The corruption trial of ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is only days old, and the bombshells are already shaking B.C. politics.
Basi and Virk are charged with taking bribes in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail. The evidence is expected to include testimony from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist, who will say he paid the bribes. Bornman hasn't been charged, one of the issues the defence lawyers are questioning. All this flows from the legislature raids more than three years ago.
Three years is a long time to wait for answers. Not just on the question of guilt or innocence, important as that is. But about what sparked the investigation, why policed raided a who's who of federal Liberal party wheels, how the government responded to the concerns, how the B.C. Rail deal was affected and just what happened.
So far, none of those questions have been answered. But defence lawyers, using wiretap material and other documents, have already raised a raft of damaging charges against the Campbell Liberals and the RCMP.
They're trying to make the case that the wiretap evidence was wrongly obtained and shouldn't be allowed. They're also suggesting that the RCMP failed to investigate the politicians properly and that Basi and Virk were simply doing their bosses' bidding. To establish that, the lawyers argue, they need access to a lot more government records.
Along the way the lawyers have been offering examples from the evidence to support their arguments. The examples seem chosen to make life difficult for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
The lawyers said the evidence showed that Basi performed political dirty tricks for the government, with the knowledge and support of the premier's office.
Basi paid a man $100 to heckle fish farm protesters at a Victoria supermarket. He lined up callers when politicians were on radio talk shows, people who would use fake names and lob softball questions at the premier and other Liberals. He recruited callers to attack opponents - even long retired former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
All with knowledge of the senior people in the premier's office - including, according to one e-mail, Campbell.
It's no secret parties sometimes try and stack call-ins. But the notion of this being government strategy, managed at taxpayers' expense, is offensive.
And the idea that the Liberals might be paying people to disrupt legitimate demonstrations is just ugly. Secret agents of a political party shouldn't harass citizens trying to make a point.
The lawyers dropped more bombs. They said politicians had been wrongly excluded from the investigation. One of the lead RCMP officers on the case was the brother-in- law of the B.C. Liberal party president and didn't immediately disclose the conflict, the lawyers claimed.
These are all just allegations. But they raised some serious concerns about the way the Liberal party and the government operate.
And the New Democrats were quick to jump on the issue in question period. The questions have varied. But basically, the NDP has been asking about the allegations of dirty tricks. So have reporters.
Campbell isn't talking. He says he won't answer any questions about allegations or evidence at the trial until the case is resolved. He's taking the position out of respect for the courts, he says.
You can make the argument. There's no worry about influencing a jury; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. But the premier could say he doesn't want to risk even the appearance that he's trying to influence the court.
But there's a stronger case for some answers, too.
The New Democrats have managed to narrow the questions to remove references to the trial, asking Campbell simply to confirm that no one in his office is currently involved in such political tricks.
The questions are serious, raising the issue of the ethical standards - the sense of decency and respect - we expect from those in public life.
Footnote: The New Democrats also continued to raise questions about potential conflicts in the roles occupied by former top bureaucrat Ken Dobell, who is being paid both as an advisor to the premier and a lobbyist for the City of Vancouver attempting to get money from the province. Attorney General Wally Oppal has struggled in dealing with what look legitimate concerns.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Dobell conflict issue could hurt Liberals
The Liberals' problem in dealing with the great Ken Dobell controversy is that their explanations just won't strike most people as reasonable.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Liberals sitting pretty, and not much the NDP can do
Heading toward the halfway point in the Liberal government’s second term and a new poll has some New Democrats in a lather.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Liberals defend their own fast ferries
The out-of-control Vancouver convention centre project is looking a lot like the Liberals' own version of the fast ferries.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Private ER worrying, but no big threat
It's not good that a private emergency room in Vancouver will offer a promise of better care for people with the cash to pay for preferential treatment.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A simple way to save lives on our roads
Another year, another 50 unnecessary deaths in B.C., victims of the government's unwillingness to put politics and ideology ahead of public safety.
Governments like to talk about keeping our streets safe. So why do the Liberals steadfastly refuse to introduce a simple, cheap measure that could save so many lives and keep thousands of people from hospital every year?
I'm referring to photo radar, reminded of the lost opportunity by a British report assessing the effectiveness of the "speed cameras," as they call them. The Department for Transportation report found that in 1996, before photo radar was introduced, only 28 per cent of drivers in England were obeying the 30-mph speed limit in built-up areas. By last year, more than 50 per cent of drivers were obeying the law.
The number of drivers going more than 35 mph - the point at which tickets are issued based on photo radar - was cut almost in half, from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. (The study looked at a wide sample of roads, not just at areas where photo radar was installed.)
Speeding down residential streets and through business districts is still a big problem. And photo radar has had made only a slight impact on highway violations. But the reduction in speeding is still huge. And so is the reduction in deaths.
The study found pedestrian deaths had fallen from 997 in 1996 to 671 in 2005. That's more than 300 people a year going home to their families instead of the morgue.
There's nothing surprising in the study. The reviews of B.C.'s photo-radar experiment found similar reductions in speeding, crashes, deaths and injuries. Drivers don't speed when they think they might get caught. So offenders slowed down.
Despite the arguments of people who believe that speed limits are unnecessary - that every driver should be able to drive at the speed he decides is safe - all the evidence shows speed limit enforcement saves lives.
A major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo-radar studies from around the world. The results were striking. The number of crashes was reduced by 14 per cent to 72 per cent once photo radar was installed. Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 per cent to 46 per cent.
Or look at the evidence here.
The B.C. government introduced photo radar in 1996. In the preceding five years an average 510 people had died annually in crashes. During photo radar's almost six years of operation the annual death rate fell to 412 - almost two fewer deaths each week.
The Liberals killed photo radar after the 2001 election.
In the first three years after it was gone the average number of deaths was 449, an increase of 37 a year from the photo-radar era. In 2005, 459 people died in crashes.
A study done on the first year of photo radar in B.C. found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites, accompanied by a decrease in collisions, injuries and deaths.
"The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
A lot of British Columbians didn't like photo radar. They thought - wrongly - that it was a cash grab. The implementation was unnecessarily costly and labour intensive.
So the Liberals said during the 2001 election campaign that they would kill the cameras.
But the evidence shows that was a bad decision. It has cost hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries, shattered families and put needless pressure on the health care system.
Fixing the 2001 mistake would be as simple as using the red-light cameras already in place at intersections around the province to catch speeders.
Other high-risk areas - neighbourhoods used as shortcuts by commuters, high-accident streets, school zones - could also be targeted.
It's hard to see why the government won't act. Solicitor General John Les says he doesn't think photo radar saves lives, but he can't really believe that in the face of all the clear evidence.
And given the ease with which the Liberals shed other campaign promises, that can't be the issue.
Photo radar would save lives, reduce injuries and help ease the health-care crunch.
What's the government waiting for?
Governments like to talk about keeping our streets safe. So why do the Liberals steadfastly refuse to introduce a simple, cheap measure that could save so many lives and keep thousands of people from hospital every year?
I'm referring to photo radar, reminded of the lost opportunity by a British report assessing the effectiveness of the "speed cameras," as they call them. The Department for Transportation report found that in 1996, before photo radar was introduced, only 28 per cent of drivers in England were obeying the 30-mph speed limit in built-up areas. By last year, more than 50 per cent of drivers were obeying the law.
The number of drivers going more than 35 mph - the point at which tickets are issued based on photo radar - was cut almost in half, from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. (The study looked at a wide sample of roads, not just at areas where photo radar was installed.)
Speeding down residential streets and through business districts is still a big problem. And photo radar has had made only a slight impact on highway violations. But the reduction in speeding is still huge. And so is the reduction in deaths.
The study found pedestrian deaths had fallen from 997 in 1996 to 671 in 2005. That's more than 300 people a year going home to their families instead of the morgue.
There's nothing surprising in the study. The reviews of B.C.'s photo-radar experiment found similar reductions in speeding, crashes, deaths and injuries. Drivers don't speed when they think they might get caught. So offenders slowed down.
Despite the arguments of people who believe that speed limits are unnecessary - that every driver should be able to drive at the speed he decides is safe - all the evidence shows speed limit enforcement saves lives.
A major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo-radar studies from around the world. The results were striking. The number of crashes was reduced by 14 per cent to 72 per cent once photo radar was installed. Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 per cent to 46 per cent.
Or look at the evidence here.
The B.C. government introduced photo radar in 1996. In the preceding five years an average 510 people had died annually in crashes. During photo radar's almost six years of operation the annual death rate fell to 412 - almost two fewer deaths each week.
The Liberals killed photo radar after the 2001 election.
In the first three years after it was gone the average number of deaths was 449, an increase of 37 a year from the photo-radar era. In 2005, 459 people died in crashes.
A study done on the first year of photo radar in B.C. found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites, accompanied by a decrease in collisions, injuries and deaths.
"The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
A lot of British Columbians didn't like photo radar. They thought - wrongly - that it was a cash grab. The implementation was unnecessarily costly and labour intensive.
So the Liberals said during the 2001 election campaign that they would kill the cameras.
But the evidence shows that was a bad decision. It has cost hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries, shattered families and put needless pressure on the health care system.
Fixing the 2001 mistake would be as simple as using the red-light cameras already in place at intersections around the province to catch speeders.
Other high-risk areas - neighbourhoods used as shortcuts by commuters, high-accident streets, school zones - could also be targeted.
It's hard to see why the government won't act. Solicitor General John Les says he doesn't think photo radar saves lives, but he can't really believe that in the face of all the clear evidence.
And given the ease with which the Liberals shed other campaign promises, that can't be the issue.
Photo radar would save lives, reduce injuries and help ease the health-care crunch.
What's the government waiting for?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Why not a drug policy just like our anti-smoking efforts?
What if we treated other problem drugs like tobacco?
The province’s latest move to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces was a reminder of how successful we’ve been in dealing with tobacco use.
Watch an old movie and everybody is smoking. Even 20 years ago, people smoked at work, in bars. The people who asked for the non-smoking rooms in hotels were kind of weird and often disappointed.
Smoking was still cool and socially acceptable.
But we decided smoking was bad - addictive, gives you cancer and a brace of other illnesses.
Taxes made it more and more expensive, until it got hard to deny you were hooked. Not many people would happily spend $60 a week unless there was addiction involved.
Life insurance cost more. You couldn’t smoke at work. Restaurant smoking areas kept shrinking. People started to talk more and more about the fact that 40 per cent of hospitalizations are smoking-related.
And then, finally, there was another big shift. Smoking became largely a mark of loserdom. Not entirely - tautly wounded artists and blues performers still get away with it. But broadly, smokers are people you would be less likely to hire.
In a relatively short time, we took a deadly drug that was almost completely accepted, used by a majority of adults and highly addictive, and slashed its use.
We could have made tobacco illegal, like drugs, 20 years ago. But we chose a different approach - managed use, with education and financial penalties to decrease smoking.
And it’s worked quite well.
So why not try the same approach with drugs, or at least some of them?
What if we say heroin and cocaine are like tobacco - things we really wish people wouldn’t use, but that we still accept some probably will.
Under that approach we would commit a lot of resources to making sure people didn’t start, as we did with smoking. We’d target kids, but also vulnerable adults.
We’d make a big effort to help people quit.
And for people who wanted to keep using, we would prescribe heroin or cocaine or working substitutes they could pick up at a clinic. (The current half-hearted, restrictive methadone program really doesn’t count.)
What are the downsides? It feels wrong to provide a drug like cocaine to people, for one thing. You could argue that others - young people - might see the practice as condoning drug use. (Though we’ve managed to allow controlled sale of tobacco products while condemning its use.)
Against those are negatives, look at what we would gain.
The people being prescribed drugs wouldn’t have to stealing to get the money to buy them. Police estimate up to 90-per-cent of break-ins and thefts are drug-related.
Organized criminals would lose a huge market. There would still be demand, but not enough to make the business so attractive.
Instead of spending their days and nights scrambling for money and drugs, users would have time to think about work and developing more stable lives.
Based on similar efforts in other countries, a significant number would seek treatment. During a prescribed heroin trial in Switzerland, not only did crime by users plummet but about seven per cent quit during their time in the program.
Since people wouldn’t be using in alleys and dodgey settings, we’d save a fortune in health costs.
People with both mental health problems and addictions would get a chance to reduce the chaos their lives and deal with their mental illness.
And all the while we’d follow the path set by the anti-smoking campaign.
About 55 per cent of adults smoked in 1965, compaed witrh 15 per cent in B.C. today. Only about two per cent of Canadians are heroin and cocaine users. If we could make the same relative gains, the number of addicts would be tiny.
That’s a long list of benefits, with few costs.
Yet we push on with tactics and strategies that have failed to deal with prohibited substances for almost a century. We fight to reduce supply, unsuccessfully, and create crime and chaos and costs.
For whatever reason, we tried something different with tobacco. Maybe the big companies had too much clout for prohibition to be tried, or there were just too many smokers. But we didn’t ban cigarettes or arrest people. We worked on reducing demand.
And it worked. Why not for other drugs?
The province’s latest move to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces was a reminder of how successful we’ve been in dealing with tobacco use.
Watch an old movie and everybody is smoking. Even 20 years ago, people smoked at work, in bars. The people who asked for the non-smoking rooms in hotels were kind of weird and often disappointed.
Smoking was still cool and socially acceptable.
But we decided smoking was bad - addictive, gives you cancer and a brace of other illnesses.
Taxes made it more and more expensive, until it got hard to deny you were hooked. Not many people would happily spend $60 a week unless there was addiction involved.
Life insurance cost more. You couldn’t smoke at work. Restaurant smoking areas kept shrinking. People started to talk more and more about the fact that 40 per cent of hospitalizations are smoking-related.
And then, finally, there was another big shift. Smoking became largely a mark of loserdom. Not entirely - tautly wounded artists and blues performers still get away with it. But broadly, smokers are people you would be less likely to hire.
In a relatively short time, we took a deadly drug that was almost completely accepted, used by a majority of adults and highly addictive, and slashed its use.
We could have made tobacco illegal, like drugs, 20 years ago. But we chose a different approach - managed use, with education and financial penalties to decrease smoking.
And it’s worked quite well.
So why not try the same approach with drugs, or at least some of them?
What if we say heroin and cocaine are like tobacco - things we really wish people wouldn’t use, but that we still accept some probably will.
Under that approach we would commit a lot of resources to making sure people didn’t start, as we did with smoking. We’d target kids, but also vulnerable adults.
We’d make a big effort to help people quit.
And for people who wanted to keep using, we would prescribe heroin or cocaine or working substitutes they could pick up at a clinic. (The current half-hearted, restrictive methadone program really doesn’t count.)
