Tuesday, September 03, 2002
Recall plans fading as reality sinks in
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Recall is looking more and more like one of those ships that sink before they leave the dock.
There are some enthusiastic backers out there, anxious to send a message to the Liberals, and some ridings where work is already under way.
But the key individuals and organizations needed to make recall work - NDP supporters and unions - are backing away from the whole idea.
Recall doesn't come cheap. The people who launched the first recall effort against former NDP finance minister Paul Ramsey spent more than $35,000 on the campaign; his defenders spent about the same. Even a half-a-dozen serious efforts would cost around $250,000.
That's a big sum to raise, especially with no organization ready to foot the bills or take over the fund-raising. The union movement doesn't have the money and isn't convinced it would be well-spent. And New Democrats fear that donations to recall campaigns will take away from the party's own fund-raising efforts. (Donors are already going to be facing plenty of pleas, with a federal election likely in late 2004 and a provincial vote in May 2005.)
That's not the New Democrats' only concern.
Many party members never did like the recall legislation. Former cabinet minister Corky Evans spoke for them this month when he wrote his hometown Nelson Daily News and argued against a recall effort aimed at Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine.
Recall is an "abomination," Evans said. "No individual, including our MLA, deserves that kind of character assassination in the guise of democratic activity." If an MLA does a poor job, voters can toss him out at the next election, Mr. Evans argues.
There are plenty of pragmatic concerns too.
To recall an MLA and force a byelection campaigners have to get signatures from 40 per cent of the eligible voters from the last election. That's 11,700 names in Suffredine's riding, more than half the people who actually voted last year, all to be gathered in 60 days. That's a huge challenge.
And if recall fails - the most likely outcome - some Liberal opponents worry the campaigners will have spent enthusiasm better saved until the general election.
NDP supporters see one major benefit to successful recall bids (although the party pledges to stay firmly on the sidelines). Two successful campaigns, followed by NDP byelection wins, would bring the party up to four seats, enough to guarantee official opposition status. That would mean an extra $150,000 a year for the caucus, allowing them to hire badly needed staff. And the new MLAs - especially ones without ties to the old government - would help share the daunting workload.
But before any of that can happen, not only does recall have to succeed but the NDP has to win the resulting byelections, and that's far from certain.
The Liberals could well retain the seats, given their popularity, people's discomfort with recall and the likelihood of a vote split on the left. An independent candidate could win, or even a high-profile Green Party candidate (likely the NDP's worst nightmare).
Add the negatives up, and recall looks like a dubious enterprise.
Recall bids can be launched 18 months after an election, meaning campaigns could start in November. But municipal elections are coming, preoccupying many activists, and then we're into holidays and winter. A realistic date is next spring - barely two years before the next election.
Some efforts will likely go ahead, with the ones driven by strong local issues likely to come closest to success. Suffredine is a potential target for Nelson residents angry about health care cuts; Val Roddick may draw fire from Delta voters angry about threats to hospital services; Jeff Bray, who barely won in Victoria-Beacon Hill, faces criticism over public service job cuts.
But it's unlikely that many serious campaigns will be launched, or that any will succeed.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Clark earned his trial, and his acquittal - let's move on
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Glen Clark isn't a criminal. He was still a bad premier.
I'm pleased Clark wasn't convicted. He had his faults as premier, but I wouldn't have pegged him as someone interested in personal financial gain.
Poor judgment, sloppiness, questionable honesty in dealing with the public, self-delusion - it's hard not to see all those things in Glen Clark after reading the court judgment, and after watching him in action. But something so petty as greed? I don't think so.
There seems to be some rush to find a moral in this saga, something beyond Virgil's "beware of Greeks bearing gifts."
But strip away all the hype, and you've got suspect behaviour and sufficient evidence to justify charges and a trial - according to the judge - and an acquittal based on the evidence. No Liberal-RCMP-media conspiracies or criminal-NDP conspiracies or unexplained forces conspiracies. Just a premier with bad judgment, a government desperate for some gambling money and some small-time operators sniffing out a big score.
Clark comes out looking fairly dismal. His most trusted aide thought it was OK to create a phoney memo covering his tracks; Clark misled the public about his friendship with Dimitrios Pilarinos and about the renovations. (Clark always talked about the deck added on his house, when really Pilarinos also added a dormer, installed a gas fireplace, moved a window, replaced the roof and put in new floors and closets. People who aren't ashamed don't mislead you about things like that.) And he stuck gambling minister Mike Farnworth in a wretched position.
But he's not guilty, a finding which should allow him to move into the next stage in his life.
Conspiracy buffs should move on to their next issue too. Supreme Court Justice Justice Elizabeth Bennett was clear that the charges were justified, based on the evidence. Defence attacks on the integrity of RCMP Staff Sergeant Peter Montague, a potential Liberal candidate, were bogus and offensive, she said. This trial wasn't about left versus right, or Liberals versus New Democrats. It was about whether laws were broken.
Clark seemed to realize that from the day the RCMP searched his home, quickly taking on the role of criminal defendant. Consider his first public statement about Pilarinos, after the search of his home "He is a neighbour of mine. We see each other occasionally, our children attend the same school and they play together." No mention of frequent meetings and phone calls, or time at the cottage. Not dishonest, but far from candid.
"As a result, I gave explicit instructions to my staff last summer to ensure that I was insulated from the decision-making process for this licence application," Clark went on. "I am sharing with you a copy of the memorandum to file prepared by my staff confirming this fact.'' Except the memorandum was a fake, written months after the fact and filed with a phoney date.
What's the ultimate lesson? Bad judgment manifests itself in a wide and disturbing variety of ways.
What's the long-term significance? Not much.
NDP leader Joy MacPhail was invited in several interviews to blame Clark's legal problems for her party's thumping defeat. To her credit, she said the bigger problems were the voters' belief that the New Democrats were "dishonest, fiscally irresponsible and not good managers."
Consider it another bizarre, embarrassing and ultimately irrelevant episode in B.C. politics.
And then let it slide. Clark can make his own way in the world, taxpayers can write the cheques, the lawyers can find new clients, and we can quit worrying about this sideshow.
The system, in its lumbering way, worked. Serious charges, against the powerful, were taken to the justice system. The court heard the evidence and ruled in a way that seemed pretty fair.
And that, out of this whole sordid affair, is something to celebrate.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Recall plans fading as reality sinks in
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Recall is looking more and more like one of those ships that sink before they leave the dock.
There are some enthusiastic backers out there, anxious to send a message to the Liberals, and some ridings where work is already under way.
But the key individuals and organizations needed to make recall work - NDP supporters and unions - are backing away from the whole idea.
Recall doesn't come cheap. The people who launched the first recall effort against former NDP finance minister Paul Ramsey spent more than $35,000 on the campaign; his defenders spent about the same. Even a half-a-dozen serious efforts would cost around $250,000.
That's a big sum to raise, especially with no organization ready to foot the bills or take over the fund-raising. The union movement doesn't have the money and isn't convinced it would be well-spent. And New Democrats fear that donations to recall campaigns wil take away from the party's own fund-raising efforts. (Donors are already going to be facing plenty of pleas, with a federal election likely in late 2004 and a provincial vote in May 2005.)
That's not the New Democrats' only concern.
Many party members never did like the recall legislation. Former cabinet minister Corky Evans spoke for them this month when he wrote his hometown Nelson Daily News and argued against a recall effort aimed at Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine.
Recall is an "abomination," Evans said. "No individual, including our MLA, deserves that kind of character assassination in the guise of democratic activity." If an MLA does a poor job, voters can toss him out at the next election, Mr. Evans argues.
There are plenty of pragmatic concerns too.
To recall an MLA and force a byelection campaigners have to get signatures from 40 per cent of the eligible voters from the last election. That's 11,700 names in Suffredine's riding, more than half the people who actually voted last year, all to be gathered in 60 days. That's a huge challenge.
And if recall fails - the most likely outcome - some Liberal opponents worry the campaigners will have spent enthusiasm better saved until the general election.
NDP supporters see one major benefit to successful recall bids (although the party pledges to stay firmly on the sidelines). Two successful campaigns, followed by NDP byelection wins, would bring the party up to four seats, enough to guarantee official opposition status. That would mean an extra $150,000 a year for the caucus, allowing them to hire badly needed staff. And the new MLAs - especially ones without ties to the old government - would help share the daunting workload.
