to confront, around leadership and competence and an ability to govern for all British Columbians, she also has five months to try and win voters over.
Campbell has five months too, of course. But remember that almost two out of three voters don't believe he can be trusted to keep his promises. That's a huge problem for a leader trying to persuade voters that they are wrong, that he is the right person to deliver the services they want.
Another interesting trend is a sharp reduction in the regional divide. The Liberals still lead the NDP in the Lower Mainland, with 46 per cent support compared ti the NDP's 39 per cent. But the gap has narrowed since an Ipsos poll in July.
And the Liberals in turn have gained ground in a big way across the rest of the province, especially in the North where they now lead the NDP comfortably. (Ipsos defines the North as Williams Lake and above.)
It all points to a closer election than expected, a ferocious campaign and a bid advantage for the party that does the best job of persuading campaign workers and voters to show up.
Footnote: The poll put a simple proposition to voters - that British Columbia can’t afford another four years of Liberal or NDP government. Almost exactly half the voters agreed with assertion. But 12 per cent - one in eight British Columbians - said the province couldn't afford four years under either of the parties.
With five months to go before the May election, the two parties are effectively tied with about 43 per cent of the vote each, according to the Ipsos-Reid poll.
That's astonishing, really. The Liberals have lost more support during their first time than most people would have believed possible, and the New Democrats have managed to clamber out of the trash can the voters dumped them in.
But Ipsos offered up a lot more than just the basic polling data this time.
So we learned that 63 per cent of British Columbians don't think Gordon Campbell and the Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises, and about the same number think they balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.
It's not much cheerier for Carole James. About 60 per cent of voters think she and the NDP are too closely tied to unions, and 45 per cent agree that the New Democrats today are really the same as the old regime.
Those are big negatives. But there's more.
Ipsos-Reid asked which party would do a better job on specific issues.
On health care and education the James and the NDP were judged better able to do the job by about 50 per cent of voters - twice the number who thought the Liberals were the best choice. On social services, the gap was even wider. Almost 60 per cent of voters thought the NDP would do a better job; only 18 per cent thought the Liberals would be more competent.
When it came to the economy and managing the government's finances, the situation was reversed. About 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Liberals are more competent; about 22 per cent picked the NDP.
There are other factors, like leadership. Carole James is judged to be doing a better job as opposition leader than Campbell is as premier. But Campbell was selected as the best choice for premier by 48 per cent of decided voters, compared with 35 per cent for James and 18 per cent for Green leader Adriane Carr.
Liberal supporters should be the most worried by the polls.
The New Democrats are scoring highest on their ability to manage the issues people care about the most. In the most recent Mustel Group poll about 45 per cent of British Columbians picked health or education as the top issues facing the province. Only about 25 per cent picked the economy and government. (That could help explain the Liberals' inability to break clear of the NDP despite an improved economy.)
And while James has big issues to confront, around leadership and competence and an ability to govern for all British Columbians, she also has five months to try and win voters over.
Campbell has five months too, of course. But remember that almost two out of three voters don't believe he can be trusted to keep his promises. That's a huge problem for a leader trying to persuade voters that they are wrong, that he is the right person to deliver the services they want.
Another interesting trend is a sharp reduction in the regional divide. The Liberals still lead the NDP in the Lower Mainland, with 46 per cent support compared ti the NDP's 39 per cent. But the gap has narrowed since an Ipsos poll in July.
And the Liberals in turn have gained ground in a big way across the rest of the province, especially in the North where they now lead the NDP comfortably. (Ipsos defines the North as Williams Lake and above.)
It all points to a closer election than expected, a ferocious campaign and a bid advantage for the party that does the best job of persuading campaign workers and voters to show up.
Footnote: The poll put a simple proposition to voters - that British Columbia can’t afford another four years of Liberal or NDP government. Almost exactly half the voters agreed with assertion. But 12 per cent - one in eight British Columbians - said the province couldn't afford four years under either of the parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