What are the downsides? It feels wrong to provide a drug like cocaine to people, for one thing. You could argue that others - young people - might see the practice as condoning drug use. (Though we’ve managed to allow controlled sale of tobacco products while condemning its use.)
Against those are negatives, look at what we would gain.
The people being prescribed drugs wouldn’t have to stealing to get the money to buy them. Police estimate up to 90-per-cent of break-ins and thefts are drug-related.
Organized criminals would lose a huge market. There would still be demand, but not enough to make the business so attractive.
Instead of spending their days and nights scrambling for money and drugs, users would have time to think about work and developing more stable lives.
Based on similar efforts in other countries, a significant number would seek treatment. During a prescribed heroin trial in Switzerland, not only did crime by users plummet but about seven per cent quit during their time in the program.
Since people wouldn’t be using in alleys and dodgey settings, we’d save a fortune in health costs.
People with both mental health problems and addictions would get a chance to reduce the chaos their lives and deal with their mental illness.
And all the while we’d follow the path set by the anti-smoking campaign.
About 55 per cent of adults smoked in 1965, compaed witrh 15 per cent in B.C. today. Only about two per cent of Canadians are heroin and cocaine users. If we could make the same relative gains, the number of addicts would be tiny.
That’s a long list of benefits, with few costs.
Yet we push on with tactics and strategies that have failed to deal with prohibited substances for almost a century. We fight to reduce supply, unsuccessfully, and create crime and chaos and costs.
For whatever reason, we tried something different with tobacco. Maybe the big companies had too much clout for prohibition to be tried, or there were just too many smokers. But we didn’t ban cigarettes or arrest people. We worked on reducing demand.
And it worked. Why not for other drugs?
B.C. making mixed headlines in the U.S.
It’s been a big month for B.C. in the U.S. media, but the messages have probably been confusing for any Americans actually paying attention.
Premier Gordon Campbell zipped down to California for a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that was mostly a good news story. Hands across the border to battle greenhouse gases and all that. It even made the Washington Post, admittedly back on Page A18, but still good publicity for the province.
But at almost the same time, B.C. was being also portrayed as the environmental bad guy threatening an important Montana river. Plans for a coal mine in the Kootenays near the U.S. border are once again under fire.
And for the first time, the Bush administration is backing the complaints. The State Department wrote to B.C. last month putting its concerns about the mine on the record.
We’re about four years in to this long squabble with Montana over plans for a coal mine on our side of the border, but in the headwaters of the state’s Flathead River.
Partly, the mine’s problems are just collateral damage in the ongoing battle between environmentalists and the mining and energy industries within the state. Montana has had some bad experiences, especially with poorly regulated coalbed methane wells. There’s a lot of sensitivity about any development.
B.C. has made an effort to stay on the right side of the issue. The province even cancelled Cline Mining’s rights to develop one coal mine close to the border.
But Cline has another property, about 30 kms from the border, and it wants to go ahead with a relatively small open-pit coal mine. The province, while citing the need for environmental studies, seems too enthusiastic about the mine for Montana.
So there’s been some testy exchanges back and forth. The noisiest came when MLA Bill Bennett even got into a heated debate with Montana Senator Max “Blame Canada” Baucus in Fernie over the project. Gov. Brian Schweitzer is also an opponent.
And now the Montana crew have their federal government onside, at least in a modest way. The State Department have written to B.C. complaining that Cline proposed just north of Glacier National Park could cause "significant adverse environmental effects."
The letter is the mildest of White House responses to the political pressure from Montana.
Still, the game is afoot. And coal mines are not exactly seen in a favourable light right now. The B.C. government will likely have to decide if this mine is worth a fight with some pretty savvy opponents.
Especially when a fight over a coal mine against an earnest group of Montana environmentalists, backed by all their mainstream politicians, would sabotage the whole Schwarzenegger thing.
The charming bodybuilder-actor-governor will be up in B.C. in a few weeks to talk with Campbell about climate change. The linkage with Arnie is useful. As Campbell notes, B.C. as a market of four million people can’t bring much pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Aligning with California, with 36 million people, gives the government some influence.
And politically it never hurts to be seen with a movie star.
Though the whole Campbell-Schwarzenegger meeting got a slightly different play in the U.S.
The Washington Post, for example characterized Campbell as the premier who “wanted to bring coal-burning plants and offshore oil rigs to this lush province.”
His new green leanings were stunning, the newspaper said, and owed a big debt to Arnie.
“Campbell sought advice from Schwarzenegger, who had reversed his own sagging political fortunes by championing some of the toughest environmental regulations in the United States,” the Washington Post reported. “Schwarzenegger dispatched his chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, to Victoria, B.C., where he worked quietly with Campbell's staff to draft a far-reaching plan.”
Take the two stories together and you get an important reminder. We are a bit player in the dramas the American politicians script for themselves. We - our politicians - are either leaning on the action hero for help or plotting to destroy a wild river.
It’s tough to make it to the end of the movie when you’re not the star.
Footnote: Meanwhile, a popular San Francisco column described Schwarzenegger’s Canadian connection as boring but necessary to promote trade. "There are sexier places,'' a unnamed member of “Arnold's Team Canada” was quoted. "But there is a ton of money involved -- and we absolutely have to go.''
Premier Gordon Campbell zipped down to California for a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that was mostly a good news story. Hands across the border to battle greenhouse gases and all that. It even made the Washington Post, admittedly back on Page A18, but still good publicity for the province.
But at almost the same time, B.C. was being also portrayed as the environmental bad guy threatening an important Montana river. Plans for a coal mine in the Kootenays near the U.S. border are once again under fire.
And for the first time, the Bush administration is backing the complaints. The State Department wrote to B.C. last month putting its concerns about the mine on the record.
We’re about four years in to this long squabble with Montana over plans for a coal mine on our side of the border, but in the headwaters of the state’s Flathead River.
Partly, the mine’s problems are just collateral damage in the ongoing battle between environmentalists and the mining and energy industries within the state. Montana has had some bad experiences, especially with poorly regulated coalbed methane wells. There’s a lot of sensitivity about any development.
B.C. has made an effort to stay on the right side of the issue. The province even cancelled Cline Mining’s rights to develop one coal mine close to the border.
But Cline has another property, about 30 kms from the border, and it wants to go ahead with a relatively small open-pit coal mine. The province, while citing the need for environmental studies, seems too enthusiastic about the mine for Montana.
So there’s been some testy exchanges back and forth. The noisiest came when MLA Bill Bennett even got into a heated debate with Montana Senator Max “Blame Canada” Baucus in Fernie over the project. Gov. Brian Schweitzer is also an opponent.
And now the Montana crew have their federal government onside, at least in a modest way. The State Department have written to B.C. complaining that Cline proposed just north of Glacier National Park could cause "significant adverse environmental effects."
The letter is the mildest of White House responses to the political pressure from Montana.
Still, the game is afoot. And coal mines are not exactly seen in a favourable light right now. The B.C. government will likely have to decide if this mine is worth a fight with some pretty savvy opponents.
Especially when a fight over a coal mine against an earnest group of Montana environmentalists, backed by all their mainstream politicians, would sabotage the whole Schwarzenegger thing.
The charming bodybuilder-actor-governor will be up in B.C. in a few weeks to talk with Campbell about climate change. The linkage with Arnie is useful. As Campbell notes, B.C. as a market of four million people can’t bring much pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Aligning with California, with 36 million people, gives the government some influence.
And politically it never hurts to be seen with a movie star.
Though the whole Campbell-Schwarzenegger meeting got a slightly different play in the U.S.
The Washington Post, for example characterized Campbell as the premier who “wanted to bring coal-burning plants and offshore oil rigs to this lush province.”
His new green leanings were stunning, the newspaper said, and owed a big debt to Arnie.
“Campbell sought advice from Schwarzenegger, who had reversed his own sagging political fortunes by championing some of the toughest environmental regulations in the United States,” the Washington Post reported. “Schwarzenegger dispatched his chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, to Victoria, B.C., where he worked quietly with Campbell's staff to draft a far-reaching plan.”
Take the two stories together and you get an important reminder. We are a bit player in the dramas the American politicians script for themselves. We - our politicians - are either leaning on the action hero for help or plotting to destroy a wild river.
It’s tough to make it to the end of the movie when you’re not the star.
Footnote: Meanwhile, a popular San Francisco column described Schwarzenegger’s Canadian connection as boring but necessary to promote trade. "There are sexier places,'' a unnamed member of “Arnold's Team Canada” was quoted. "But there is a ton of money involved -- and we absolutely have to go.''
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Politicians' sneak attack on library backfires
VICTORIA - There's something nastily symbolic about the politicans' plan to shut down the magnificent legislative library so they could have better offices.
Especially the sneaky way they were going about it.
The library is the coolest part of the legislative buildings, an annex designed by Francis Rattenbury 13 years after his main building was finished in 1898.
A hall directly behind the red-carpeted legislative chamber leads to a round, marble-clad room that rises four stories to a dome. Off to one side there's a reading room; files and computers are on the other; and behind the desks there are floors of reference material, much of it unavailable anywhere else.
The library has been in the current location since 1915. But late last week politicians revealed they wanted to shut it down. The rotunda would make a grand reception hall for the premier to meet visiting dignitaries and the rest of the space could be carved up for offices. Premier Gordon Campbell went through a couple of weeks ago on a personal tour to consider possibilities.
The plan might be unravelling in the face of public outrage. The NDP, which seemed to be on side, now says the library should stay put.
Space is tight in some parts of the legislature building and up to six more MLAs are expected after the next election as a result of the riding boundaries' review now under way.
And the library is likely used less often as people turn to Google, especially for recent information.
But the fact that politicians didn't try to make a proper case for shutting the library and have released no studies showing either the case for moving - or killing - the library is telling.
Instead, they secretly hatched the idea. The first public revelation came when librarians received transfer notices.
The politicians tried to say the closure was just for two years as part of seismic upgrades for the legislature.
But consider the weasley responses from Speaker Bill Barisoff, nominally responsible for the building.
"We're not closing it down," he told the Vancouver Province columnist Mike Smyth. "We have to move the staff out of there to do some seismic upgrading."
So, Smyth asked, the library will re-open once the work is done?
Barisoff paused, then carefully said, "There will continue to be library services in the legislative precincts, yes." Translated, that meant the library wouldn't re-open. Library services in the legislature precincts could mean a warehouse within five blocks and no staff and no access to the moldering materials.
(I hate it when politicians opt for those silly evasions. Barisoff, from everything I've seen, is a decent guy who would never try that kind of con on people in his real life. Why do they think it's OK when they're trying to put one over on you?)
Maybe there's a case for closing the library, one that goes beyond people's desires for bigger offices and more staff. Most MLAs have crummy cubicles, but they're not around that much.
But maybe there are other solutions to any space problems.
Cabinet ministers have large and posh digs. Perhaps they could be subdivided.
Perhaps the government doesn't even need staffers to stand in the halls, waiting to tape interviews between reporters and cabinet ministers, so more staffers can transcribe them. No previous government has needed that kind of surveillance of its ministers.
The unwillingness to own up to the closure suggests strongly that the politicians have no case.
The odd part is that the library has always seemed an example of how government should work. MLAs, bureaucrats, journalists and the public - anyone looking for answers to tough questions - get fast, excellent service and invaluable information.
It's a model of efficiency.
The politicians, the premier's office, the Speaker, they seem to have forgotten the building belongs to you, not them. Before they start the reno, they owe the owners some justifications beyond their own decide for nicer digs.
Footnote: The decision, officially, will be made by the legislative assembly management committee. That's the same secretive group of MLAs who hatched the doomed plan for politicians' pay increases of up to 30-per-cent - plus a costly pension plan. A little openness might go a long way in avoiding future such debacles.
Especially the sneaky way they were going about it.
The library is the coolest part of the legislative buildings, an annex designed by Francis Rattenbury 13 years after his main building was finished in 1898.
A hall directly behind the red-carpeted legislative chamber leads to a round, marble-clad room that rises four stories to a dome. Off to one side there's a reading room; files and computers are on the other; and behind the desks there are floors of reference material, much of it unavailable anywhere else.
The library has been in the current location since 1915. But late last week politicians revealed they wanted to shut it down. The rotunda would make a grand reception hall for the premier to meet visiting dignitaries and the rest of the space could be carved up for offices. Premier Gordon Campbell went through a couple of weeks ago on a personal tour to consider possibilities.
The plan might be unravelling in the face of public outrage. The NDP, which seemed to be on side, now says the library should stay put.
Space is tight in some parts of the legislature building and up to six more MLAs are expected after the next election as a result of the riding boundaries' review now under way.
And the library is likely used less often as people turn to Google, especially for recent information.
But the fact that politicians didn't try to make a proper case for shutting the library and have released no studies showing either the case for moving - or killing - the library is telling.
Instead, they secretly hatched the idea. The first public revelation came when librarians received transfer notices.
The politicians tried to say the closure was just for two years as part of seismic upgrades for the legislature.
But consider the weasley responses from Speaker Bill Barisoff, nominally responsible for the building.
"We're not closing it down," he told the Vancouver Province columnist Mike Smyth. "We have to move the staff out of there to do some seismic upgrading."
So, Smyth asked, the library will re-open once the work is done?
Barisoff paused, then carefully said, "There will continue to be library services in the legislative precincts, yes." Translated, that meant the library wouldn't re-open. Library services in the legislature precincts could mean a warehouse within five blocks and no staff and no access to the moldering materials.
(I hate it when politicians opt for those silly evasions. Barisoff, from everything I've seen, is a decent guy who would never try that kind of con on people in his real life. Why do they think it's OK when they're trying to put one over on you?)
Maybe there's a case for closing the library, one that goes beyond people's desires for bigger offices and more staff. Most MLAs have crummy cubicles, but they're not around that much.
But maybe there are other solutions to any space problems.
Cabinet ministers have large and posh digs. Perhaps they could be subdivided.
Perhaps the government doesn't even need staffers to stand in the halls, waiting to tape interviews between reporters and cabinet ministers, so more staffers can transcribe them. No previous government has needed that kind of surveillance of its ministers.
The unwillingness to own up to the closure suggests strongly that the politicians have no case.
The odd part is that the library has always seemed an example of how government should work. MLAs, bureaucrats, journalists and the public - anyone looking for answers to tough questions - get fast, excellent service and invaluable information.
It's a model of efficiency.
The politicians, the premier's office, the Speaker, they seem to have forgotten the building belongs to you, not them. Before they start the reno, they owe the owners some justifications beyond their own decide for nicer digs.
Footnote: The decision, officially, will be made by the legislative assembly management committee. That's the same secretive group of MLAs who hatched the doomed plan for politicians' pay increases of up to 30-per-cent - plus a costly pension plan. A little openness might go a long way in avoiding future such debacles.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Little for B.C. in unConservative budget
Mostly, Stephen Harper’s latest budget seemed benign, a grab bag of unrelated spending plans and minor tax cuts designed to persuade people that a Conservative majority wouldn’t be so bad.