But before any of that can happen, not only does recall have to succeed but the NDP has to win the resulting byelections, and that's far from certain.
The Liberals could well retain the seats, given their popularity, people's discomfort with recall and the likelihood of a vote split on the left. An independent candidate could win, or even a high-profile Green Party candidate (likely the NDP's worst nightmare).
Add the negatives up, and recall looks like a dubious enterprise.
Recall bids can be launched 18 months after an election, meaning campaigns could start in November. But municipal elections are coming, preoccupying many activists, and then we're into holidays and winter. A realistic date is next spring - barely two years before the next election.
Some efforts will likely go ahead, with the ones driven by strong local issues likely to come closest to success. Suffredine is a potential target for Nelson residents angry about health care cuts; Val Roddick may draw fire from Delta voters angry about threats to hospital services; Jeff Bray, who barely won in Victoria-Beacon Hill, faces criticism over public service job cuts.
But it's unlikely that many serious campaigns will be launched, or that any will succeed.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Recall is looking more and more like one of those ships that sink before they leave the dock.
There are some enthusiastic backers out there, anxious to send a message to the Liberals, and some ridings where work is already under way.
But the key individuals and organizations needed to make recall work - NDP supporters and unions - are backing away from the whole idea.
Recall doesn't come cheap. The people who launched the first recall effort against former NDP finance minister Paul Ramsey spent more than $35,000 on the campaign; his defenders spent about the same. Even a half-a-dozen serious efforts would cost around $250,000.
That's a big sum to raise, especially with no organization ready to foot the bills or take over the fund-raising. The union movement doesn't have the money and isn't convinced it would be well-spent. And New Democrats fear that donations to recall campaigns wil take away from the party's own fund-raising efforts. (Donors are already going to be facing plenty of pleas, with a federal election likely in late 2004 and a provincial vote in May 2005.)
That's not the New Democrats' only concern.
Many party members never did like the recall legislation. Former cabinet minister Corky Evans spoke for them this month when he wrote his hometown Nelson Daily News and argued against a recall effort aimed at Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine.
Recall is an "abomination," Evans said. "No individual, including our MLA, deserves that kind of character assassination in the guise of democratic activity." If an MLA does a poor job, voters can toss him out at the next election, Mr. Evans argues.
There are plenty of pragmatic concerns too.
To recall an MLA and force a byelection campaigners have to get signatures from 40 per cent of the eligible voters from the last election. That's 11,700 names in Suffredine's riding, more than half the people who actually voted last year, all to be gathered in 60 days. That's a huge challenge.
And if recall fails - the most likely outcome - some Liberal opponents worry the campaigners will have spent enthusiasm better saved until the general election.
NDP supporters see one major benefit to successful recall bids (although the party pledges to stay firmly on the sidelines). Two successful campaigns, followed by NDP byelection wins, would bring the party up to four seats, enough to guarantee official opposition status. That would mean an extra $150,000 a year for the caucus, allowing them to hire badly needed staff. And the new MLAs - especially ones without ties to the old government - would help share the daunting workload.
But before any of that can happen, not only does recall have to succeed but the NDP has to win the resulting byelections, and that's far from certain.
The Liberals could well retain the seats, given their popularity, people's discomfort with recall and the likelihood of a vote split on the left. An independent candidate could win, or even a high-profile Green Party candidate (likely the NDP's worst nightmare).
Add the negatives up, and recall looks like a dubious enterprise.
Recall bids can be launched 18 months after an election, meaning campaigns could start in November. But municipal elections are coming, preoccupying many activists, and then we're into holidays and winter. A realistic date is next spring - barely two years before the next election.
Some efforts will likely go ahead, with the ones driven by strong local issues likely to come closest to success. Suffredine is a potential target for Nelson residents angry about health care cuts; Val Roddick may draw fire from Delta voters angry about threats to hospital services; Jeff Bray, who barely won in Victoria-Beacon Hill, faces criticism over public service job cuts.
But it's unlikely that many serious campaigns will be launched, or that any will succeed.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Government cougar, wolf kill a bad idea
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - When I moved to Vancouver Island I thought that it would be great to glimpse a cougar sometime, quietly pleased by the notion of sharing space with a serious predator.
Then I actually saw them at the Kamloops Game Farm, all muscles and teeth and attitude, more like lions than the overgrown housecat-sized lynx of Eastern Canada. They stared through the fence coolly, even contemptuously; I was barely there.
The keenness to see a cougar faded on the spot. But I still like knowing they are floating like ghosts through the wooded park down the road, or drifting silently through suburban backyards at dawn.
Environment Minister Joyce Murray is being asked to approve a government kill of cougars and wolves on Vancouver Island, so hunters can shoot more deer. Government biologists want to kill 120 wolves on the island over the next three years - about half the population - and an undetermined number of cougars. It's called wildlife management, killing one species so another one will do better.
Nothing wrong with wildlife management; we do it every time we approve a new building or set a hunting season. But a good starting point would be to acknowledge that eco-complexity and the lack of good information make it a difficult, unpredictable art.
The deer population is likely a cause for concern (though gardeners may disagree). There are some 55,000 deer on the Island now, about a quarter of the population of 20 years ago. Logging old-growth forests has taken away the shelter, and lichen, deer need. If the forests regenerate the deer will rebound, maybe.
Cougar and wolves haven't done well, either. Wolf populations have fallen roughly in line with the deer, to something between 150 and 250 today. The cougar population is down more sharply; at some 400 today, half as many as seven years ago.
The biologists' theory is that killing the predators will cause the deer populations to increase. Hunters will have more deer to shoot, and in the long-term the predators will recover and have more deer to eat.
Managing wildlife as a resource makes sense. A guide can charge up to $4,500 for a one-week hunt; many British Columbians enjoy hunting; saving one endangered species may mean culling another. There are occasions when we need to take the risk of intervening.
But the deer aren't endangered. The cougar and wolves are healthy, and despite the occasional dramatic case they aren't a threat to people. By my calculation you are 145 times more likely to be killed by your spouse than by a cougar in B.C.
The aim here is simply to manipulate nature by killing wolves and cougars, giving hunters more black-tailed deer to shoot. (For the record, I don't hunt, but I don't care if others do.)
That will - and should - be a tough sell. Many British Columbians won't be in favour of shooting or poisoning one animal to make it easier for hunters to kill another. They will know that only a few years ago provincial biologists suggested dogs were killing more deer than wolves.
And no offence, biologists, but we're not so comfortable with the risks of taking the wolf population down to 150 on this island, or confident of our ability to manage ecosystems we don't really understand.
Murray will probably reject the proposal. Killing predators that attack livestock is one thing. Shooting wolves and cougars a part of an uncertain plan to produce more deer for hunters another.
But if she is wavering, she should think about the impact of global news coverage of a government-sponsored cougar kill on Vancouver Island, the dogs running them down, the hunters shooting the treed cats. It will play very badly.
It won't play much better at home. If we're so good at wildlife management, where are the salmon?
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Liberals weak on case for private highways
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The protesters who made life miserable for toll-booth workers on the Coquihalla Highway this month may be acting like self-indulgent yahoos. But their frustration with the Liberals' inability to make a coherent case for turning highways over to private companies is shared by a wide range of groups.
"Public-private partnerships," or P3s, are a hot concept for the Liberals, who tout them as a way to build and maintain everything from roads to hospitals to schools.
But what they haven't done is make an effective case for what could well be a good idea.
Transportation Minister Judith Reid released a discussion paper last month. But it's hopelessly vague, and devotes only three pages to basic questions about how private-public partnerships would work, and what the risks and benefits would be.
Reid's discussion paper promises lower costs, less debt, innovation, better use of assets and better risk management. But it's unclear on how those benefits will be achieved.
The starting point for Reid's paper is that the province needs $10 billion worth of road construction over the next decade. That's too much debt, the discussion paper suggests.
But handing the project - and future toll revenues - over to a private company doesn't change the reality. The company would have to borrow the money, at a higher interest rate than the government. And they will have to collect money from the same people the government would have tapped. It's as if you were worried your mortgage debt was too high and decided to sell your house to a developer and then lease it back at rent greater than your mortgage payments. The paper debt is gone, but your financial situation is unchanged.