Slip a few hundred extra dollars to parents. Repair a small bit of the damage from the foolish child-care cuts. Send more cash along to the provinces, especially Quebec, with all those critical swing seats.
Not much of that old Harper talk about tax cuts and defence spending and slashing the role of government.
In fact, it practically could have been a Liberal budget.
And that’s not such a bad thing really. What’s wrong with a government that decides to cater to voters?
A couple of things, actually.
For starters, this kind of budget doesn’t really show any plan of vision for the country and doesn’t deal with the long-term challenges facing Canada. It’s about the next 12 months.
And the rush to woo the politically significant swing voter blocks — Quebec, Ontario, middle-class families - risks leaving out those who don’t count so much.
Like B.C., at least according to Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe. The government put Thorpe up to respond to the budget, a surprising choice. It is spring break, but the decision also allowed Gordon Campbell and Carole Taylor to avoid being the bad guys.
Thorpe made it clear that the government isn’t happy. If his comments weren’t the sharpest rebuke for a federal government since Campbell was elected, they were in the top few.
And they were pretty legitimate.
The budget bumped spending for the coming year by an unconservative 5.6 per cent, on top of this year’s 7.9-per-cent increase in program spending.
A large chunk of that was additional money to be sent out to provinces, as equalization payments and increased transfers for health and education and social services. The Conservatives even put back a tiny bit of the money they foolishly cut from child-care budgets, recognizing that their vague idea to have businesses open day cares for employees was just foolish. B.C. wll get $33 million a year for child care under the budget; the federal-provincial child-care deal cancelled by Harper was worth $150 million a year.
And tax cuts. A very useful move to cut taxes for the poorest of the working poor. A weird but popular move to give all parents a credit worth $310 per child. (A smarter program would recognize that we would get much greater results by at least slashing the amount going to high-income families and investing heavily where children need the most help.)
And a big business tax break aimed at manufacturers — again, Ontario and Quebec.
But not so much for B.C., as Thorpe pointed out.
The provincial government had been hoping for good news on several fronts.
The whole Pacfic Gateway idea, for one. Campbell sees the task of building roads and railways and airports and ports to improve transportation links with Asia as a national dream, St. Lawrence Seaway kind of national megaproject.
Harper, based on the budget, sees it as something less. There’s an extra $50 million a year toward the Gateway projects, far from what B.C. was seeking.
B.C. has also been looking for more serious help with the pine beetle disaster. In a few years, when the beetle wood is harvested, communities across the North and Interior face huge job losses. The timber supply - the base for up to four out of five jobs in some communities - will be slashed, possibly in half, for decades.
So far, the Conservatives have promised $100 million a year for 10 years. But much more is needed to help communities prepare to make the best of tough times. (Though the province’s lack of urgency on the threat undermines its case for more aid from Ottawa.)
And while Thorpe didn’t raise it, Campbell must be irked by that he has been unable to get the federal government to take First Nations issues seriously or honour at least the spirit of the Kelowna Accord. There’s about $20 million a year in new job training money, but nothing that reflects the Kelowna commitment, the terrible poverty and dislocation on reserves or the province’s “new relationship.”
There’s not much for B.C., especially compared with the bounty sent to Quebec and Ontario.
But the goal here is to set the stage for a Conservative majority government in the next election. And B.C.’s few seats are not all that important.
Footnote: The federal Liberals and the NDP say they oppose the budget, but the Bloc Quebecois will support it. The Bloc is afraid that, given the big jump in federal payments for Quebec in the budget, it would face a backlash if it forced an election. More critically, it fears hurting the Parti Quebecois’ chances in next week’s provincial election. Instead, the Bloc is claiming credit for delivering the cash.
Slip a few hundred extra dollars to parents. Repair a small bit of the damage from the foolish child-care cuts. Send more cash along to the provinces, especially Quebec, with all those critical swing seats.
Not much of that old Harper talk about tax cuts and defence spending and slashing the role of government.
In fact, it practically could have been a Liberal budget.
And that’s not such a bad thing really. What’s wrong with a government that decides to cater to voters?
A couple of things, actually.
For starters, this kind of budget doesn’t really show any plan of vision for the country and doesn’t deal with the long-term challenges facing Canada. It’s about the next 12 months.
And the rush to woo the politically significant swing voter blocks — Quebec, Ontario, middle-class families - risks leaving out those who don’t count so much.
Like B.C., at least according to Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe. The government put Thorpe up to respond to the budget, a surprising choice. It is spring break, but the decision also allowed Gordon Campbell and Carole Taylor to avoid being the bad guys.
Thorpe made it clear that the government isn’t happy. If his comments weren’t the sharpest rebuke for a federal government since Campbell was elected, they were in the top few.
And they were pretty legitimate.
The budget bumped spending for the coming year by an unconservative 5.6 per cent, on top of this year’s 7.9-per-cent increase in program spending.
A large chunk of that was additional money to be sent out to provinces, as equalization payments and increased transfers for health and education and social services. The Conservatives even put back a tiny bit of the money they foolishly cut from child-care budgets, recognizing that their vague idea to have businesses open day cares for employees was just foolish. B.C. wll get $33 million a year for child care under the budget; the federal-provincial child-care deal cancelled by Harper was worth $150 million a year.
And tax cuts. A very useful move to cut taxes for the poorest of the working poor. A weird but popular move to give all parents a credit worth $310 per child. (A smarter program would recognize that we would get much greater results by at least slashing the amount going to high-income families and investing heavily where children need the most help.)
And a big business tax break aimed at manufacturers — again, Ontario and Quebec.
But not so much for B.C., as Thorpe pointed out.
The provincial government had been hoping for good news on several fronts.
The whole Pacfic Gateway idea, for one. Campbell sees the task of building roads and railways and airports and ports to improve transportation links with Asia as a national dream, St. Lawrence Seaway kind of national megaproject.
Harper, based on the budget, sees it as something less. There’s an extra $50 million a year toward the Gateway projects, far from what B.C. was seeking.
B.C. has also been looking for more serious help with the pine beetle disaster. In a few years, when the beetle wood is harvested, communities across the North and Interior face huge job losses. The timber supply - the base for up to four out of five jobs in some communities - will be slashed, possibly in half, for decades.
So far, the Conservatives have promised $100 million a year for 10 years. But much more is needed to help communities prepare to make the best of tough times. (Though the province’s lack of urgency on the threat undermines its case for more aid from Ottawa.)
And while Thorpe didn’t raise it, Campbell must be irked by that he has been unable to get the federal government to take First Nations issues seriously or honour at least the spirit of the Kelowna Accord. There’s about $20 million a year in new job training money, but nothing that reflects the Kelowna commitment, the terrible poverty and dislocation on reserves or the province’s “new relationship.”
There’s not much for B.C., especially compared with the bounty sent to Quebec and Ontario.
But the goal here is to set the stage for a Conservative majority government in the next election. And B.C.’s few seats are not all that important.
Footnote: The federal Liberals and the NDP say they oppose the budget, but the Bloc Quebecois will support it. The Bloc is afraid that, given the big jump in federal payments for Quebec in the budget, it would face a backlash if it forced an election. More critically, it fears hurting the Parti Quebecois’ chances in next week’s provincial election. Instead, the Bloc is claiming credit for delivering the cash.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Heartlands hurting, but government can't even see it
That was a lame performance by the Liberals this week on the tough future facing most of B.C.'s Interior and Northern communities.
Even for people paying attention, the 2006 census numbers came a shock. The province's population grew by 5.3 per cent between 2001 and 2006, just behind the national average. (The first time in Canada's history that B.C. has lagged the rest of Canada.)
But the growth came in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island.
Across the rest of the province, from small villages to major centres, populations were shrinking.
That's not surprising. Around the world, people are moving to the big cities, where the jobs and opportunities are. That's as true in B.C. as it is in Nigeria or China.
But the Liberals have made a big deal about sharing the benefits of growth across the province.
Remember the Heartlands strategy in 2003? The promise was a renewed future for all those communities coping with courthouse and government office closures, or cutting their schools back to four days a week because that's all they could afford.
There was no strategy behind the slogans. Within a year, it all pretty much collapsed like a pyramid scheme.
That was too bad. Based on the census results, those communities could have used real help.
Consider Prince Rupert, which lost 13 per cent of its population between 2001 and 2006. Trail, down 4.5 per cent. Terrace, 6.5 per cent. Prince George, down two per cent.
From here in Victoria, or Vancouver, those are just numbers.
But if you've got a grocery store or contracting business in Quesnel, and the population declines by seven per cent, that's a problem. There are fewer people to shop, or hire you.
So businesses struggle. School enrolments fall and they close, or go to four-day weeks. It gets harder to attract people. Main Street has as many vacant stores as successful ones.
Government can't actually fix all this. But it can help counter the bad effects and be straight with people about their futures. Then it's up to them to decide what to do.
The NDP leaped on the numbers in the first available question period.
The government put up Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen to handle them, even though the questions were directed to Communities Minister Ida Chong. (The day before, Agriculture Minister Pat Bell had answered for Labour Minister Olga Illich.)
As health minister, Hansen had faced the toughest questions with facts and common sense.
But this time he was terrible, offering irrelevant prepackaged spin. He didn't acknowledge the reality of peoples' lives in these communities, or the facts.
People are moving back to B.C., Hansen said.
But not to most of the Interior or North.
Unemployment is at a record low even in these communities, he said.
True enough and a good thing. People who couldn't find work have moved away, an often painful but practical response.
But the number of people working in Prince George today is lower than in the mid-90s.
For the community, that's a problem, even if its sons and daughters are doing well in the Lower Mainland.
Government can't stop these changes, at least without running big risks.
But it can slow them, perhaps choosing to keep a ministry branch office open to help a community or to make forest companies process trees where they cut them down, buying mills a few more years. It can fund schools to be open five days a week.
Stop-gaps, for sure. Mills that can compete don't have a long-term future. That's simply reality.
Still, stop-gaps aren't so bad sometimes.
What was most alarming was the government's apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge that so many communities are facing difficult times, as the census results show. That suggest their problems aren't even being considered.
People in Interior and Northern communities living through these changes have to be wondering how they have become invisible to their governments.
Footnote: Forest Minister Rich Coleman also disappointed. Many of these communities face a drastic cut in the available timber for decades as a result of the pine beetle disaster. But Coleman, asked for an indication of the likely impact and timing, refused to answer. Families and businesses in the affected areas deserved a real answer to a serious question.
Even for people paying attention, the 2006 census numbers came a shock. The province's population grew by 5.3 per cent between 2001 and 2006, just behind the national average. (The first time in Canada's history that B.C. has lagged the rest of Canada.)
But the growth came in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island.
Across the rest of the province, from small villages to major centres, populations were shrinking.
That's not surprising. Around the world, people are moving to the big cities, where the jobs and opportunities are. That's as true in B.C. as it is in Nigeria or China.
But the Liberals have made a big deal about sharing the benefits of growth across the province.
Remember the Heartlands strategy in 2003? The promise was a renewed future for all those communities coping with courthouse and government office closures, or cutting their schools back to four days a week because that's all they could afford.
There was no strategy behind the slogans. Within a year, it all pretty much collapsed like a pyramid scheme.
That was too bad. Based on the census results, those communities could have used real help.
Consider Prince Rupert, which lost 13 per cent of its population between 2001 and 2006. Trail, down 4.5 per cent. Terrace, 6.5 per cent. Prince George, down two per cent.
From here in Victoria, or Vancouver, those are just numbers.
But if you've got a grocery store or contracting business in Quesnel, and the population declines by seven per cent, that's a problem. There are fewer people to shop, or hire you.
So businesses struggle. School enrolments fall and they close, or go to four-day weeks. It gets harder to attract people. Main Street has as many vacant stores as successful ones.
Government can't actually fix all this. But it can help counter the bad effects and be straight with people about their futures. Then it's up to them to decide what to do.
The NDP leaped on the numbers in the first available question period.
The government put up Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen to handle them, even though the questions were directed to Communities Minister Ida Chong. (The day before, Agriculture Minister Pat Bell had answered for Labour Minister Olga Illich.)
As health minister, Hansen had faced the toughest questions with facts and common sense.
But this time he was terrible, offering irrelevant prepackaged spin. He didn't acknowledge the reality of peoples' lives in these communities, or the facts.
People are moving back to B.C., Hansen said.
But not to most of the Interior or North.
Unemployment is at a record low even in these communities, he said.
True enough and a good thing. People who couldn't find work have moved away, an often painful but practical response.
But the number of people working in Prince George today is lower than in the mid-90s.
For the community, that's a problem, even if its sons and daughters are doing well in the Lower Mainland.
Government can't stop these changes, at least without running big risks.
But it can slow them, perhaps choosing to keep a ministry branch office open to help a community or to make forest companies process trees where they cut them down, buying mills a few more years. It can fund schools to be open five days a week.
Stop-gaps, for sure. Mills that can compete don't have a long-term future. That's simply reality.
Still, stop-gaps aren't so bad sometimes.
What was most alarming was the government's apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge that so many communities are facing difficult times, as the census results show. That suggest their problems aren't even being considered.
People in Interior and Northern communities living through these changes have to be wondering how they have become invisible to their governments.
Footnote: Forest Minister Rich Coleman also disappointed. Many of these communities face a drastic cut in the available timber for decades as a result of the pine beetle disaster. But Coleman, asked for an indication of the likely impact and timing, refused to answer. Families and businesses in the affected areas deserved a real answer to a serious question.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Liberals struggle in responding to farm worker deaths
It's hard to know how a government should respond to events like the terrible crash that killed three women farm workers travelling in a crowded van.
Not like the Liberals, at least based on their efforts so far.
The women died last Wednesday on their way to a farm in the Fraser Valley.
The NDP started asking questions in the legislature Wednesday. They continued Thursday and devoted entire question periods to farm workers' issues Monday and Tuesday.
So far, the questions have been better the answers. Solicitor General John Les first tried to argue that nobody should be talking about the crash and whether more needed to be done to keep workers safe.
Police, the WCB and the Coroners Service will investigate and everyone should just wait, he said. And Les accused the New Democrats of being "immoral," raising the issue to score political points.
But the call to wait for investigations that take months or years has been used to often as an excuse for inaction. The public expects a response.
And the "immoral" charge looked hypocritical. The Liberals would have posed similar questions in opposition. The NDP were trying to score political points, but along the way real issues get raised. That, in its clunky way, is how the system works.
The next day, the New Democrats returned the issue. Leader Carole James noted a similar crash in 2003 claimed a farm workers' life. The coroner investigated and said seatbelts could have saved the woman's life. The WCB recommended that roadside inspections by a joint federal-provincial safety be restored.
Why did neither recommendation result in meaningful action, James asked. Les stuck to the argument that the questions were out of line.
Not much help for people wondering if farm workers being shuttled around by labour contractors were safe.
The NDP was back on the issue Monday as James again asked for assurances that the government would improve farm worker protection.
Les started badly with his first words. "It's a new week and it's the same old opposition, I'm afraid," he said. It sounded like he still didn't think the issue was worth discussing.
But Les went on to acknowledge that the government was "stepping up enforcement activity to ensure that there is compliance with the existing laws and regulations."
That sounds a good thing, although Les was vague about the details or why he thought it was such a bad idea to consider last week.
The New Democrats kept raising questions, some not directly related. They noted the Liberals had eliminated overtime and minimum wage protection for farm workers. And they quoted a government directive to employment standards inspectors to cut their inspections when farms were busy - which was also when the most workers were there.
Corky Evans, leaping into the fray, asked why the Liberals eliminated a federal-provincial farm labour inspection program.
Evans, in full flight, said he wasn't interested in what the "spin children," as he called the Liberals' communications staffers, had briefed the minister to say. He wanted actual answers.
Unkind. But based on the ministers' responses, justified. Labour Minister Olga Ilich said record low unemployment meant farm workers would be better treated by employers.
Maybe. But there aren't a lot of alternatives for people doing farm work. And Ilich could be seen as suggesting that farm workers just have to accept some risks except when times are good.
Agriculture Minister Pat Bell then went back to attacking the NDP and said the legislature shouldn't even be talking about the issue.
The questions continued Tuesday, focused more on the impact of the Liberals' elimination of minimum wage protection for farm workers.
The reality is, this could have just been another crash.
But the NDP has raised good questions about protection for farm workers. The government hasn't had good answers.
In that situation, it's in both the opposition's political interest and the public interest to keep on asking.
Footnote: The largely unspoken subtext to this - alluded to by Evans Tuesday - is the fact that the farm workers are largely from the IndoCanadian and other immigrant communities. They are watching both parties' responses to the issues closely.
Not like the Liberals, at least based on their efforts so far.
The women died last Wednesday on their way to a farm in the Fraser Valley.
The NDP started asking questions in the legislature Wednesday. They continued Thursday and devoted entire question periods to farm workers' issues Monday and Tuesday.
So far, the questions have been better the answers. Solicitor General John Les first tried to argue that nobody should be talking about the crash and whether more needed to be done to keep workers safe.
Police, the WCB and the Coroners Service will investigate and everyone should just wait, he said. And Les accused the New Democrats of being "immoral," raising the issue to score political points.
But the call to wait for investigations that take months or years has been used to often as an excuse for inaction. The public expects a response.
And the "immoral" charge looked hypocritical. The Liberals would have posed similar questions in opposition. The NDP were trying to score political points, but along the way real issues get raised. That, in its clunky way, is how the system works.
The next day, the New Democrats returned the issue. Leader Carole James noted a similar crash in 2003 claimed a farm workers' life. The coroner investigated and said seatbelts could have saved the woman's life. The WCB recommended that roadside inspections by a joint federal-provincial safety be restored.
Why did neither recommendation result in meaningful action, James asked. Les stuck to the argument that the questions were out of line.
Not much help for people wondering if farm workers being shuttled around by labour contractors were safe.
The NDP was back on the issue Monday as James again asked for assurances that the government would improve farm worker protection.
Les started badly with his first words. "It's a new week and it's the same old opposition, I'm afraid," he said. It sounded like he still didn't think the issue was worth discussing.
But Les went on to acknowledge that the government was "stepping up enforcement activity to ensure that there is compliance with the existing laws and regulations."
That sounds a good thing, although Les was vague about the details or why he thought it was such a bad idea to consider last week.
The New Democrats kept raising questions, some not directly related. They noted the Liberals had eliminated overtime and minimum wage protection for farm workers. And they quoted a government directive to employment standards inspectors to cut their inspections when farms were busy - which was also when the most workers were there.
Corky Evans, leaping into the fray, asked why the Liberals eliminated a federal-provincial farm labour inspection program.
Evans, in full flight, said he wasn't interested in what the "spin children," as he called the Liberals' communications staffers, had briefed the minister to say. He wanted actual answers.
Unkind. But based on the ministers' responses, justified. Labour Minister Olga Ilich said record low unemployment meant farm workers would be better treated by employers.
Maybe. But there aren't a lot of alternatives for people doing farm work. And Ilich could be seen as suggesting that farm workers just have to accept some risks except when times are good.
Agriculture Minister Pat Bell then went back to attacking the NDP and said the legislature shouldn't even be talking about the issue.
The questions continued Tuesday, focused more on the impact of the Liberals' elimination of minimum wage protection for farm workers.
The reality is, this could have just been another crash.
But the NDP has raised good questions about protection for farm workers. The government hasn't had good answers.
In that situation, it's in both the opposition's political interest and the public interest to keep on asking.
Footnote: The largely unspoken subtext to this - alluded to by Evans Tuesday - is the fact that the farm workers are largely from the IndoCanadian and other immigrant communities. They are watching both parties' responses to the issues closely.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
More suffering not the answer for addicts
It's barely a kilometre from the legislature to Cormorant Street, but it might as well be a thousand miles.
The street is nothing special, just two blocks long, not far from Victoria's little Chinatown. The health ministry's head office is the biggest immediate landmark.
But it's famous. Cormorant Street is home to Victoria's needle exchange. It serves an astonishing number of people - some 2,000. Last year clients picked up more than one million needles.
Naturally, some of those clients are not people you want hanging around your neighbourhood. Rough, sickly, scary, loud, and aggressive, stealing and sleeping and going to the bathroom in doorways. There's not that many of them. But they make life miserable for people who live and work in the area.
Especially because the drug problem in Victoria is worse than it has ever been. Which is odd, since governments for at least a decade have talked about how seriously they take the problem of addiction and all the related ills. But all the time, things have gotten worse, a pretty serious failure.
One that should be worrying for Kelowna, Prince George, Trail, even smaller communities. Only a couple of years ago, no one would have predicted drugs would be creating such a street problem in Victoria - that sort of thing was reserved for the Downtown Eastside.
Now, there'- no reason not to assume that the problem will keep spreading.
AIDS Vancouver Island, which runs the needle exchange, knows something has to be done about the Cormorant Street problem. It announced plans to move the needle exchange at a press conference attended by police, downtown business representatives and city councillors.
But shuffling the problem off to another neighbourhood is no solution, everyone agrees. The people in Rock Bay, an older largely industrial and commercial area on the edge of downtown, are already nervous the needle exchange is heading their way. Understandably. They've already been remarkably tolerant as the prostitution stroll has moved into their area.
AIDS Vancouver Island has what seems like a sensible idea for dealing with the problems. It wants to find a building with an inner courtyard where clients can congregate without creating a problem on the street. It's also hoping for more space to deliver expanded counselling and support services.
The idea is that any point of contact with people with addictions is a chance to reduce the damage done, by helping them use drugs more safely, deal with their health problems and - if the time is right - to seek treatment.
But there's a catch. The move will cost money. So will operating the expanded centre. Plus there's the challenge to even find space.
And AIDS Vancouver Island is already facing a big cut in the money coming from the Vancouver Island Health Authority. VIHA has decided it needs to do a better job in AIDS prevention and support on the rest of Vancouver Island. It doesn't have any extra money, so its initial plan was to cut support for efforts in the Victoria area by almost 40 per cent. That's been put off for a year, but the axe is still poised to fall. It's difficult to fault the health authority, except for failing to make clear its financial problems. There is a growing demand for services and not enough money across the province.
And addiction services are often the first to be cut, mostly for political reasons. People waiting for knee surgeries have more clout than addicts.That's not just a VIHA issue. While health authorities across B.C. have been responsible for mental health and addictions, the services are routinely squeezed. They aren't a priority.
In that, the health authorities are following the province's lead. B.C. had a junior minister responsible for mental health and addiction services until 2005. The post was eliminated after the election.
The problem of addiction is an epidemic, which threatens people, families and communities across the province. But it's one we seem reluctant to do anything about.
Footnote: There's a persistent view that we just have to make life tougher for addicts and they'll stop. Addicts risk death, jab their bodies with dirty needles, sell themselves, sleep in the street, steal and get beat up routinely. That kind of misery is not enough to end the addiction.
No additional suffering will work.
The street is nothing special, just two blocks long, not far from Victoria's little Chinatown. The health ministry's head office is the biggest immediate landmark.
But it's famous. Cormorant Street is home to Victoria's needle exchange. It serves an astonishing number of people - some 2,000. Last year clients picked up more than one million needles.
Naturally, some of those clients are not people you want hanging around your neighbourhood. Rough, sickly, scary, loud, and aggressive, stealing and sleeping and going to the bathroom in doorways. There's not that many of them. But they make life miserable for people who live and work in the area.
Especially because the drug problem in Victoria is worse than it has ever been. Which is odd, since governments for at least a decade have talked about how seriously they take the problem of addiction and all the related ills. But all the time, things have gotten worse, a pretty serious failure.
One that should be worrying for Kelowna, Prince George, Trail, even smaller communities. Only a couple of years ago, no one would have predicted drugs would be creating such a street problem in Victoria - that sort of thing was reserved for the Downtown Eastside.
Now, there'- no reason not to assume that the problem will keep spreading.
AIDS Vancouver Island, which runs the needle exchange, knows something has to be done about the Cormorant Street problem. It announced plans to move the needle exchange at a press conference attended by police, downtown business representatives and city councillors.
But shuffling the problem off to another neighbourhood is no solution, everyone agrees. The people in Rock Bay, an older largely industrial and commercial area on the edge of downtown, are already nervous the needle exchange is heading their way. Understandably. They've already been remarkably tolerant as the prostitution stroll has moved into their area.
AIDS Vancouver Island has what seems like a sensible idea for dealing with the problems. It wants to find a building with an inner courtyard where clients can congregate without creating a problem on the street. It's also hoping for more space to deliver expanded counselling and support services.
The idea is that any point of contact with people with addictions is a chance to reduce the damage done, by helping them use drugs more safely, deal with their health problems and - if the time is right - to seek treatment.
But there's a catch. The move will cost money. So will operating the expanded centre. Plus there's the challenge to even find space.
And AIDS Vancouver Island is already facing a big cut in the money coming from the Vancouver Island Health Authority. VIHA has decided it needs to do a better job in AIDS prevention and support on the rest of Vancouver Island. It doesn't have any extra money, so its initial plan was to cut support for efforts in the Victoria area by almost 40 per cent. That's been put off for a year, but the axe is still poised to fall. It's difficult to fault the health authority, except for failing to make clear its financial problems. There is a growing demand for services and not enough money across the province.
And addiction services are often the first to be cut, mostly for political reasons. People waiting for knee surgeries have more clout than addicts.That's not just a VIHA issue. While health authorities across B.C. have been responsible for mental health and addictions, the services are routinely squeezed. They aren't a priority.
In that, the health authorities are following the province's lead. B.C. had a junior minister responsible for mental health and addiction services until 2005. The post was eliminated after the election.
The problem of addiction is an epidemic, which threatens people, families and communities across the province. But it's one we seem reluctant to do anything about.
Footnote: There's a persistent view that we just have to make life tougher for addicts and they'll stop. Addicts risk death, jab their bodies with dirty needles, sell themselves, sleep in the street, steal and get beat up routinely. That kind of misery is not enough to end the addiction.
No additional suffering will work.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Big plans, good start for new children's rep
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is looking like a terrific hire as B.C.'s first representative for children and youth.
The office isn't open yet, but she made an impressive debut in an appearance before the new legislature committee on children and youth last week.
Turpel-Lafond, a highly regarded judge in Saskatchewan before she took the job, faces a big challenge. She's taken on most of the responsibilities foolishly abandoned by the Campbell government when it eliminated the Children's Commission and the Child and Family Advocate in their first term.
None of this work should be partisan. Providing support for scared little kids or struggling families isn't a left-right question; it's one of decency and pragmatism. The NDP did a lousy job of running the ministry and the Liberals have been as bad or worse. But down here almost everything is seen through a political lens.
Turpel-Lafond's pitch to the committee - while positive and upbeat - left any would-be partisans in a tough spot. Instead of a general briefing, she hit the ground running with a specific proposal for action within the next five months.
Turpel-Lafond asked MLAs on the committee to work with her on a plan for children and families that would look five to 10 years ahead.
The plan, built with the efforts of both parties, the ministries, First Nations agencies - Turpel-Lafond is aboriginal - and everyone else involved would set five to seven big goals that would be benchmarks for our overall progress.
The effort to reach those goals would cut across all ministries. And the representative, and the committee, would report on interim progress, looking at what was working and what wasn't and making sure government was learning from examples around the world.
That's not happening. The children and families ministry has performance goals, but they're short term, not very useful and changing.
Here's one example to show how the approach could work. In B.C., on any given day, about 9,000 children are in the government's care. For some, it's a brief experience before things get better back home; for about 40 per cent of them, it's life.
We are pathetic parents for them. Adolescent boys in care, for example, are 14 times as likely to try and kill themselves as children who aren't in care. Sure, some have lots of problems - a history of poverty and neglect, physical and mental health issues. But many are just kids who never got a chance.
Today barely one-in-four children in care finishes high school. That means a life on the margins - poverty, poor health, welfare or minimum wage and an increased chance their children will end up in care too. (Girls in care are four times as likely to become pregnant as teenagers as their peers.)
For a decade, we've accepted our failure.
Turpel-Lafond's proposal might see high-school graduation as a benchmark for children in care, or more broadly even children whose families have been helped by the government. So a target might be 75-per-cent graduation rate within 10 years; 40 per cent within five years. The task would be to look at why they aren't graduating now; remove those barriers; and report publicly and frequently on progress.
It won't be hard to improve. For example, a ministry study found kids in continuing care had an average stay of six years and moved almost once a year during that period. That instability undermines their chance of success in school. More children in care have been sent to live on their own at 16, another factor that works against graduation.
Tackling those kinds of problems is neither costly nor complicated.
And of course, failing to act carries its own price, forever. Even those who don't accept the moral obligation to help children should see the financial argument for investing in children to save decades of future costs.
Turpel-Lafond has the independence to go ahead with the plan on her own.
But the move to enlist the committee is a good way to begin building support for the idea that this issue really transcends day-to-day politics.
For more than a decade politicians from all parties have talked putting aside their differences and putting children first.
Turpel-Lafond has found a quick, positive way to put those claims to the test.