Better risk management is also a questionable claim. The theory is that if hospital construction costs soar over budget, or drivers shun the toll road, then the private partner takes the hit. The reality is that private companies are frequently successful in getting more money from government when things go wrong.
There's a stronger argument for innovation. The simple step of opening the field up to competition means new ideas will emerge. Nova Scotia had more than 40 new schools built under a plan that let companies provide buildings and support services in return for lease payments and the chance to rent out the building in off-hours. (But the program has now been cancelled, with no takers for more projects.)
Considering how eager the government is to move forward, they have provided little useful information. That public debate has tended to be polarized and driven by interest groups like unions, which fear private companies will pay lower wages, and business groups anxious to cash in on the opportunities.
It's time for more information and analysis - and less blind enthusiasm - before the province rushes full speed into a privatization experiment.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Ottawa eerily silent on U.S. illegal operation in B.C.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Maybe they just don't care up in Ottawa that U.S. agents feel free to enter Canada illegally, break our laws and then conceal the evidence from the courts here.
For a week I've been trying to get someone - anyone - in the federal government to describe Canada's response to a B.C. court ruling that U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency operatives knowingly broke our laws.
B.C Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon found the Americans knowingly snuck into Canada, ran an illegal operation and then tried to conceal their activities from the court - a shocking abuse of Canadian law, she called it. "The illegal conduct is extremely offensive because of the violation of Canadian sovereignty without explanation or apology," she wrote.
Talking to the federal government from B.C. is generally like shouting down a long, hollow tube to a deaf man.
But Ottawa should have a response when a foreign government walks all over its police and laws, especially when that foreign government is seeking to have more and more of its agents operating in Canada.
Dillon was ruling on a U.S. bid to extradite Brent 'Dave' Licht to California to face cocaine charges, the end of a saga that wanders a long, winding path from the DEA office in Los Angeles to a White Rock pier.
The DEA plan originally targeted would-be Canadian cocaine importers. Two paid informants were told to pretend to be Colombian drug dealers in Los Angeles with lots of cocaine to sell. They found some interested buyers, and set off on a trail that led to Vancouver. They wanted to follow that trail across the border.
The rules governing a DEA operation in Canada are clear. A U.S.-Canada agreement requires the DEA to get RCMP consent. They also needed a special permit from the immigration minister because the undercover agent had a criminal record.
And they needed approval from the RCMP's top narcotics officer to pretend they had drugs for sale. The tactic is illegal in Canada except under tight controls, because of the risk of injustice. When police approach potential buyers, they may be creating a crime that would never have happened without their instigation
The Mounties said yes and the phoney dealer and his DEA handler came up. But his efforts bombed; no big drug dealers were discovered.
The DEA wanted to try again, but the RCMP said no. They had higher priorities.
The DEA seemed to accept the decision. But a month later one of the undercover agents entered Canada illegally, and ignoring our law and agreements signed by his country, tried to make a drug deal.
Eventually a pretend deal in California was arranged, with Licht. He wasn't there for the buy, so the U.S. set out to extradite him on conspiracy charges.
That's what led to Dillon's ruling. The Americans knowingly broke Canadian law and violated international agreements, she found. They conducted an illegal reverse sting operation. They tried to conceal the information from the court. And they never offered any explanation for the illegal acts. (This wasn't some fluke. Documents showed that the RCMP felt pressured to approve the first operation quickly, because they feared that the DEA would just go ahead illegally.)
I expected a run-around from American officials. But surely the Canadian government would have a response to the damaging findings.
But it took two days for a spokesman for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon to say he had no comment, although he was considering an appeal - on behalf of the Americans. After more than a week of calls, Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay's staff still haven't explained whether the case is an aberration, whether it will affect future DEA activities in Canada, how many legal DEA operations are conducted in B.C. - or even whether they've asked the Americans for an accounting for the illegal acts.
Our law should matter more than that.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - When I moved to Vancouver Island I thought that it would be great to glimpse a cougar sometime, quietly pleased by the notion of sharing space with a serious predator.
Then I actually saw them at the Kamloops Game Farm, all muscles and teeth and attitude, more like lions than the overgrown housecat-sized lynx of Eastern Canada. They stared through the fence coolly, even contemptuously; I was barely there.
The keenness to see a cougar faded on the spot. But I still like knowing they are floating like ghosts through the wooded park down the road, or drifting silently through suburban backyards at dawn.
Environment Minister Joyce Murray is being asked to approve a government kill of cougars and wolves on Vancouver Island, so hunters can shoot more deer. Government biologists want to kill 120 wolves on the island over the next three years - about half the population - and an undetermined number of cougars. It's called wildlife management, killing one species so another one will do better.
Nothing wrong with wildlife management; we do it every time we approve a new building or set a hunting season. But a good starting point would be to acknowledge that eco-complexity and the lack of good information make it a difficult, unpredictable art.
The deer population is likely a cause for concern (though gardeners may disagree). There are some 55,000 deer on the Island now, about a quarter of the population of 20 years ago. Logging old-growth forests has taken away the shelter, and lichen, deer need. If the forests regenerate the deer will rebound, maybe.
Cougar and wolves haven't done well, either. Wolf populations have fallen roughly in line with the deer, to something between 150 and 250 today. The cougar population is down more sharply; at some 400 today, half as many as seven years ago.
The biologists' theory is that killing the predators will cause the deer populations to increase. Hunters will have more deer to shoot, and in the long-term the predators will recover and have more deer to eat.
Managing wildlife as a resource makes sense. A guide can charge up to $4,500 for a one-week hunt; many British Columbians enjoy hunting; saving one endangered species may mean culling another. There are occasions when we need to take the risk of intervening.
But the deer aren't endangered. The cougar and wolves are healthy, and despite the occasional dramatic case they aren't a threat to people. By my calculation you are 145 times more likely to be killed by your spouse than by a cougar in B.C.
The aim here is simply to manipulate nature by killing wolves and cougars, giving hunters more black-tailed deer to shoot. (For the record, I don't hunt, but I don't care if others do.)
That will - and should - be a tough sell. Many British Columbians won't be in favour of shooting or poisoning one animal to make it easier for hunters to kill another. They will know that only a few years ago provincial biologists suggested dogs were killing more deer than wolves.
And no offence, biologists, but we're not so comfortable with the risks of taking the wolf population down to 150 on this island, or confident of our ability to manage ecosystems we don't really understand.
Murray will probably reject the proposal. Killing predators that attack livestock is one thing. Shooting wolves and cougars a part of an uncertain plan to produce more deer for hunters another.
But if she is wavering, she should think about the impact of global news coverage of a government-sponsored cougar kill on Vancouver Island, the dogs running them down, the hunters shooting the treed cats. It will play very badly.
It won't play much better at home. If we're so good at wildlife management, where are the salmon?
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Liberals weak on case for private highways
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The protesters who made life miserable for toll-booth workers on the Coquihalla Highway this month may be acting like self-indulgent yahoos. But their frustration with the Liberals' inability to make a coherent case for turning highways over to private companies is shared by a wide range of groups.
"Public-private partnerships," or P3s, are a hot concept for the Liberals, who tout them as a way to build and maintain everything from roads to hospitals to schools.
But what they haven't done is make an effective case for what could well be a good idea.
Transportation Minister Judith Reid released a discussion paper last month. But it's hopelessly vague, and devotes only three pages to basic questions about how private-public partnerships would work, and what the risks and benefits would be.
Reid's discussion paper promises lower costs, less debt, innovation, better use of assets and better risk management. But it's unclear on how those benefits will be achieved.
The starting point for Reid's paper is that the province needs $10 billion worth of road construction over the next decade. That's too much debt, the discussion paper suggests.
But handing the project - and future toll revenues - over to a private company doesn't change the reality. The company would have to borrow the money, at a higher interest rate than the government. And they will have to collect money from the same people the government would have tapped. It's as if you were worried your mortgage debt was too high and decided to sell your house to a developer and then lease it back at rent greater than your mortgage payments. The paper debt is gone, but your financial situation is unchanged.
Better risk management is also a questionable claim. The theory is that if hospital construction costs soar over budget, or drivers shun the toll road, then the private partner takes the hit. The reality is that private companies are frequently successful in getting more money from government when things go wrong.
There's a stronger argument for innovation. The simple step of opening the field up to competition means new ideas will emerge. Nova Scotia had more than 40 new schools built under a plan that let companies provide buildings and support services in return for lease payments and the chance to rent out the building in off-hours. (But the program has now been cancelled, with no takers for more projects.)