The office isn't open yet, but she made an impressive debut in an appearance before the new legislature committee on children and youth last week.
Turpel-Lafond, a highly regarded judge in Saskatchewan before she took the job, faces a big challenge. She's taken on most of the responsibilities foolishly abandoned by the Campbell government when it eliminated the Children's Commission and the Child and Family Advocate in their first term.
None of this work should be partisan. Providing support for scared little kids or struggling families isn't a left-right question; it's one of decency and pragmatism. The NDP did a lousy job of running the ministry and the Liberals have been as bad or worse. But down here almost everything is seen through a political lens.
Turpel-Lafond's pitch to the committee - while positive and upbeat - left any would-be partisans in a tough spot. Instead of a general briefing, she hit the ground running with a specific proposal for action within the next five months.
Turpel-Lafond asked MLAs on the committee to work with her on a plan for children and families that would look five to 10 years ahead.
The plan, built with the efforts of both parties, the ministries, First Nations agencies - Turpel-Lafond is aboriginal - and everyone else involved would set five to seven big goals that would be benchmarks for our overall progress.
The effort to reach those goals would cut across all ministries. And the representative, and the committee, would report on interim progress, looking at what was working and what wasn't and making sure government was learning from examples around the world.
That's not happening. The children and families ministry has performance goals, but they're short term, not very useful and changing.
Here's one example to show how the approach could work. In B.C., on any given day, about 9,000 children are in the government's care. For some, it's a brief experience before things get better back home; for about 40 per cent of them, it's life.
We are pathetic parents for them. Adolescent boys in care, for example, are 14 times as likely to try and kill themselves as children who aren't in care. Sure, some have lots of problems - a history of poverty and neglect, physical and mental health issues. But many are just kids who never got a chance.
Today barely one-in-four children in care finishes high school. That means a life on the margins - poverty, poor health, welfare or minimum wage and an increased chance their children will end up in care too. (Girls in care are four times as likely to become pregnant as teenagers as their peers.)
For a decade, we've accepted our failure.
Turpel-Lafond's proposal might see high-school graduation as a benchmark for children in care, or more broadly even children whose families have been helped by the government. So a target might be 75-per-cent graduation rate within 10 years; 40 per cent within five years. The task would be to look at why they aren't graduating now; remove those barriers; and report publicly and frequently on progress.
It won't be hard to improve. For example, a ministry study found kids in continuing care had an average stay of six years and moved almost once a year during that period. That instability undermines their chance of success in school. More children in care have been sent to live on their own at 16, another factor that works against graduation.
Tackling those kinds of problems is neither costly nor complicated.
And of course, failing to act carries its own price, forever. Even those who don't accept the moral obligation to help children should see the financial argument for investing in children to save decades of future costs.
Turpel-Lafond has the independence to go ahead with the plan on her own.
But the move to enlist the committee is a good way to begin building support for the idea that this issue really transcends day-to-day politics.
For more than a decade politicians from all parties have talked putting aside their differences and putting children first.
Turpel-Lafond has found a quick, positive way to put those claims to the test.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Les is wrong, B.C. is already into online gambling
So who are you going to believe, Solicitor General John Les, who says there's no way the government is getting into Internet gambling?
Or B.C Lotteries, which says it is already into online betting and plans to expand its offerings?
The smart money is against the minister. Especially because the evidence is there, in black and white in the budget documents and in full colour on the BC Lotteries' website.
Les, responsible for both increasing the take and reducing problem gambling, is the latest Liberal to end up in contortions since they were elected on a 2001 campaign promise "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
They did the opposite, but it took the Liberals years to quit denying the obvious. They didn't just break the promise, they'd smashed it into little bits.
Now the denial is around online gambling.
When Les was asked about the issue the legislature this month, he was dead assertive.
"I want to be very clear," he said. "There will be no Internet gaming conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corp. - period."
But only the day before, as part of the budget package, the lottery corporation's plan for this year was released, approved by Les.
"BCLC now offers a full range of gaming products including casinos, bingos and online gaming through PlayNow," the corporation reported. Note, "online gaming."
Les pitched the lottery's online effort as a convenience, just another way to sell existing lottery tickets.
But if you check out B.C. Lotteries' PlayNow website, you'll see he's wrong. It's online gambling, including some dubious efforts to separate unsuspecting people from their money.
B.C. Lotteries lets you bet on sports online, 24 hours a day.
You can gamble up to $200 a single round of online Keno, with a new game starting every five minutes.
Both those sound like online gambling.
And then there are the corporation's "interactive" games, a sort of a poor man's online VLT.
Take Bump & Volley. Players put down bets and then click on a ball with their mouse, trying to keep it in the air while moving it around symbols. Get the right ones and you win a prize.
Or the Road to Vancouver. Place your bets and click on squares to try and uncover symbols. Get the rights ones, advance through the levels and win cash.
Except it's a con. The mouse clicks, as the official game explanation and B.C. Lottery website explain, have no effect on the outcome.
When people put up their money a B.C. Lotteries computer determines whether the game will pay any money and how much. The clicking and spinning have no effect.
All that interaction is pretend. It just keeps the player involved.
And keeps him playing and playing. Researchers have found the illusion of control keeps people playing games longer, even while they're losing. They can tell themselves that next time they'll pick the right squares, or move the ball the right way. That's why slot machine designers are including touch screens to let players stop the spinning wheels.
It also is just less foolish to pretend to play a game then it is to sit there and pump money into bets that will inevitably, over anything other than the short term, produce losses.
Keno, sports betting and "interactive games" which try to bring the VLT experience into the home. That sure sounds like online gaming.
There are controls. You can't put more than $120 a week into your online account.
But it's hard to see how Les can be so emphatic in denying that online gaming is already happening.
And it's hard to see how this can be a good thing.
The lottery corporation plans calls for recruiting more gamblers, and taking more from each one, so it has to push into more seductive games, offered in more locations - including the home.
But the government's eagerness to keep pushing gambling is harder to understand.
Back in the old days, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell explained why he wouldn't expand gambling.
"I want to build an economy based on winners, not losers, and gambling is always based on losers,'' he said. "The only way government makes money on gambling is because you lose it."
Now his government is giving people the chance to become losers right in their own homes.
Or B.C Lotteries, which says it is already into online betting and plans to expand its offerings?
The smart money is against the minister. Especially because the evidence is there, in black and white in the budget documents and in full colour on the BC Lotteries' website.
Les, responsible for both increasing the take and reducing problem gambling, is the latest Liberal to end up in contortions since they were elected on a 2001 campaign promise "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
They did the opposite, but it took the Liberals years to quit denying the obvious. They didn't just break the promise, they'd smashed it into little bits.
Now the denial is around online gambling.
When Les was asked about the issue the legislature this month, he was dead assertive.
"I want to be very clear," he said. "There will be no Internet gaming conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corp. - period."
But only the day before, as part of the budget package, the lottery corporation's plan for this year was released, approved by Les.
"BCLC now offers a full range of gaming products including casinos, bingos and online gaming through PlayNow," the corporation reported. Note, "online gaming."
Les pitched the lottery's online effort as a convenience, just another way to sell existing lottery tickets.
But if you check out B.C. Lotteries' PlayNow website, you'll see he's wrong. It's online gambling, including some dubious efforts to separate unsuspecting people from their money.
B.C. Lotteries lets you bet on sports online, 24 hours a day.
You can gamble up to $200 a single round of online Keno, with a new game starting every five minutes.
Both those sound like online gambling.
And then there are the corporation's "interactive" games, a sort of a poor man's online VLT.
Take Bump & Volley. Players put down bets and then click on a ball with their mouse, trying to keep it in the air while moving it around symbols. Get the right ones and you win a prize.
Or the Road to Vancouver. Place your bets and click on squares to try and uncover symbols. Get the rights ones, advance through the levels and win cash.
Except it's a con. The mouse clicks, as the official game explanation and B.C. Lottery website explain, have no effect on the outcome.
When people put up their money a B.C. Lotteries computer determines whether the game will pay any money and how much. The clicking and spinning have no effect.
All that interaction is pretend. It just keeps the player involved.
And keeps him playing and playing. Researchers have found the illusion of control keeps people playing games longer, even while they're losing. They can tell themselves that next time they'll pick the right squares, or move the ball the right way. That's why slot machine designers are including touch screens to let players stop the spinning wheels.
It also is just less foolish to pretend to play a game then it is to sit there and pump money into bets that will inevitably, over anything other than the short term, produce losses.
Keno, sports betting and "interactive games" which try to bring the VLT experience into the home. That sure sounds like online gaming.
There are controls. You can't put more than $120 a week into your online account.
But it's hard to see how Les can be so emphatic in denying that online gaming is already happening.
And it's hard to see how this can be a good thing.
The lottery corporation plans calls for recruiting more gamblers, and taking more from each one, so it has to push into more seductive games, offered in more locations - including the home.
But the government's eagerness to keep pushing gambling is harder to understand.
Back in the old days, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell explained why he wouldn't expand gambling.
"I want to build an economy based on winners, not losers, and gambling is always based on losers,'' he said. "The only way government makes money on gambling is because you lose it."
Now his government is giving people the chance to become losers right in their own homes.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Energy plan aims in right direction
VICTORIA - There’s a few bits that should make you nervous in the provincial energy plan released Tuesday, but much more that indicates B.C. is on the right track.
The plan lacks detail to back up most of the big targets, a little disappointing given how long the government has to work on the file.
It's great to say that conservation efforts will cut projected energy consumption growth in half, but it would be useful to know the cost and how consumers — commercial and residential — will be motivated to take the necessary steps.
And there are worries about subsidies to business and the somewhat vague intention to use BC Hydro as an agent of "social, economic and environmental" change.
The Liberals' moves since 2001 to put Crown corporations on a firmer business footing were welcome. For BC Hydro, that meant a focus on delivering cheap, secure power, with the B.C. Utilities' Commission protecting consumers.
But things have apparently changed. The government has decided there are some important policy objectives that can be advanced most effectively through B.C. Hydro.
The Crown corporation has a history as an agent of change. W.A.C. Bennett's dam-building spree some 50 years ago provided cheap electricity that has been a boon to the province's economy to this day. Consumers and industry both benefit from relatively inexpensive power, thanks to Bennett's enthusiasm for big hydro projects.
And, happily, those projects with their zero emissions have become highly favoured as concerns about climate change mount.
Bennett would likely have been pleased to see that B.C. is once again looking at a hydro megaproject, the Site C dam on the Peace River near Fort St. John.
It's tougher to build dams now, not so easy to dismiss the claims of those whose lives will be changed by the flooding or the warnings of environmental damage. Those issues — along with the $3.5-billion cost — have made the Liberals mighty nervous about the dam.
But the Peace River has already been dammed; this would just be another one. While the land consumed by the Site C project is significant, compensation could be part of the plan.
And the 900-megawatt capacity would deliver as much power as four greenhouse gas emitting gas-power plants, more cheaply.
Today, if a deal can reached with local First Nations, that makes the project highly attractive.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld is still being cautious, but the dam is very much back on the agenda.
Mostly, the new energy policy is about goals. The government doesn't want to need electricity imports by 2016 (a puzzling goal); all power projects will have zero "net" emissions by the same year, meaning gas-fired plants better start planting trees; by 2020 half the province's growth in power consumption should be offset by conservation measures. (You'll buy a more efficient fridge and turn down the heat to offset the effect of that new family from New Brunswick and all their appliances.)
Most of the goals make sense. The question open for debate now is how we get there.
For example, the government proposes a $25-million increase in electricity rates to provide money government can use to "help promising clean power technology projects succeed."
That should make you nervous. Government's track record in picking winners, as Liberal cabinet ministers use to point out, is not good. Companies with good ideas should be able to look to the market for funding.
And the plan calls for new energy efficiency standards for buildings by 2010. That's likely a good thing, but how much will the cost of an new house, or commercial building, be pushed up by the new regulations?
Those are the kinds of questions the government needs to be able to answer over the next few months. The framework energy policy points in the right direction.
Its credibility will rest on the government's ability to begin filling in the large blanks in the plan.
Footnote: The plan appears to heed the advice of the B.C. Progress Board, the useful advisory group created by the premier. It suggested in late 2005 that government, not B.C. Hydro, should be setting energy policy. "B.C. Hydro is seen by many concerned parties to heavily outweigh the ministry in staff and resources, which puts the government in the position of not being able to provide adequate oversight and direction," said the panel. That seems to be changing.
The plan lacks detail to back up most of the big targets, a little disappointing given how long the government has to work on the file.
It's great to say that conservation efforts will cut projected energy consumption growth in half, but it would be useful to know the cost and how consumers — commercial and residential — will be motivated to take the necessary steps.
And there are worries about subsidies to business and the somewhat vague intention to use BC Hydro as an agent of "social, economic and environmental" change.
The Liberals' moves since 2001 to put Crown corporations on a firmer business footing were welcome. For BC Hydro, that meant a focus on delivering cheap, secure power, with the B.C. Utilities' Commission protecting consumers.
But things have apparently changed. The government has decided there are some important policy objectives that can be advanced most effectively through B.C. Hydro.
The Crown corporation has a history as an agent of change. W.A.C. Bennett's dam-building spree some 50 years ago provided cheap electricity that has been a boon to the province's economy to this day. Consumers and industry both benefit from relatively inexpensive power, thanks to Bennett's enthusiasm for big hydro projects.
And, happily, those projects with their zero emissions have become highly favoured as concerns about climate change mount.
Bennett would likely have been pleased to see that B.C. is once again looking at a hydro megaproject, the Site C dam on the Peace River near Fort St. John.
It's tougher to build dams now, not so easy to dismiss the claims of those whose lives will be changed by the flooding or the warnings of environmental damage. Those issues — along with the $3.5-billion cost — have made the Liberals mighty nervous about the dam.
But the Peace River has already been dammed; this would just be another one. While the land consumed by the Site C project is significant, compensation could be part of the plan.
And the 900-megawatt capacity would deliver as much power as four greenhouse gas emitting gas-power plants, more cheaply.
Today, if a deal can reached with local First Nations, that makes the project highly attractive.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld is still being cautious, but the dam is very much back on the agenda.
Mostly, the new energy policy is about goals. The government doesn't want to need electricity imports by 2016 (a puzzling goal); all power projects will have zero "net" emissions by the same year, meaning gas-fired plants better start planting trees; by 2020 half the province's growth in power consumption should be offset by conservation measures. (You'll buy a more efficient fridge and turn down the heat to offset the effect of that new family from New Brunswick and all their appliances.)
Most of the goals make sense. The question open for debate now is how we get there.
For example, the government proposes a $25-million increase in electricity rates to provide money government can use to "help promising clean power technology projects succeed."
That should make you nervous. Government's track record in picking winners, as Liberal cabinet ministers use to point out, is not good. Companies with good ideas should be able to look to the market for funding.
And the plan calls for new energy efficiency standards for buildings by 2010. That's likely a good thing, but how much will the cost of an new house, or commercial building, be pushed up by the new regulations?
Those are the kinds of questions the government needs to be able to answer over the next few months. The framework energy policy points in the right direction.
Its credibility will rest on the government's ability to begin filling in the large blanks in the plan.
Footnote: The plan appears to heed the advice of the B.C. Progress Board, the useful advisory group created by the premier. It suggested in late 2005 that government, not B.C. Hydro, should be setting energy policy. "B.C. Hydro is seen by many concerned parties to heavily outweigh the ministry in staff and resources, which puts the government in the position of not being able to provide adequate oversight and direction," said the panel. That seems to be changing.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
What happened the night police left Frank Paul to die
VICTORIA -It’s hard to let go of Frank Paul and the way he died, dumped in a Vancouver alley, on a cold night, by police.
Maybe it’s because he was the kind of guy who needed protecting.
Paul was a skinny little man with damaged hands, a Micmac from New Brunswick who ended up on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, homeless and drinking too much.
Who knows, maybe Paul, then 47, would be dead by now anyway.
Or maybe he’d be back home in Big Cove, doing better.
But three weeks before Christmas in 1998 two Vancouver police officers found him in an alley, semiconscious. They called a patrol wagon.
Video from the jail shows Paul being dragged from the wagon, down a hallway and up in an elevator to the floor with cells. He doesn't move. A nurse walks past twice as he lies on the floor.
Then the video then shows Paul being dragged back out by his feet. The patrol wagon tried to take him to a detox centre, where he was rejected. So police left him in an alley.
A few hours later, the same officers who picked up Paul up the first time found him dead of hypothermia, sprawled half-dressed in the cold and rain.
It’s case that cried out for answers. Why wasn’t Paul kept at the jail or taken to hospital? What were the police department policies about dealing with semiconscious people?
But nothing happened. No one would likely have known about the case until problems started mounting in the police complaints commissioner’s office in 2002. It was revealed then that staff had been pressing the commissioner to call a public inquiry for two years. He refused.
It took until 2004, but the new police complaint commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, recommended the government call a public inquiry. At least two witnesses had never been interviewed, he learned.
Rich Coleman, then solicitor general, refused. A coroner’s inquiry and an internal police review were enough to answer all the questions.
It seemed an inadequate answer even then.
Then this week Greg Fiolotte came forward. He was a corrections officer and says he helped drag Paul to the police van that night.
No one from the Vancouver Police Department has ever interviewed him to find out what happened, he said. At best the department didn’t want to know what really happened, he said, and at at worst it already knew but didn’t want the facts to become public.
How could one of a handful of witnesses — and one of only a few not part of the police department — never be interviewed?
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs wants answers. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip says the investigation looks like a sham. He wants a public inquiry.
So does Dana Urban. He was a legal advisor to the police commissioner, one of the people who unsuccessfully argued for an inquiry seven years ago.
Urban is in Kosovo now. He’s an international prosecutor with the United Nations, dealing with human rights abuses and war crimes,
Despite all he’s seen, he told the Globe and Mail, he’s had a hard time letting go of Paul’s death too.
The most basic Canadian right — the right to life — was violated that night, Urban said. The people sworn to protect Paul and entrusted to investigate his death failed him. “I will never forget the shame I felt, and continue to feel for my country and its people," Urban said.
Solicitor General John Les ruled out an inquiry Wednesday. But the next day, he reversed his decision. An inquiry will finally be held
It’s been a long time since Paul died in that alley.
We owe him, and ourselves, some answers, about what happened and whether anything needs to be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Footnote: Why did Les change his mind? The premier got invovled, likely because the renewed interest in Paul’s death comes at a critical time in the government’s new relationship with First Nations. Despite progress on some fronts frustration is growing with the pace of change. First Nation leaders have had a larger concern about police treatment of natives for some time. Failing to act would have caused more problems.
Maybe it’s because he was the kind of guy who needed protecting.
Paul was a skinny little man with damaged hands, a Micmac from New Brunswick who ended up on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, homeless and drinking too much.
Who knows, maybe Paul, then 47, would be dead by now anyway.
Or maybe he’d be back home in Big Cove, doing better.
But three weeks before Christmas in 1998 two Vancouver police officers found him in an alley, semiconscious. They called a patrol wagon.
Video from the jail shows Paul being dragged from the wagon, down a hallway and up in an elevator to the floor with cells. He doesn't move. A nurse walks past twice as he lies on the floor.
Then the video then shows Paul being dragged back out by his feet. The patrol wagon tried to take him to a detox centre, where he was rejected. So police left him in an alley.
A few hours later, the same officers who picked up Paul up the first time found him dead of hypothermia, sprawled half-dressed in the cold and rain.
It’s case that cried out for answers. Why wasn’t Paul kept at the jail or taken to hospital? What were the police department policies about dealing with semiconscious people?
But nothing happened. No one would likely have known about the case until problems started mounting in the police complaints commissioner’s office in 2002. It was revealed then that staff had been pressing the commissioner to call a public inquiry for two years. He refused.
It took until 2004, but the new police complaint commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, recommended the government call a public inquiry. At least two witnesses had never been interviewed, he learned.
Rich Coleman, then solicitor general, refused. A coroner’s inquiry and an internal police review were enough to answer all the questions.
It seemed an inadequate answer even then.
Then this week Greg Fiolotte came forward. He was a corrections officer and says he helped drag Paul to the police van that night.
No one from the Vancouver Police Department has ever interviewed him to find out what happened, he said. At best the department didn’t want to know what really happened, he said, and at at worst it already knew but didn’t want the facts to become public.
How could one of a handful of witnesses — and one of only a few not part of the police department — never be interviewed?
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs wants answers. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip says the investigation looks like a sham. He wants a public inquiry.
So does Dana Urban. He was a legal advisor to the police commissioner, one of the people who unsuccessfully argued for an inquiry seven years ago.
Urban is in Kosovo now. He’s an international prosecutor with the United Nations, dealing with human rights abuses and war crimes,
Despite all he’s seen, he told the Globe and Mail, he’s had a hard time letting go of Paul’s death too.
The most basic Canadian right — the right to life — was violated that night, Urban said. The people sworn to protect Paul and entrusted to investigate his death failed him. “I will never forget the shame I felt, and continue to feel for my country and its people," Urban said.
Solicitor General John Les ruled out an inquiry Wednesday. But the next day, he reversed his decision. An inquiry will finally be held
It’s been a long time since Paul died in that alley.
We owe him, and ourselves, some answers, about what happened and whether anything needs to be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Footnote: Why did Les change his mind? The premier got invovled, likely because the renewed interest in Paul’s death comes at a critical time in the government’s new relationship with First Nations. Despite progress on some fronts frustration is growing with the pace of change. First Nation leaders have had a larger concern about police treatment of natives for some time. Failing to act would have caused more problems.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Budget ignores public and comes up short
Where the heck did this budget come from? The government spent a whack of money trying to find out what you wanted in the financial plan, sending a flyer to every home and a committee of MLAs around B.C. to hold hearings
Tax cuts weren’t high on anyone’s list — not even the business community’s.
Individuals and organizations told the government they were worried about health care, education and issues like addictions and homelessness. From Cranbrook to Campbell River, the public said government should make delivering services the priority.
And they were even willing to pay for them.
But Finance Minister Carole Taylor confirmed yesterday that the government has a different ideological bent. “We as a government have always run on the policy of lowering income taxes when we can,” she said.
So, out of nowhere, an across-the-board 10-per-cent tax cut on the first $100,000 in income, phased in this year and next.
For someone making $30,000, the cut will be worth $67 this year and $134 in 2008. For someone at $120,000, the gain will be $430 and $864.
The government claimed the tax cuts are part of a housing policy, the theme for this year’s budget being “building a housing legacy.” (Last year, Taylor said the budget was “about the little ones.” This year, government cut $40 million from the children and families budget. Staying power is an issue for these people.)
In fact, the tax cut is by far the largest part of the housing commitment. The government claims it’s allocating $2 billion over four years to help British Columbians “address their housing needs and the challenge of home affordability.”
But about $1.5 billion of that tally is based on the value of the tax cuts.
And while it’s nice to pay less tax, can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax cut worth $25 a month to a typical family is really the centrepiece of an effective housing strategy?
Or that the $515 million a year in foregone revenue could not have made a great difference in improving health care or addressing drug-related crime — or providing targeted housing programs?
The other housing measures might be useful; it’s too early to say based on the limited information.
The other striking thing about this budget is how much is left up in the air, in way that might make sense for a government in its first year or two but is worrying after six years in power.
There’s no real health-care plan after this year. Instead the government has built its budget by simply allocating enough money for wage increases in the following two fiscal years. Any additional funding, for population increases or cost pressures or needed services, will have to be found within a limited contingency fund.
If the conversation on health results in a commitment to invest in care, or preventive efforts, that money will have to be found in the same contingency funds.
The big restructuring of the children and families ministry, which was originally supposed to be complete long ago now, has been put off until 2009 or 2010. If there’s an interim strategy, it remains hidden.
Even on climate change, the issue that dominated the throne speech, the government has no real plan behind the urgent words. Taylor’s budget speech talked about a $103-million environmental commitment over four years. Almost half of that goes to buy 20 hydrogen buses; the rest covers small programs.
The only funding directly linked to all those greenhouse gas targets Premier Gordon Campbell talked about is $4 million this year to fund a climate change office. It will try and figure out short-term greenhouse gas reduction goals and the actions needed to reach them. If those actions cost money, that will have to come out of the contingency funds.
It’s not a terrible budget. The province is projecting strong economic growth for the next five years and big surpluses through the next three. There’s no wild spending or cutting.
But it shows a baffling disconnect between the realities of life in B.C., as experienced by ordinary citizens, and the government’s choices.
Footnote: It’s tough to see much in this budget for what used to be called, in another time, the Heartland. The pine beetle crisis, now apparently coming even more quickly, got no mention in the main budget presentations. Much of the infrastructure money appeared concentrated in the Lower Mainland. And the cost overruns on the Vancouver convention centre, now more than $300 million over its initial $495-million budget, are cutting into capital budgets.
Tax cuts weren’t high on anyone’s list — not even the business community’s.
Individuals and organizations told the government they were worried about health care, education and issues like addictions and homelessness. From Cranbrook to Campbell River, the public said government should make delivering services the priority.
And they were even willing to pay for them.
But Finance Minister Carole Taylor confirmed yesterday that the government has a different ideological bent. “We as a government have always run on the policy of lowering income taxes when we can,” she said.
So, out of nowhere, an across-the-board 10-per-cent tax cut on the first $100,000 in income, phased in this year and next.
For someone making $30,000, the cut will be worth $67 this year and $134 in 2008. For someone at $120,000, the gain will be $430 and $864.
The government claimed the tax cuts are part of a housing policy, the theme for this year’s budget being “building a housing legacy.” (Last year, Taylor said the budget was “about the little ones.” This year, government cut $40 million from the children and families budget. Staying power is an issue for these people.)
In fact, the tax cut is by far the largest part of the housing commitment. The government claims it’s allocating $2 billion over four years to help British Columbians “address their housing needs and the challenge of home affordability.”
But about $1.5 billion of that tally is based on the value of the tax cuts.
And while it’s nice to pay less tax, can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax cut worth $25 a month to a typical family is really the centrepiece of an effective housing strategy?
Or that the $515 million a year in foregone revenue could not have made a great difference in improving health care or addressing drug-related crime — or providing targeted housing programs?
The other housing measures might be useful; it’s too early to say based on the limited information.
The other striking thing about this budget is how much is left up in the air, in way that might make sense for a government in its first year or two but is worrying after six years in power.
There’s no real health-care plan after this year. Instead the government has built its budget by simply allocating enough money for wage increases in the following two fiscal years. Any additional funding, for population increases or cost pressures or needed services, will have to be found within a limited contingency fund.
If the conversation on health results in a commitment to invest in care, or preventive efforts, that money will have to be found in the same contingency funds.
The big restructuring of the children and families ministry, which was originally supposed to be complete long ago now, has been put off until 2009 or 2010. If there’s an interim strategy, it remains hidden.
Even on climate change, the issue that dominated the throne speech, the government has no real plan behind the urgent words. Taylor’s budget speech talked about a $103-million environmental commitment over four years. Almost half of that goes to buy 20 hydrogen buses; the rest covers small programs.
The only funding directly linked to all those greenhouse gas targets Premier Gordon Campbell talked about is $4 million this year to fund a climate change office. It will try and figure out short-term greenhouse gas reduction goals and the actions needed to reach them. If those actions cost money, that will have to come out of the contingency funds.
It’s not a terrible budget. The province is projecting strong economic growth for the next five years and big surpluses through the next three. There’s no wild spending or cutting.
But it shows a baffling disconnect between the realities of life in B.C., as experienced by ordinary citizens, and the government’s choices.
Footnote: It’s tough to see much in this budget for what used to be called, in another time, the Heartland. The pine beetle crisis, now apparently coming even more quickly, got no mention in the main budget presentations. Much of the infrastructure money appeared concentrated in the Lower Mainland. And the cost overruns on the Vancouver convention centre, now more than $300 million over its initial $495-million budget, are cutting into capital budgets.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
B.C. takes green crown, thanks to you
VICTORIA - What do you know, this democracy thing works.
The Liberal government's discovery of climate change, and the resulting extraordinary measures promised in the throne speech, didn't happen just because the premier got a look at China's sprawling cities.
It was you. I can't recall another issue where the public has got so far out ahead of all the political parties and governments, which are now scrambling to catch up.
And Premier Gordon Campbell, a man of enthusiasms, has outscrambled them all. (Of course, the problem with men of enthusiasms is their necessarily short attention span; the next great passion is around the corner.)
Climate change didn't rate one word in the last six throne speeches; the government had no real climate-change plan, just a 2204 document outlining some general directions.
But this week, everything changed. B.C.'s ambitious new climate-change agenda make it a potential leader in North America. The throne speech acknowledged climate change is real, caused by human actions and threatens "life on Earth as we know it." Pretty big change for a government that thought the Kyoto accord was too costly to implement.
The climate-change measures would cut across most areas of our lives. The end target is a one-third reduction from current levels by 2020. A new Climate Action Team, headed by the premier, will set interim targets for 2012 and 2016.
The broad target is backed up by specific commitments. Some are small, like yet another in long history of promises to ban beehive burners.
But others are sweeping. Cars sold in the province will have to meet tough emission standards, with the change phased in starting in 2009. New zero-emission standards for coal plants effectively kill two projects planned for the Interior.