Considering how eager the government is to move forward, they have provided little useful information. That public debate has tended to be polarized and driven by interest groups like unions, which fear private companies will pay lower wages, and business groups anxious to cash in on the opportunities.
It's time for more information and analysis - and less blind enthusiasm - before the province rushes full speed into a privatization experiment.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Ottawa eerily silent on U.S. illegal operation in B.C.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Maybe they just don't care up in Ottawa that U.S. agents feel free to enter Canada illegally, break our laws and then conceal the evidence from the courts here.
For a week I've been trying to get someone - anyone - in the federal government to describe Canada's response to a B.C. court ruling that U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency operatives knowingly broke our laws.
B.C Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon found the Americans knowingly snuck into Canada, ran an illegal operation and then tried to conceal their activities from the court - a shocking abuse of Canadian law, she called it. "The illegal conduct is extremely offensive because of the violation of Canadian sovereignty without explanation or apology," she wrote.
Talking to the federal government from B.C. is generally like shouting down a long, hollow tube to a deaf man.
But Ottawa should have a response when a foreign government walks all over its police and laws, especially when that foreign government is seeking to have more and more of its agents operating in Canada.
Dillon was ruling on a U.S. bid to extradite Brent 'Dave' Licht to California to face cocaine charges, the end of a saga that wanders a long, winding path from the DEA office in Los Angeles to a White Rock pier.
The DEA plan originally targeted would-be Canadian cocaine importers. Two paid informants were told to pretend to be Colombian drug dealers in Los Angeles with lots of cocaine to sell. They found some interested buyers, and set off on a trail that led to Vancouver. They wanted to follow that trail across the border.
The rules governing a DEA operation in Canada are clear. A U.S.-Canada agreement requires the DEA to get RCMP consent. They also needed a special permit from the immigration minister because the undercover agent had a criminal record.
And they needed approval from the RCMP's top narcotics officer to pretend they had drugs for sale. The tactic is illegal in Canada except under tight controls, because of the risk of injustice. When police approach potential buyers, they may be creating a crime that would never have happened without their instigation
The Mounties said yes and the phoney dealer and his DEA handler came up. But his efforts bombed; no big drug dealers were discovered.
The DEA wanted to try again, but the RCMP said no. They had higher priorities.
The DEA seemed to accept the decision. But a month later one of the undercover agents entered Canada illegally, and ignoring our law and agreements signed by his country, tried to make a drug deal.
Eventually a pretend deal in California was arranged, with Licht. He wasn't there for the buy, so the U.S. set out to extradite him on conspiracy charges.
That's what led to Dillon's ruling. The Americans knowingly broke Canadian law and violated international agreements, she found. They conducted an illegal reverse sting operation. They tried to conceal the information from the court. And they never offered any explanation for the illegal acts. (This wasn't some fluke. Documents showed that the RCMP felt pressured to approve the first operation quickly, because they feared that the DEA would just go ahead illegally.)
I expected a run-around from American officials. But surely the Canadian government would have a response to the damaging findings.
But it took two days for a spokesman for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon to say he had no comment, although he was considering an appeal - on behalf of the Americans. After more than a week of calls, Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay's staff still haven't explained whether the case is an aberration, whether it will affect future DEA activities in Canada, how many legal DEA operations are conducted in B.C. - or even whether they've asked the Americans for an accounting for the illegal acts.
Our law should matter more than that.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Liberals may be slippery on compensation, but they aren't overpaid
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's fair to be irritated by the Liberals' habit of shying away from the facts when they talk about what they pay themselves.
But strip away the cuteness, and you're still left with a group of people who are mostly being paid very average salaries for quite difficult jobs.
The Liberals took some flak after the public accounts revealed that despite the tough talk about restraint, cabinet ministers ended up with a lot more in their pockets than their NDP predecessors.
Until the Liberals took over, cabinet ministers - like all MLAs - could claim $150 a day when the legislature was sitting, to cover the cost of staying in Victoria. When they had to be in the capital at other times, it was assumed that the extra $39,000 they were paid to be in cabinet covered the cost. (Finance Minister Gary Collins says some NDP cabinet ministers claimed for all their time in Victoria, but Opposition leader Joy MacPhail denies that and Collins has produced no evidence.)
The Liberals changed the rule to let cabinet ministers claim $150-a-day for all the time they were here, a switch that could be worth an extra $20,000. Nobody cashed in to that extent. But the average claim was $9,000, the tab for the cabinet came to more than $250,000.
It's fair for voters to be mad at the Liberals for quietly bumping up compensation when they were talking about the need for restraint. That's especially true given their consistent pattern of finding ways to increase their pay and being less than candid.
How did they mislead? When Collins released the public accounts he again claimed that cabinet ministers had 20-per-cent of their salaries being held back, with the money only to be paid if they - and the government - didn't go over budget.
But the holdback only applies to the extra portion they get for being a minister and not to their base pay, a qualification Collins did not acknowledge. The holdback is really only seven per cent of ministers' total salary, a significant amount, but not the claimed 20 per cent.
Likewise the Liberals' five-per cent wage rollback only applied to the base salary for MLAs, not the extra pay cabinet ministers get. As a result, the rollback for Premier Gordon Campbell is three per cent, not five per cent.
On top of those concerns a record number of MLAs are getting extra money on top of their base pay - about 55 out of the 76 Liberals - thanks to the largest cabinet in history and more MLAs getting extra money to head committees.
But leave all that aside, and it's tough to argue that our politicians are overpaid. The premier is paid $113,500, not shabby but not all that much more than someone in upper middle management in lots of companies.
Cabinet ministers get $107,500. Again not shabby. But most of these people work fiercely hard, rarely escape public scrutiny and are under considerable pressure. And they put their own lives and careers on hold.
Who would really want to be health minister, coping with doctors' strikes and bungled long-term care plans and a complicated, messy multi-billion-dollar organzation for about the same pay as a skilled worker who racks up a tonne of overtime?
Assessing pay rates is always a challenge. And it's especially hard to judge for politicians. One person with no particular marketable skills may strike it rich by getting into cabinet. But many of them - a lawyer like Geoff Plant, a doctor like Gulzar Cheema or a successful business owner - are taking a pay cut in order to do a job they think is important.
Politicians in B.C. are involved for lots of reasons. But it sure isn't for the money.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Liberals' forest plans slipping away
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - More bad news for forest communities. The Liberals' optimistic plans to remake the Forest Practices Code have fallen apart.
The Liberals introduced their plan in May. The goal was to get comments, fine-tune the new code in time to pass a bill this fall and then have it in place by next April.
Then along came George Hoberg, the UBC forest management prof asked to lead a review of the proposed new code.
Forest Minister Mike de Jong released Hoberg's report last week. And though de Jong says he still hopes to keep to his schedule, it's hard to see how the fundamental flaws exposed by Hoberg's consultation can be patched up in the next couple of months.
The Liberals are learning that remaking government is tougher than it looks from the opposition benches (or a columnist's chair). But they do deserve full marks for turning to Hoberg for a critique, and for accepting and releasing his report.
And a devastating report it was. Hoberg reported that in meetings with the industry and environmentalists he found a rare unanimity - the code changes were bad. "Virtually all of those who commented had significant problems with the government's proposed direction," he wrote.
Sometimes in B.C.'s polarized political world, that could mean the government has found a good balance.
Not this time. "Given the depth and breadth of the concerns. . . the results-based code proposed in the May 1 proposal does not adequately meet the objectives established by the government," reports Hoberg.
A delay in revising the code wouldn't be a critical problem in normal times. But the forest industry in B.C. is in trouble, and one of the problems is uncertainty about what lies ahead.
Businesses always deal with variables in deciding where and how to invest. The future is uncertain. But too many variables and an investment becomes reckless, and that's how B.C. is now being perceived.
Add them up. The softwood lumber dispute, a fight that could take years with no guarantee of success. No information about federal aid. Uncertainty about land claims. No clear picture of how the Liberals plan to reform tenure, no certainty about how they will move towards market-based stumpage. And now a failed forest practices code plan. Now decide if you would invest your money in expanding a forest-based business in B.C.