And the oil and gas industry, a major source, will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2016. That will be a challenge, even given the technological improvements of the past five or six years.
The changes reach down to the local level too. The province promises a new green building code and better transit.
But for all these big ideas, it will be the details that define success or failure, fad or commitment. A new green building code could order an extra two inches of insulation. Or it could mandate measures to cut average energy use - and emissions - by 75 per cent.
The throne speech got good marks all around, with even environmental groups usually critical of government praising the boldness of the vision.
Now we'll see if the government has the commitment to stick with the effort and deal with the inevitable objections anytime change is proposed.
Beyond the climate change measures, the throne speech was pretty thin gruel, although coming changes in education and literacy were hinted at.
The sections on health were worrying. The government continues to exaggerate - wildly - the problem posed by rising health care costs.
But the speech offered little in the way of specific measures to ease pressures on the system or deliver care more effectively.
And even though the conversation on health has barely begun, the speech suggested the government's mind might already be made up. The speech promised "fundamental health reforms that increase individual choice and maximize the supply of health services within the budgets available."
I don't know what that means. That in itself is worrying.
Sadly, it looks like we'll have to wait another year before public concern about homelessness, addictions, mental illness and street problems forces the politicians to play catch up again.
The speech called homelessness "a plague that weakens our cities, siphons our strength, and erodes our social fabric."
But it didn't reveal any serious plan to address the issues, just tinkering around the edges with small but useful measures like municipal zoning changes.
Which means things will grow worse - and probably be at the centre of next year's throne speech.
Footnote: Education got a fair amount of attention in the throne speech, although a lot of the proposals were vague. The government is going to amend the law to let school boards charge user fees for music, shop and sports academies, a backward step. And it looks like a bigger push on literacy, school readiness and greater experimentation in schools is coming.
The Liberal government's discovery of climate change, and the resulting extraordinary measures promised in the throne speech, didn't happen just because the premier got a look at China's sprawling cities.
It was you. I can't recall another issue where the public has got so far out ahead of all the political parties and governments, which are now scrambling to catch up.
And Premier Gordon Campbell, a man of enthusiasms, has outscrambled them all. (Of course, the problem with men of enthusiasms is their necessarily short attention span; the next great passion is around the corner.)
Climate change didn't rate one word in the last six throne speeches; the government had no real climate-change plan, just a 2204 document outlining some general directions.
But this week, everything changed. B.C.'s ambitious new climate-change agenda make it a potential leader in North America. The throne speech acknowledged climate change is real, caused by human actions and threatens "life on Earth as we know it." Pretty big change for a government that thought the Kyoto accord was too costly to implement.
The climate-change measures would cut across most areas of our lives. The end target is a one-third reduction from current levels by 2020. A new Climate Action Team, headed by the premier, will set interim targets for 2012 and 2016.
The broad target is backed up by specific commitments. Some are small, like yet another in long history of promises to ban beehive burners.
But others are sweeping. Cars sold in the province will have to meet tough emission standards, with the change phased in starting in 2009. New zero-emission standards for coal plants effectively kill two projects planned for the Interior.
And the oil and gas industry, a major source, will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2016. That will be a challenge, even given the technological improvements of the past five or six years.
The changes reach down to the local level too. The province promises a new green building code and better transit.
But for all these big ideas, it will be the details that define success or failure, fad or commitment. A new green building code could order an extra two inches of insulation. Or it could mandate measures to cut average energy use - and emissions - by 75 per cent.
The throne speech got good marks all around, with even environmental groups usually critical of government praising the boldness of the vision.
Now we'll see if the government has the commitment to stick with the effort and deal with the inevitable objections anytime change is proposed.
Beyond the climate change measures, the throne speech was pretty thin gruel, although coming changes in education and literacy were hinted at.
The sections on health were worrying. The government continues to exaggerate - wildly - the problem posed by rising health care costs.
But the speech offered little in the way of specific measures to ease pressures on the system or deliver care more effectively.
And even though the conversation on health has barely begun, the speech suggested the government's mind might already be made up. The speech promised "fundamental health reforms that increase individual choice and maximize the supply of health services within the budgets available."
I don't know what that means. That in itself is worrying.
Sadly, it looks like we'll have to wait another year before public concern about homelessness, addictions, mental illness and street problems forces the politicians to play catch up again.
The speech called homelessness "a plague that weakens our cities, siphons our strength, and erodes our social fabric."
But it didn't reveal any serious plan to address the issues, just tinkering around the edges with small but useful measures like municipal zoning changes.
Which means things will grow worse - and probably be at the centre of next year's throne speech.
Footnote: Education got a fair amount of attention in the throne speech, although a lot of the proposals were vague. The government is going to amend the law to let school boards charge user fees for music, shop and sports academies, a backward step. And it looks like a bigger push on literacy, school readiness and greater experimentation in schools is coming.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Liberals face questions over health letter secrecy
VICTORIA - You can tell a lot about what's wrong in government by the clumsy attempts to censor Fraser Health Authority chairman Keith Purchase's resignation letter.
It's not that there was anything unusual about the attempts to keep the facts hidden. In fact, the point is that secrecy has become the norm, the default position in government.
Which is particularly ironic, in a nasty way, because the Liberals promised to run the most open and transparent government in Canada. If they are, Lord help people who live in the other provinces.
It's also telling that the government's attempt to keep Purchase's letter secret come as it launches a conversation on health. It's like sitting down to talk about how school is going with your son, without him mentioning that he's got a report card with four 'Fs' in his back pocket.
Purchase resigned Jan. 25, out of frustration with inadequate funding for the health authority and Health Minister George Abbott's rough firing of Vancouver Coastal chairman Trevor Johnstone.
To be fair, Abbott acknowledged those were the reasons at the time. But he didn't release the letter of resignation, saying it would have to be reviewed under under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
That took a remarkable 11 days, just to vet a brief letter. No wonder the government routinely breaks the law by failing to respond to information requests within legal deadlines.
When the government did release Purchase's letter of resignation, the government had whited out several sections. No one was supposed to know what Purchase wrote to the minister in those sentences.
But Vaughn Palmer, the superb Vancouver Sun columnist, got the original, uncensored version of the letter. The cuts, Palmer noted, were a "pathetic" attempt to conceal damaging information.
It's a good description, when you consider the sections the government tried to hide.
Purchase noted in his letter to Abbott that the health authority board had already written two letters of concern about inadequate funding for the coming year. He was specific about whjay lay ahead. "Based on that funding information, bed closures and service cuts would be inevitable," he wrote.
The government censored that information in the version of the letter it released.
Purchase warned in the letter that the problems were already hitting the region. "Put simply, we have a crisis situation in the Fraser Health region," he wrote.
The government censored that sentence.
And Purchase explained in the letter why he couldn't sign letters accepting the budget and saying it was adequate to allow care to the standards the government expected.
"I cannot sign this budget or the government's letter of expectation, when I know that Fraser Health will be unable to meet any of your goals with the resources allocated to us," he told Abbott.
The government censored that sentence too.
It's a cover-up. What's the government's justification? It cites sections of freedom of in formation legislation that allow it to invoke secrecy for "policy advice or recommendations developed by a public body or for a minister" and information that could be "harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body."
First, a resignation letter is not policy advice developed by a public body.
But there's a bigger problem with the government's position.
The law doesn't say the government must keep the information secret. It simply says the government may choose to do so.
An open and transparent government would look at the law and the letter and release it. There's no privacy or public policy reason for secrecy. No reason at all, except to protect the minister and the government from embarrassment.
The case is no one-off example of unwarranted secrecy. The government routinely turned freedom of information law inside out. If the law says information may be kept secret, government acts as if it must be kept secret.
Open and transparent? Not even close.
Footnote: Expect the health authority resignations and firings to be high on the NDP's list of question-period topics now that the legislature has resumed sitting after the long break forced by the Liberals. They're likely also to focus on funding problems in the Vancouver Island, Northern and Interior health regions, where board members have so far made no waves.
It's not that there was anything unusual about the attempts to keep the facts hidden. In fact, the point is that secrecy has become the norm, the default position in government.
Which is particularly ironic, in a nasty way, because the Liberals promised to run the most open and transparent government in Canada. If they are, Lord help people who live in the other provinces.
It's also telling that the government's attempt to keep Purchase's letter secret come as it launches a conversation on health. It's like sitting down to talk about how school is going with your son, without him mentioning that he's got a report card with four 'Fs' in his back pocket.
Purchase resigned Jan. 25, out of frustration with inadequate funding for the health authority and Health Minister George Abbott's rough firing of Vancouver Coastal chairman Trevor Johnstone.
To be fair, Abbott acknowledged those were the reasons at the time. But he didn't release the letter of resignation, saying it would have to be reviewed under under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
That took a remarkable 11 days, just to vet a brief letter. No wonder the government routinely breaks the law by failing to respond to information requests within legal deadlines.
When the government did release Purchase's letter of resignation, the government had whited out several sections. No one was supposed to know what Purchase wrote to the minister in those sentences.
But Vaughn Palmer, the superb Vancouver Sun columnist, got the original, uncensored version of the letter. The cuts, Palmer noted, were a "pathetic" attempt to conceal damaging information.
It's a good description, when you consider the sections the government tried to hide.
Purchase noted in his letter to Abbott that the health authority board had already written two letters of concern about inadequate funding for the coming year. He was specific about whjay lay ahead. "Based on that funding information, bed closures and service cuts would be inevitable," he wrote.
The government censored that information in the version of the letter it released.
Purchase warned in the letter that the problems were already hitting the region. "Put simply, we have a crisis situation in the Fraser Health region," he wrote.
The government censored that sentence.
And Purchase explained in the letter why he couldn't sign letters accepting the budget and saying it was adequate to allow care to the standards the government expected.
"I cannot sign this budget or the government's letter of expectation, when I know that Fraser Health will be unable to meet any of your goals with the resources allocated to us," he told Abbott.
The government censored that sentence too.
It's a cover-up. What's the government's justification? It cites sections of freedom of in formation legislation that allow it to invoke secrecy for "policy advice or recommendations developed by a public body or for a minister" and information that could be "harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body."
First, a resignation letter is not policy advice developed by a public body.
But there's a bigger problem with the government's position.
The law doesn't say the government must keep the information secret. It simply says the government may choose to do so.
An open and transparent government would look at the law and the letter and release it. There's no privacy or public policy reason for secrecy. No reason at all, except to protect the minister and the government from embarrassment.
The case is no one-off example of unwarranted secrecy. The government routinely turned freedom of information law inside out. If the law says information may be kept secret, government acts as if it must be kept secret.
Open and transparent? Not even close.
Footnote: Expect the health authority resignations and firings to be high on the NDP's list of question-period topics now that the legislature has resumed sitting after the long break forced by the Liberals. They're likely also to focus on funding problems in the Vancouver Island, Northern and Interior health regions, where board members have so far made no waves.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Bennett another victim of the B.C. political disease
Bill Bennett’s fall from grace — or at least cabinet — is partly just a story of bad judgment and bad behaviour.
Bennett is the MLA for East Kootenay and, until this week, was the junior minister for mines. He resigned from cabinet after a constituent went public with a dumb, abusive and offensive e-mail that he’d received from Bennett.
But this isn’t just about Bennett’s lousy manners. The whole exchange highlights a persistent sickness in B.C..
We don’t really talk about policies or how to respond to problems in this province.
We just choose up sides and flail away at each other, like bike gangs or British soccer hooligans. If you’re on a team, you’re expected to support every policy and from your leader and denounce every idea from the other side.
You can’t decide, for example, that the Liberals have a pretty good ideas on encouraging the oil and gas industry, while.the NDP has a better approach to support for children and families.
And you certainly can’t assume that people in both parties are just trying to follow the path they think will lead to a better life for people in the province. The other side have to be seen as the enemies, evil conspirators out to destroy the economy (the Liberals’ view of the NDP) or reward the rich while pushing most of us into poverty and despair (the New Democrats’ view of the Liberals).
Not everyone is so foolish, of course. And in fact, the political leaders have mostly been better behaved since the last election.
But our political life is still dominated by those who trapped in the friends and enemies mindset. Look at the e-mail exchange that led to Bennett’s downfall.
The issue, hunting regulations, isn’t really left-right.
Recreational hunters in Bennett’s riding thought rule changes planned by the Environment Ministry would give commercial guides a larger share of the animals to be killed at their expense.
Bennett is a hunter and was mostly on their side. He said he was in his hotel room, when he thought he should have been downstairs at a mining conference, preparing for a meeting on the issue with Environment Minister Barry Penner.
And in the file was a two-month-old e-mail from a constituent.
Maarten Hart, president of the Fernie Rod and Gun Club, argued commercial guides were getting too large a share. But in the best B.C. fashion, Hart tossed in a pointless insult. “I know that your government bows to the almighty dollar and faces east three times each day (not to Mecca, but to Wall Street),” Hart wrote, an approach hardly likely to win an ally.
Bennett topped him. “It is my understanding that you are an American, so I don't give a shit what your opinion is,” he wrote. Hart was “fool,” maybe an U.S. spy aiming to block coal mines and “a self-inflated, pompous, American know-it-all.”
Obviously, wretched behaviour.
But not so wildly out of character, for Bennett or B.C. People who disagree with our politicians find themselves often considered opponents or enemies, instead of just citizens with a different - and perhaps useful - perspective.
So for Glen Clark, back in his early days as premier, the environmentalists who criticized forest policy weren’t just people with a different policy idea — they were “enemies of B.C.”
Gordon Campbell carried on the tradition in his early days as premier, dismissing people who rallied outside a party convention to express concern about government policies as both stupid and representatives of special interests.
And Bennett had a hard time accepting the fact that people upset about health-care in his riding, for example, had sincere concerns, and might even be right.
Bennett, who had a lot of strengths as an MLA, including a determination to do what was best for his constituents, is the big loser in this case.
But all British Columbians are damaged by our inability to move beyond blind and destructive partisanship.
Footnote: Bennett was named to cabinet after the 2005 election, when he was the sole Liberal survivor in the province’s southeast. His departure comes as health care continues to be an issue and the region faces important debates about expanded coal mining, wildlife conservation issues and the giant Jumbo Glacier Resort ski development.
Bennett is the MLA for East Kootenay and, until this week, was the junior minister for mines. He resigned from cabinet after a constituent went public with a dumb, abusive and offensive e-mail that he’d received from Bennett.
But this isn’t just about Bennett’s lousy manners. The whole exchange highlights a persistent sickness in B.C..
We don’t really talk about policies or how to respond to problems in this province.
We just choose up sides and flail away at each other, like bike gangs or British soccer hooligans. If you’re on a team, you’re expected to support every policy and from your leader and denounce every idea from the other side.