The Liberal campaign promise was to move to a results-based code. Instead of pages of regulations setting out how far a logging company operations must stay away from a stream, what kinds of equipment could be used and what daily reports must be filed, the new plan would just say streams must not be damaged and it would be up to the company to decide how to do that. (I'm oversimplifying, but that is my line of work.) The environment would be protected, but companies would be free to log efficiently at the same time.
But almost all of the 58 stakeholder groups that met with Hoberg said the plan won't work. And he set out 23 major issues that have to be dealt with before the government should go ahead.
The questions he raises suggest how little the government really knows about the effects of its plan. Changes need to be examined to ensure that "at a minimum they maintain existing environmental standards," Hoberg reported. The government needs to figure out whether the proposed changes will actually increase costs for the companies. And it needs to guarantee that plans to cut one-third of ministry staff don't mean an end to effective enforcement.
De Jong says he's still hoping to have legislation ready for the fall, and some certainty about the changes would help the industry. But it's better to take the time to do it right - perhaps even by trying the changes in one forest area while work continues - than it would be to have to retreat from hasty, flawed changes.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's fair to be irritated by the Liberals' habit of shying away from the facts when they talk about what they pay themselves.
But strip away the cuteness, and you're still left with a group of people who are mostly being paid very average salaries for quite difficult jobs.
The Liberals took some flak after the public accounts revealed that despite the tough talk about restraint, cabinet ministers ended up with a lot more in their pockets than their NDP predecessors.
Until the Liberals took over, cabinet ministers - like all MLAs - could claim $150 a day when the legislature was sitting, to cover the cost of staying in Victoria. When they had to be in the capital at other times, it was assumed that the extra $39,000 they were paid to be in cabinet covered the cost. (Finance Minister Gary Collins says some NDP cabinet ministers claimed for all their time in Victoria, but Opposition leader Joy MacPhail denies that and Collins has produced no evidence.)
The Liberals changed the rule to let cabinet ministers claim $150-a-day for all the time they were here, a switch that could be worth an extra $20,000. Nobody cashed in to that extent. But the average claim was $9,000, the tab for the cabinet came to more than $250,000.
It's fair for voters to be mad at the Liberals for quietly bumping up compensation when they were talking about the need for restraint. That's especially true given their consistent pattern of finding ways to increase their pay and being less than candid.
How did they mislead? When Collins released the public accounts he again claimed that cabinet ministers had 20-per-cent of their salaries being held back, with the money only to be paid if they - and the government - didn't go over budget.
But the holdback only applies to the extra portion they get for being a minister and not to their base pay, a qualification Collins did not acknowledge. The holdback is really only seven per cent of ministers' total salary, a significant amount, but not the claimed 20 per cent.
Likewise the Liberals' five-per cent wage rollback only applied to the base salary for MLAs, not the extra pay cabinet ministers get. As a result, the rollback for Premier Gordon Campbell is three per cent, not five per cent.
On top of those concerns a record number of MLAs are getting extra money on top of their base pay - about 55 out of the 76 Liberals - thanks to the largest cabinet in history and more MLAs getting extra money to head committees.
But leave all that aside, and it's tough to argue that our politicians are overpaid. The premier is paid $113,500, not shabby but not all that much more than someone in upper middle management in lots of companies.
Cabinet ministers get $107,500. Again not shabby. But most of these people work fiercely hard, rarely escape public scrutiny and are under considerable pressure. And they put their own lives and careers on hold.
Who would really want to be health minister, coping with doctors' strikes and bungled long-term care plans and a complicated, messy multi-billion-dollar organzation for about the same pay as a skilled worker who racks up a tonne of overtime?
Assessing pay rates is always a challenge. And it's especially hard to judge for politicians. One person with no particular marketable skills may strike it rich by getting into cabinet. But many of them - a lawyer like Geoff Plant, a doctor like Gulzar Cheema or a successful business owner - are taking a pay cut in order to do a job they think is important.
Politicians in B.C. are involved for lots of reasons. But it sure isn't for the money.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Liberals' forest plans slipping away
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - More bad news for forest communities. The Liberals' optimistic plans to remake the Forest Practices Code have fallen apart.
The Liberals introduced their plan in May. The goal was to get comments, fine-tune the new code in time to pass a bill this fall and then have it in place by next April.
Then along came George Hoberg, the UBC forest management prof asked to lead a review of the proposed new code.
Forest Minister Mike de Jong released Hoberg's report last week. And though de Jong says he still hopes to keep to his schedule, it's hard to see how the fundamental flaws exposed by Hoberg's consultation can be patched up in the next couple of months.
The Liberals are learning that remaking government is tougher than it looks from the opposition benches (or a columnist's chair). But they do deserve full marks for turning to Hoberg for a critique, and for accepting and releasing his report.
And a devastating report it was. Hoberg reported that in meetings with the industry and environmentalists he found a rare unanimity - the code changes were bad. "Virtually all of those who commented had significant problems with the government's proposed direction," he wrote.
Sometimes in B.C.'s polarized political world, that could mean the government has found a good balance.
Not this time. "Given the depth and breadth of the concerns. . . the results-based code proposed in the May 1 proposal does not adequately meet the objectives established by the government," reports Hoberg.
A delay in revising the code wouldn't be a critical problem in normal times. But the forest industry in B.C. is in trouble, and one of the problems is uncertainty about what lies ahead.
Businesses always deal with variables in deciding where and how to invest. The future is uncertain. But too many variables and an investment becomes reckless, and that's how B.C. is now being perceived.
Add them up. The softwood lumber dispute, a fight that could take years with no guarantee of success. No information about federal aid. Uncertainty about land claims. No clear picture of how the Liberals plan to reform tenure, no certainty about how they will move towards market-based stumpage. And now a failed forest practices code plan. Now decide if you would invest your money in expanding a forest-based business in B.C.
The Liberal campaign promise was to move to a results-based code. Instead of pages of regulations setting out how far a logging company operations must stay away from a stream, what kinds of equipment could be used and what daily reports must be filed, the new plan would just say streams must not be damaged and it would be up to the company to decide how to do that. (I'm oversimplifying, but that is my line of work.) The environment would be protected, but companies would be free to log efficiently at the same time.
But almost all of the 58 stakeholder groups that met with Hoberg said the plan won't work. And he set out 23 major issues that have to be dealt with before the government should go ahead.
The questions he raises suggest how little the government really knows about the effects of its plan. Changes need to be examined to ensure that "at a minimum they maintain existing environmental standards," Hoberg reported. The government needs to figure out whether the proposed changes will actually increase costs for the companies. And it needs to guarantee that plans to cut one-third of ministry staff don't mean an end to effective enforcement.
De Jong says he's still hoping to have legislation ready for the fall, and some certainty about the changes would help the industry. But it's better to take the time to do it right - perhaps even by trying the changes in one forest area while work continues - than it would be to have to retreat from hasty, flawed changes.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
pringer the whale, the governor general and Ji-Won Park
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Whales are cute, noble, clever and all that.
But doesn't all the fuss over Springer the lonely Orca, the eagerness to come up with $750,000 to drag the animal back where it came from, strike you as bizarre and faintly obscene?
I've raised money for worthy causes and know how difficult it is. And I'm confident that if I launched a campaign to raise $750,000 to change the lives of 100 children, I'd have a much harder time then the whale folks will have.
Heck, this week in Victoria a superb program that taught street kids life-changing job skills lost its federal funding, an amount less than half the whale's fund. The Youth Employment Program fed the kids up, helped them find somewhere to stay and then taught them the skills to get a janitorial job. More than 200 young people went through the program, and 137 of them still had jobs a year later. Not great jobs, maybe, but they were in the game and had a chance.
That's $7,000 a kid that can't be found, but $750,000 for one whale.
And we know the employment program worked. We're just messing around with the whale.
Shiner is hanging around Puget Sound, with a nasty rash and worms. For some reason she's left her pod off northern Vancouver Island.
So scientists have caught her, lifted her on to a barge and taken her to a lab. Now she'll be tested, cleaned up, and then either taken her back to the pod, set free somewhere else or put in an aquarium.
That all sounds a little vague, with good reason. No one knows if Shiner wants to go back with the other whales in her pod, or whether they want her around, or whether she'll introduce some disease that will kill them all.
I like whales. And while Orcas aren't endangered - there are at least 180,000 of them in the Antarctic Ocean alone - their numbers are shrinking in the northwest, and we should be concerned about the causes.
But it seems ludicrous that instead of donating to a food bank, or a children's charity, or even to that sad-looking guy on the corner, people would rush to hand over money to a fund to save one slightly mangy whale from itself.
Which brings me, by a round-about way, to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. She spent $2.6 million last year to run Rideau Hall, her posh home base in Ottawa.
It's an historic building, built in 1836, and she hosts many public events, and I wouldn't want to see it turn into a dump.
But Clarkson has launched a drive to restore the place's Victorian splendour, meaning painters and new upholstery and replanted gardens.
And $29,000 for a dining room rug and $44,000 for a Rose Garden seem a little excessive, especially when Ottawa can't come up with any help for B.C. forest communities hurt by the softwood lumber dispute.
Clarkson's plan to restore the mansion's historic character has meant a 25-per-cent spending increase over the amount required by her modest predecessor Romeo LeBlanc. That's $500,000 - again, more than enough to keep the Youth Employment Program going.
Which leads, finally, to Ji-Won Park, whose name is less familiar than Shiner the whale.
Park is the young Korean woman beaten into a coma in Stanley Park. She was here studying English, and had $20,000 worth of medical insurance. That's used up, and her bills are mounting at $2,000 a day. A fund-raising campaign for her is inching forward, but remains at under $50,000.
People can give their money as they see fit. And any generousity is welcome.
But our willingness to come up with $750,000 for a medical check-up for one animal - and our willingness to ignore so many other needs - says something important about our odd priorities.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Whales are cute, noble, clever and all that.
But doesn't all the fuss over Springer the lonely Orca, the eagerness to come up with $750,000 to drag the animal back where it came from, strike you as bizarre and faintly obscene?
I've raised money for worthy causes and know how difficult it is. And I'm confident that if I launched a campaign to raise $750,000 to change the lives of 100 children, I'd have a much harder time then the whale folks will have.
Heck, this week in Victoria a superb program that taught street kids life-changing job skills lost its federal funding, an amount less than half the whale's fund. The Youth Employment Program fed the kids up, helped them find somewhere to stay and then taught them the skills to get a janitorial job. More than 200 young people went through the program, and 137 of them still had jobs a year later. Not great jobs, maybe, but they were in the game and had a chance.
That's $7,000 a kid that can't be found, but $750,000 for one whale.
And we know the employment program worked. We're just messing around with the whale.
Shiner is hanging around Puget Sound, with a nasty rash and worms. For some reason she's left her pod off northern Vancouver Island.
So scientists have caught her, lifted her on to a barge and taken her to a lab. Now she'll be tested, cleaned up, and then either taken her back to the pod, set free somewhere else or put in an aquarium.
That all sounds a little vague, with good reason. No one knows if Shiner wants to go back with the other whales in her pod, or whether they want her around, or whether she'll introduce some disease that will kill them all.
I like whales. And while Orcas aren't endangered - there are at least 180,000 of them in the Antarctic Ocean alone - their numbers are shrinking in the northwest, and we should be concerned about the causes.
But it seems ludicrous that instead of donating to a food bank, or a children's charity, or even to that sad-looking guy on the corner, people would rush to hand over money to a fund to save one slightly mangy whale from itself.
Which brings me, by a round-about way, to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. She spent $2.6 million last year to run Rideau Hall, her posh home base in Ottawa.
It's an historic building, built in 1836, and she hosts many public events, and I wouldn't want to see it turn into a dump.
But Clarkson has launched a drive to restore the place's Victorian splendour, meaning painters and new upholstery and replanted gardens.
And $29,000 for a dining room rug and $44,000 for a Rose Garden seem a little excessive, especially when Ottawa can't come up with any help for B.C. forest communities hurt by the softwood lumber dispute.
Clarkson's plan to restore the mansion's historic character has meant a 25-per-cent spending increase over the amount required by her modest predecessor Romeo LeBlanc. That's $500,000 - again, more than enough to keep the Youth Employment Program going.
Which leads, finally, to Ji-Won Park, whose name is less familiar than Shiner the whale.
Park is the young Korean woman beaten into a coma in Stanley Park. She was here studying English, and had $20,000 worth of medical insurance. That's used up, and her bills are mounting at $2,000 a day. A fund-raising campaign for her is inching forward, but remains at under $50,000.
People can give their money as they see fit. And any generousity is welcome.
But our willingness to come up with $750,000 for a medical check-up for one animal - and our willingness to ignore so many other needs - says something important about our odd priorities.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
Olympics' bid looking fiercely expensive
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Yale land deal a step forward on treaties
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It was only a small piece of land along the Fraser River, but it represented a big step forward for the Liberal approach to resolving treaties.
Cabinet approved Attorney General Geoff Plant's proposal that about 180 hectares of land be set aside for a treaty deal with the Yale First Nation.
It's an important piece of property, in part because it's one of the few flat places along the river, which runs through a steep canyon. The property, across the river from the Yale townsite, also rather cleverly connects two existing reserves - partly by setting aside a narrow corridor.
But two things make the agreement important.
First, it reflects an apparent success in using interim measures - temporary agreements before a treaty is reached - to help move negotiations forward.
The Liberals have indicated they're prepared to enter into significant interim measures where there is hope of progress. The greater the realistic assessment of the chance for progress at the table, the farther the government will go.
That's reinforced by the term of this agreement - two years or less. Unless all three parties renew it, the land will no longer be protected for a future settlement after two years. And the province has said it won't renew the deal unless there has been progress at the table.
And second, the deal has won praise from the band, with Chief Robert Hope even attending the open cabinet meeting where it was approved. Given the government's stormy public battles with First Nations over the treaty process, that's an important win for the government.
"The BC Liberals have shown they can negotiate treaties and make deals whereas past government's have failed," the Yale First Nation said in a release. "The attitude shown at our table is one of progressive and innovative problem-solving."
The deal appears to embody successfully a carrot and stick approach to
negotiation.
The carrot is the province's willingness to set aside land or take other measures to protect a First Nation's interests or encourage economic development if negotiations are progressing.
And the stick is the refusal to negotiate such measures - or the willingness to take them away - if progress isn't being made, or there isn't a reasonable hope of an agreement in principle.
The Yale First Nation has made at least some progress in talks since 1994, but has spent the last two years working unsuccessfully towards a draft agreement.
This interim deal provides a strong positive incentive for them to keep talks moving, and to make sure the community is prepared to support any agreements that are reached. The land is reserved; the timber and mineral deposits protected. But that could change if talks stall.
The interim deal doesn't resolve the land question. But it shows a good faith commitment on the province's part. The chunk of land would roughly double the reserves currently occupied by the 130 band members and add considerably to their potential for economic development.
And the deal was reached without much damage to other interests in the area. The land has potentially valuable gravel and placer gold deposits. Their ownership will still be decided in talks, and existing claim holders won't lose their rights.
But no new claims will be issued and the timber - about 700 cubic metres per year of annual allowable cut - will be protected.
The deal has the potential to bring a little more certainty for others interested in economic development in the area. As part of the interim measure, the First Nation agreed not to obstruct "unreasonably" economic activities on other land within its traditional territories.
The treaty referendum, now being tallied, was a step backward.
But this agreement represents a step towards a pragmatic approach to moving negotiations towards a successful end.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - British Columbians should be getting mighty nervous about what the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games could cost us.
The 2010 Games could turn out to be a great thing for B.C., a chance to showcase the province before the world.
But the Olympic bid is steam-rolling forward without nearly enough public information or consultation on the costs and benefits.
The Olympic bid committee has already sent its proposal off to the IOC, a list of promises of all the things you will do to make these the best Games ever.
Sadly, you won't know what those promises are, the bid committee having decided they should stay secret. That seems a little odd, since Bern, Switzerland, one of B.C.'s top rivals, has posted its proposals on the web site for all to see. Bern also plans a referendum before going further, something citizens in Whistler have unsuccessfully been seeking.
There's much encouraging in B.C.'s Olympic bid. The Games are expected to be officially self-supporting, with revenue covering the operating costs and maybe leaving a little money over. And the province could well score future tourism business and some nice sports facilities.
But the self-supporting claim is misleading.
Organizers already have about $9 million from the province to help make the pitch to get the Games. Ottawa and B.C. have promised $310 million each for new facilities for sports events.