You can’t decide, for example, that the Liberals have a pretty good ideas on encouraging the oil and gas industry, while.the NDP has a better approach to support for children and families.
And you certainly can’t assume that people in both parties are just trying to follow the path they think will lead to a better life for people in the province. The other side have to be seen as the enemies, evil conspirators out to destroy the economy (the Liberals’ view of the NDP) or reward the rich while pushing most of us into poverty and despair (the New Democrats’ view of the Liberals).
Not everyone is so foolish, of course. And in fact, the political leaders have mostly been better behaved since the last election.
But our political life is still dominated by those who trapped in the friends and enemies mindset. Look at the e-mail exchange that led to Bennett’s downfall.
The issue, hunting regulations, isn’t really left-right.
Recreational hunters in Bennett’s riding thought rule changes planned by the Environment Ministry would give commercial guides a larger share of the animals to be killed at their expense.
Bennett is a hunter and was mostly on their side. He said he was in his hotel room, when he thought he should have been downstairs at a mining conference, preparing for a meeting on the issue with Environment Minister Barry Penner.
And in the file was a two-month-old e-mail from a constituent.
Maarten Hart, president of the Fernie Rod and Gun Club, argued commercial guides were getting too large a share. But in the best B.C. fashion, Hart tossed in a pointless insult. “I know that your government bows to the almighty dollar and faces east three times each day (not to Mecca, but to Wall Street),” Hart wrote, an approach hardly likely to win an ally.
Bennett topped him. “It is my understanding that you are an American, so I don't give a shit what your opinion is,” he wrote. Hart was “fool,” maybe an U.S. spy aiming to block coal mines and “a self-inflated, pompous, American know-it-all.”
Obviously, wretched behaviour.
But not so wildly out of character, for Bennett or B.C. People who disagree with our politicians find themselves often considered opponents or enemies, instead of just citizens with a different - and perhaps useful - perspective.
So for Glen Clark, back in his early days as premier, the environmentalists who criticized forest policy weren’t just people with a different policy idea — they were “enemies of B.C.”
Gordon Campbell carried on the tradition in his early days as premier, dismissing people who rallied outside a party convention to express concern about government policies as both stupid and representatives of special interests.
And Bennett had a hard time accepting the fact that people upset about health-care in his riding, for example, had sincere concerns, and might even be right.
Bennett, who had a lot of strengths as an MLA, including a determination to do what was best for his constituents, is the big loser in this case.
But all British Columbians are damaged by our inability to move beyond blind and destructive partisanship.
Footnote: Bennett was named to cabinet after the 2005 election, when he was the sole Liberal survivor in the province’s southeast. His departure comes as health care continues to be an issue and the region faces important debates about expanded coal mining, wildlife conservation issues and the giant Jumbo Glacier Resort ski development.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Liberals face tricky climate-change test
Now things get interesting on climate change. Not just politically, though that’s going to be fascinating.
No, it’s also about us. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was decisive. Global warming is under way, we’re the cause and the results could be very nasty within 100 years.
Now we find out much we care about our great-grandkids, or even strangers who will be walking these streets as the next century starts.
It’s hard to predict what we’ll do. We’re not much focused on thinking long term. Governments look to the next election; businesses to the next quarter; a lot of us just want to get through the week.
We can decide it’s not worth the cost or inconvenience of changing what we do now, or perhaps rationalize that technology will advance fast enough to solve the problems we create. And there’s always the argument that unless China’s emissions are curbed, what’s the point? (Though China’s per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are about one-quarter of Canada’s.)
But we can’t ignore the facts. The panel report comes from a huge pool of international scientists. They believe it is a 90-per-cent certainty that humans are causing global warming. Temperatures will rise 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, they predict, and sea levels from 18 to 60 centimetres. Life on Earth will be more difficult for billions.
This is not one of those “someone should do something issues.” Everyone can make a difference — or not.
A family with two cars - one large and one medium-sized - driven a total 2,500 kms a month produces about 8,700 kilograms of CO2 a year.
Trade the big car in for a small one and walk and bike more so travel is cut by one-third, and the family only produces 5,000 kgs. Use a clothesline, not a dryer; turn off the computer when you’re not browsing; buy less new stuff. They all make a difference.
Between 25 and 30 per cent of Canadian greenhouse-gas emissions are the result of individuals’ direct actions. Individual efforts make a difference.
But no matter how much - or little - people are prepared to do personally, all the polls suggest they expect governments to take real action.
So, in a relative flash, Stephen Harper goes from a guy who doubts climate change and thinks the Kyoto accord is a socialist plot to a sort-of convert. Stéphane Dion forgets his record of inaction and practically glows, he’s become so green.
Provincially, the New Democrats were the first off the mark after the scientific panel’s report.
Leader Carole James sees a wedge issue, as they call them, a chance to show a clear divide between the positions of the two parties. (The New Democrats had no position, so they had lots of flexibility.)
The result is some relatively tough proposals. The NDP wants a freeze on greenhouse gas emissions in B.C., with reduction targets set after a legislative committee looks at the issue.
The party wants more tax breaks for fuel-efficient vehicles, more money for public transit and a mix of incentives and regulations to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The New Democrats also want a portion of energy revenues to go into a heritage fund, to be used in part to support efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
And the NDP wants a ban on coal-fired power plants in B.C.
The Liberals can likely agree on many of those measures. We’ll find out in the Throne Speech Tuesday.
But two will give them pause.
The Campbell government has so far set no target for greenhouse emissions and is likely to consider a cap on emission growth too tough to achieve.
And the government has supported plans for two new coal-power plants, a major source of greenhouse gases.
The New Democrats have dumped the climate-change issue into the Liberals’ laps.
Within the next week the government is going to have to come up with a credible plan of its own.
Footnote: B.C. does have a two-year-old climate-change plan, which you can check out at www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/. But there are almost no measurable targets and an awful lot of talk about consulting and encouraging and enhancing, rather than doing. It’s the kind of plan that in the business world would be bounced back as too vague to be useful.
No, it’s also about us. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was decisive. Global warming is under way, we’re the cause and the results could be very nasty within 100 years.
Now we find out much we care about our great-grandkids, or even strangers who will be walking these streets as the next century starts.
It’s hard to predict what we’ll do. We’re not much focused on thinking long term. Governments look to the next election; businesses to the next quarter; a lot of us just want to get through the week.
We can decide it’s not worth the cost or inconvenience of changing what we do now, or perhaps rationalize that technology will advance fast enough to solve the problems we create. And there’s always the argument that unless China’s emissions are curbed, what’s the point? (Though China’s per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are about one-quarter of Canada’s.)
But we can’t ignore the facts. The panel report comes from a huge pool of international scientists. They believe it is a 90-per-cent certainty that humans are causing global warming. Temperatures will rise 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, they predict, and sea levels from 18 to 60 centimetres. Life on Earth will be more difficult for billions.
This is not one of those “someone should do something issues.” Everyone can make a difference — or not.
A family with two cars - one large and one medium-sized - driven a total 2,500 kms a month produces about 8,700 kilograms of CO2 a year.
Trade the big car in for a small one and walk and bike more so travel is cut by one-third, and the family only produces 5,000 kgs. Use a clothesline, not a dryer; turn off the computer when you’re not browsing; buy less new stuff. They all make a difference.
Between 25 and 30 per cent of Canadian greenhouse-gas emissions are the result of individuals’ direct actions. Individual efforts make a difference.
But no matter how much - or little - people are prepared to do personally, all the polls suggest they expect governments to take real action.
So, in a relative flash, Stephen Harper goes from a guy who doubts climate change and thinks the Kyoto accord is a socialist plot to a sort-of convert. Stéphane Dion forgets his record of inaction and practically glows, he’s become so green.
Provincially, the New Democrats were the first off the mark after the scientific panel’s report.
Leader Carole James sees a wedge issue, as they call them, a chance to show a clear divide between the positions of the two parties. (The New Democrats had no position, so they had lots of flexibility.)
The result is some relatively tough proposals. The NDP wants a freeze on greenhouse gas emissions in B.C., with reduction targets set after a legislative committee looks at the issue.
The party wants more tax breaks for fuel-efficient vehicles, more money for public transit and a mix of incentives and regulations to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The New Democrats also want a portion of energy revenues to go into a heritage fund, to be used in part to support efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
And the NDP wants a ban on coal-fired power plants in B.C.
The Liberals can likely agree on many of those measures. We’ll find out in the Throne Speech Tuesday.
But two will give them pause.
The Campbell government has so far set no target for greenhouse emissions and is likely to consider a cap on emission growth too tough to achieve.
And the government has supported plans for two new coal-power plants, a major source of greenhouse gases.
The New Democrats have dumped the climate-change issue into the Liberals’ laps.
Within the next week the government is going to have to come up with a credible plan of its own.
Footnote: B.C. does have a two-year-old climate-change plan, which you can check out at www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/. But there are almost no measurable targets and an awful lot of talk about consulting and encouraging and enhancing, rather than doing. It’s the kind of plan that in the business world would be bounced back as too vague to be useful.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
If politicians get income review, why not people on welfare
The latest effort to come up with raises for B.C. politicians is a big step forward over the last debacle, but still falls short of an ideal process.
And it raises some good questions about why MLAs and cabinet ministers think its important that their pay be regularly reviewed, but somehow don't believe a disabled person who relies on government assistance deserves the same consideration. Of course anything would be better than the last sneaky attempt - backed by both parties - that would have given MLAs a 15-per-cent pay raise and total compensation increases worth up to 50 per cent. In case you've forgotten - and the politicians are sure hoping you have - that was in 2005, after the election. They planned the raises behind closed doors and then, using a special rule, rushed them through the legislature in one hour. Such debates usually require three days, so the public has a chance to go, what a minute, what's going on here.
In this case, the public went crazy anyway. NDP leader Carole James reneged on the secret deal and the raise issue went away. This time Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a more responsible approach. A three-person panel has 90 days to review compensation and pension plans and make recommendations.
No real argument there. MLAs earn a base pay of $76,100, with extra money for heading committees or being cabinet or caucus appointments. Cabinet ministers get $115,100; the premier $121,100. There's a living allowance when they're in Victoria and a contribution to an RRSP in lieu of a pension plan. The RRSP contribution is nine per cent of base pay, or about $6,850.
It's not huge money. The work can be hard, MLAs are away from home, they're sacrificing peak years for advancing their own careers and they can be turfed every four years. For many, they're giving up serious money by seeking election.
But it's also not shabby. The base pay is still twice the average wage in B.C. It's about 4.5 times the income of someone working for minimum wage. And it's more than four times the income the government considers necessary for a disabled person, unable to work, and trying to raise a young child.
The panel is a qualified group, chaired by a senior lawyer who specializes in helping employers with labour issues. The other two members are a former B.C. Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British Columbia business professor.
Great expertise. But also a skewed perspective. All three earn more than the premier today; the two lawyers likely take in twice as much. All three would be paid more than 95 per cent of British Columbians.
Given human nature, their views on a reasonable wage will be affected by the fact that they consider their own compensation quite fair.
The panel plans to give the public a chance to make submissions.
But it would have been wiser to include members with a different perspective - someone earning an average wage, living in Trail or Prince George. After all, we elect those kinds of people as MLAs and expect them to make other important decisions.
The whole exercise raises some other pretty good questions.
The government's news release said that MLAs and cabinet ministers hadn't received any "significant increases" since a 1997 review. But their pay is indexed, in a modest way, and recent increases have averaged about 1.1 per cent a year.
Not much. But more than people on minimum wage or most welfare recipients have seen during the same period.
If it's important to examine the compensation for politicians, to keep it current and make sure it's reasonable, what about others, like people on welfare?
Certainly the government looks at those issues. But it's managing a tangle of interests, some of them conflicting.
Why not give the panel another 60 days and ask for recommendations on those rates as well? If it 's important to get compensation right for 79 MLAs, surely it's just as important to take an independent look at the money being provided to some 70,000 disabled British Columbians dependent on income assistance.
And it raises some good questions about why MLAs and cabinet ministers think its important that their pay be regularly reviewed, but somehow don't believe a disabled person who relies on government assistance deserves the same consideration. Of course anything would be better than the last sneaky attempt - backed by both parties - that would have given MLAs a 15-per-cent pay raise and total compensation increases worth up to 50 per cent. In case you've forgotten - and the politicians are sure hoping you have - that was in 2005, after the election. They planned the raises behind closed doors and then, using a special rule, rushed them through the legislature in one hour. Such debates usually require three days, so the public has a chance to go, what a minute, what's going on here.
In this case, the public went crazy anyway. NDP leader Carole James reneged on the secret deal and the raise issue went away. This time Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a more responsible approach. A three-person panel has 90 days to review compensation and pension plans and make recommendations.
No real argument there. MLAs earn a base pay of $76,100, with extra money for heading committees or being cabinet or caucus appointments. Cabinet ministers get $115,100; the premier $121,100. There's a living allowance when they're in Victoria and a contribution to an RRSP in lieu of a pension plan. The RRSP contribution is nine per cent of base pay, or about $6,850.
It's not huge money. The work can be hard, MLAs are away from home, they're sacrificing peak years for advancing their own careers and they can be turfed every four years. For many, they're giving up serious money by seeking election.
But it's also not shabby. The base pay is still twice the average wage in B.C. It's about 4.5 times the income of someone working for minimum wage. And it's more than four times the income the government considers necessary for a disabled person, unable to work, and trying to raise a young child.
The panel is a qualified group, chaired by a senior lawyer who specializes in helping employers with labour issues. The other two members are a former B.C. Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British Columbia business professor.
Great expertise. But also a skewed perspective. All three earn more than the premier today; the two lawyers likely take in twice as much. All three would be paid more than 95 per cent of British Columbians.
Given human nature, their views on a reasonable wage will be affected by the fact that they consider their own compensation quite fair.
The panel plans to give the public a chance to make submissions.
But it would have been wiser to include members with a different perspective - someone earning an average wage, living in Trail or Prince George. After all, we elect those kinds of people as MLAs and expect them to make other important decisions.
The whole exercise raises some other pretty good questions.
The government's news release said that MLAs and cabinet ministers hadn't received any "significant increases" since a 1997 review. But their pay is indexed, in a modest way, and recent increases have averaged about 1.1 per cent a year.
Not much. But more than people on minimum wage or most welfare recipients have seen during the same period.
If it's important to examine the compensation for politicians, to keep it current and make sure it's reasonable, what about others, like people on welfare?
Certainly the government looks at those issues. But it's managing a tangle of interests, some of them conflicting.
Why not give the panel another 60 days and ask for recommendations on those rates as well? If it 's important to get compensation right for 79 MLAs, surely it's just as important to take an independent look at the money being provided to some 70,000 disabled British Columbians dependent on income assistance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