And on top of that, the federal and provincial governments are on the hook for security costs, easily $500 million if recent Games are an indication.
And there's more.
The Games bid requires an expanded convention centre, which would serve as the headquarters for some 10,000 journalists, and cost some $500 million.
There's a strong case for a new convention centre, but it's certainly not clear why those who will benefit - Vancouver hotels and restaurants - shouldn't pay the bill.
Bid chairman Jack Poole also says that without major improvements to the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler, Vancouver won't win the Games. Figure $1.3 billion for that. And proponents also want a rapid transit line from the airport, another $1.4-billion megaproject.
Add them up, and you'll see that those cost-free Games will really reach into taxpayers' pockets for $5.3 billion.
Of course there will be benefits, including an estimated $2 billion in tax revenue for the two levels of government. But that doesn't come close to the costs.
And that too would be fine if we had decided that the most important capital priorities for B.C. were a better highway to Whistler and rapid transit from the airport.
But we haven't made that decision. And I'm not sure that people bouncing over rutted roads in the northeast would be so keen to know that their tax dollars were being used to make it easier for people to get to their chalets in Whistler. Or that people in the North and Interior facing health care cuts would think that a better way of getting from the airport to downtown Vancouver should be a top priority.
The Olympic bid has crept up on British Columbians. Few people realize that a specific proposal has been submitted, or that in about a year B.C. could have actually won these Games.
That's partly our fault. The Games people have been out talking about their plans, but the public hasn't paid much attention.
But it's also the proponents' fault, for failing to provide enough information about exactly what this will cost and where the money will be found within the finances of a government that says it's too broke to provide a wide range of other services to citizens.
The Games may make sense. But right now, it feels like we're being asked to hand over a lot of money with no clear idea what we're getting, or why we should want it.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Yale land deal a step forward on treaties
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It was only a small piece of land along the Fraser River, but it represented a big step forward for the Liberal approach to resolving treaties.
Cabinet approved Attorney General Geoff Plant's proposal that about 180 hectares of land be set aside for a treaty deal with the Yale First Nation.
It's an important piece of property, in part because it's one of the few flat places along the river, which runs through a steep canyon. The property, across the river from the Yale townsite, also rather cleverly connects two existing reserves - partly by setting aside a narrow corridor.
But two things make the agreement important.
First, it reflects an apparent success in using interim measures - temporary agreements before a treaty is reached - to help move negotiations forward.
The Liberals have indicated they're prepared to enter into significant interim measures where there is hope of progress. The greater the realistic assessment of the chance for progress at the table, the farther the government will go.
That's reinforced by the term of this agreement - two years or less. Unless all three parties renew it, the land will no longer be protected for a future settlement after two years. And the province has said it won't renew the deal unless there has been progress at the table.
And second, the deal has won praise from the band, with Chief Robert Hope even attending the open cabinet meeting where it was approved. Given the government's stormy public battles with First Nations over the treaty process, that's an important win for the government.
"The BC Liberals have shown they can negotiate treaties and make deals whereas past government's have failed," the Yale First Nation said in a release. "The attitude shown at our table is one of progressive and innovative problem-solving."
The deal appears to embody successfully a carrot and stick approach to
negotiation.
The carrot is the province's willingness to set aside land or take other measures to protect a First Nation's interests or encourage economic development if negotiations are progressing.
And the stick is the refusal to negotiate such measures - or the willingness to take them away - if progress isn't being made, or there isn't a reasonable hope of an agreement in principle.
The Yale First Nation has made at least some progress in talks since 1994, but has spent the last two years working unsuccessfully towards a draft agreement.
This interim deal provides a strong positive incentive for them to keep talks moving, and to make sure the community is prepared to support any agreements that are reached. The land is reserved; the timber and mineral deposits protected. But that could change if talks stall.
The interim deal doesn't resolve the land question. But it shows a good faith commitment on the province's part. The chunk of land would roughly double the reserves currently occupied by the 130 band members and add considerably to their potential for economic development.
And the deal was reached without much damage to other interests in the area. The land has potentially valuable gravel and placer gold deposits. Their ownership will still be decided in talks, and existing claim holders won't lose their rights.
But no new claims will be issued and the timber - about 700 cubic metres per year of annual allowable cut - will be protected.
The deal has the potential to bring a little more certainty for others interested in economic development in the area. As part of the interim measure, the First Nation agreed not to obstruct "unreasonably" economic activities on other land within its traditional territories.
The treaty referendum, now being tallied, was a step backward.
But this agreement represents a step towards a pragmatic approach to moving negotiations towards a successful end.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Liberals bungling health care change
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals are blowing it on health care.
They made a big deal in the election campaign about protecting health care, and even ending what they criticized as the deterioration of the system under the New Democrats.
But what they've delivered has been far different, and the changes are coming without consultation or consideration.
Across the province newspapers are carrying stories of hasty, ill-conceived change, and the suffering it causes for real people.
Like Grace and Alfred Potvin. After almost 60 years together, the Chilliwack couple were living happily in Parkholm Lodge. But the health region needed to save money and plans to close the lodge. The Potvins were pushed into another facility where their rooms are about a block apart. They no longer have privacy; each shares with a stranger.
It's bloody cruel. And it's a far cry from the process the Liberals promised when they revealed their plans to move people out of long-term care. Premier Gordon Campbell promised consultation with families and individual plans. Long-term care minister Katherine Whittred went even further. "No resident will be moved without an individual care plan that's agreed upon by the family," she said.
That would have been good, if it were true. But the government's official policy simply says the new health regions must develop procedures for deciding who goes where. If a couple wants to stay together, and meet the admission requirements for the same facility, the authority has to ensure "efforts are made to keep the couple together." And efforts don't make much difference to a couple split apart cruelly after a life together.
Campbell even intervened personally in the Potvins' case. He called the health authority and the deputy minister and told them to fix the situation. "Deal with them like you deal with your mother," he said.
But after a month, they are still apart, and will be until someone dies or leaves the home.
It's not just seniors. This week the Hospital Employees' Union released documents from the provincial health authority responsible for specialized cancer treatments, transplants and the most advanced care for children. It needs to close a $70-million budget gap over three years and is reluctantly considering terrible steps. Cancer patients would no longer get the most effective drugs, because they cost too much. Mammography screening for breast cancer will be cut, pushing waiting lists beyond the Canadian standard. Children will wait longer for needed surgery, even though more than half already wait past the time their surgery should be done.
The health authority tried to minimize the plans, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The plans aren't final. And they won't be necessary if provincial funding increases.
But the province has frozen the health budget for two years, creating a $1-billion structural deficit. Finding more money for the agency will just mean deeper cuts to the regional health authorities.
Health care shouldn't get a blank cheque. But the kind of massive cuts the Liberals are creating by freezing budgets need to be made with care and after full public debate. Separating couples, putting off children's surgery, making cancer patients pay for their own drugs - none of those decisions should be made behind closed doors in a rush.
The Liberals should learn from Alberta's Ralph Klein. He cut health spending by 15 per cent in his first three years in office. And of all the Klein cuts and changes, that caused him the most grief with the public. And in the following years he put all that money back. From 1992 to 2001, Alberta's health spending increased by almost exactly the same percentage as British Columbia's.
You can sympathize with the Liberals. Health care is a huge, complex challenge.
Or you can until you think about the people who are being hurt by these changes, and the huge gap between the Liberals' public promises and their actions.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Canadians deserve a political party that speaks for them
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's probably tough for most Canadians to be concerned about Alexa McDonough's resignation as NDP leader when they didn't even know she had the job in the first place.
Since the 1988 election the federal New Democrats have been irrelevant, at least as far as voters are concerned. The party won nine seats in '93, 21 in '97 and 13 in 2000, numbers that confirm true fringe status. In the last election, only 85 out of every 1,000 Canadians voted NDP.
If the party is supposed to be representing a group of Canadians, it's either picked a tiny group or it's doing a very bad job.
There's nothing wrong with being a party that never hopes to win power and isn't even that concerned about influencing policy, some kind of a noble and largely ignored voice. Some visionaries measure the progress of human society in centuries.
I'm a little less patient.
Canadian voters deserve the chance to choose between viable parties with competing visions. That kind of competitive market in ideas and policies produces the best government.
We're seeing the alternative. Canadians have no respect for the Liberal government they elected - a sweping but true generalization - but would probably re-elect them as the best of a bad lot.
Parties should stand for something, although those that don't are often rewarded with electoral success. But it is folly for a party that hopes to make a real difference to stand for something that Canadians have rejected.
Which leads to Buzz Hargrove. Hargove is the head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union and a frequent critic of McDonough. He wants the NDP to move to the left and take a more anti-business stance.
"Do we want to attract business? If you do, Buzz Hargrove doesn't want to be in your party," Hargrove says. "Business has too many parties today."
People in the NDP listen to Hargrove because he's in a position to deliver money to a party that is dependent on union contributions, generally made without member support. (It's equally true that other parties are dependent on business contributions, made without the consent of shareholders.)
Hargrove can deliver money; he can't deliver votes. In Oshawa, home to thousands of CAW members, the NDP came fourth after the Liberals, the Alliance and the Conservatives.
Hargrove wants to take the NDP into a dead end. Canadians accept the idea of a market economy, where the people who provide the best services at the best price prosper. They also accept that businesses, for the most part are not evil. They are simply largely amoral, trying to do best for their shareholders or owners within the law.
The NDP should accept that reality.
Canadians are sick of the corruption and arrogance in Ottawa, sick of sending taxes to people who spend itn stupidly and wastefully. The NDP should accept that principle.
Canadians are sick of intrusive governments, which presume to contol their lives in every way from telling them whether they should be able to grow a marijuana plant in their backyard to whether they should be able to seek alternative health care treatment.
And Canadians care. They do not want to live in a land where only the quick and the able can count on economic security and a chance at a happy life.
Hargrove's job is to find new members for the CAW and protect their interests. That's a completely legitimate role.
But it has little to do with the public interest. What's good for the CAW - or General Motors - is not necessary good for Canada.
Both federal and provincial New Democrats have a chance to look hard at their current dismal situation and find a new path, one that more Canadians are prepared to walk along with them.
It's too good an opportunity to throw away by allowing people like Hargrove to dominate the debate.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
Liberals better learn - quickly - from doctors' dispute
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Never get into a fight with a person who may someday stand over your naked, unconscious body with a knife.
That's the first lesson the Liberals should take away from this battle with doctors.
People need to trust their doctors. So while they may grumble about the BC Medical Association, they're going to think well of the person who cures their child's ear ache.
And that means that in almost any public relations battle between doctors and government, the doctors will always win.
Lesson number two is similarly basic.
The tactic of trying to drive a wedge between a bargaining unit - the BCMA - and the people it represents almost never works.
I know, as a former business guy who handled labour negotiations. Several times I thought that if the employees were just told how sensible my position was, and how poorly they were being served by their union reps, they would pressure the union to come to the table. But it never worked.
Health Minister Colin Hansen and the rest of the Liberal strategists should know that by now. Any attempt to encourage splits in the doctors' ranks simply served to make doctors madder and more determined.
The third lesson isn't any more complicated. Once you show people you can't be trusted, it's hard to reach a deal. That is of course what the Liberals did by promising to accept a binding arbitration report on the doctors' settlement, then ripping it up when they didn't like the result.
The government says that former chief justice Allan McEachern ignored his terms of reference, the complaint of every dissatisfied party to an arbitration. The government could have taken that complaint to court; instead it broke trust with doctors as it did with so many others.
I'm a little hesitant to move to lesson four. It's always difficult to assess how negotiations went if you weren't at the table.
But the Liberals need to examine what went wrong here, because from the outside it looks as if the deal could have been reached two weeks ago if the government had bargained more effectively.
A key issue in this battle was how future disputes would be resolved. Doctors wanted some form of binding settlement consistent with the Canada Health Act. The government first said no, then introduced the deal-breaking requirement for an essential service plan. That was one of the critical elements that lead doctors to break off talks.
But the final settlement dropped the government's demand for essential service guarantees and looks much like what doctors would had agreed to almost two weeks ago.
Another deal-breaker was the length of the contract. The government wanted it to last until 2005; doctors said 2004. And the final settlement accepted the doctors' position. (The Liberals can be forgiven a little anger over this one, since the BCMA - apparently without paying attention - had agreed to the longer term in the March memorandum of understanding signed with the premier.)
On financial issues, both sides made small changes, but the deal was there
at least two weeks ago.
The issue isn't whose position was right. It's just bad bargaining to dig in your heels, creating two weeks of mounting chaos in the health care system, if you're actually prepared to give on the issues.
The biggest lesson is both simple and incredibly complex.
The government has less than two years before this agreement expires, less than two years before the whole mess is visited on the province once again. There will still be a doctors' shortage in two years, B.C physicians will still be angry and mistrustful and the government will still be short of money, setting the stage for another war on patients.
It's not enough to talk about rebuilding relationships.
The underlying problem is that our demand for increasingly expensive medical services is almost limitless.
And at some point, we're going to have to decide together what we are no longer prepared to pay for.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Never get into a fight with a person who may someday stand over your naked, unconscious body with a knife.
That's the first lesson the Liberals should take away from this battle with doctors.
People need to trust their doctors. So while they may grumble about the BC Medical Association, they're going to think well of the person who cures their child's ear ache.
And that means that in almost any public relations battle between doctors and government, the doctors will always win.
Lesson number two is similarly basic.
The tactic of trying to drive a wedge between a bargaining unit - the BCMA - and the people it represents almost never works.
I know, as a former business guy who handled labour negotiations. Several times I thought that if the employees were just told how sensible my position was, and how poorly they were being served by their union reps, they would pressure the union to come to the table. But it never worked.
Health Minister Colin Hansen and the rest of the Liberal strategists should know that by now. Any attempt to encourage splits in the doctors' ranks simply served to make doctors madder and more determined.
The third lesson isn't any more complicated. Once you show people you can't be trusted, it's hard to reach a deal. That is of course what the Liberals did by promising to accept a binding arbitration report on the doctors' settlement, then ripping it up when they didn't like the result.
The government says that former chief justice Allan McEachern ignored his terms of reference, the complaint of every dissatisfied party to an arbitration. The government could have taken that complaint to court; instead it broke trust with doctors as it did with so many others.
I'm a little hesitant to move to lesson four. It's always difficult to assess how negotiations went if you weren't at the table.
But the Liberals need to examine what went wrong here, because from the outside it looks as if the deal could have been reached two weeks ago if the government had bargained more effectively.
A key issue in this battle was how future disputes would be resolved. Doctors wanted some form of binding settlement consistent with the Canada Health Act. The government first said no, then introduced the deal-breaking requirement for an essential service plan. That was one of the critical elements that lead doctors to break off talks.
But the final settlement dropped the government's demand for essential service guarantees and looks much like what doctors would had agreed to almost two weeks ago.
Another deal-breaker was the length of the contract. The government wanted it to last until 2005; doctors said 2004. And the final settlement accepted the doctors' position. (The Liberals can be forgiven a little anger over this one, since the BCMA - apparently without paying attention - had agreed to the longer term in the March memorandum of understanding signed with the premier.)
On financial issues, both sides made small changes, but the deal was there
at least two weeks ago.
The issue isn't whose position was right. It's just bad bargaining to dig in your heels, creating two weeks of mounting chaos in the health care system, if you're actually prepared to give on the issues.
The biggest lesson is both simple and incredibly complex.
The government has less than two years before this agreement expires, less than two years before the whole mess is visited on the province once again. There will still be a doctors' shortage in two years, B.C physicians will still be angry and mistrustful and the government will still be short of money, setting the stage for another war on patients.
It's not enough to talk about rebuilding relationships.
The underlying problem is that our demand for increasingly expensive medical services is almost limitless.
And at some point, we're going to have to decide together what we are no longer prepared to pay for.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Thursday, May 30, 2002
Liberals betray past by rushing labour bills through
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals want to cut the amount of money going to injured workers by $100 million per cent - and they don't want to talk about the effect of the cuts.
It's almost as if they don't quite get this democracy thing, the notion that debate in the legislature is a way to ensure that new laws have their desired effect without causing any undue hardship. The Liberals are abusing the legislature - their own backbenchers more than anyone - by ramming through major bills without any meaningful debate.
The government introduced three major labour bills - changing the Labour Code, the Employment Standards Act and the way the Workers' Compensation Board works - with only days left in the session. That means each will receive only the most cursory reviews.
And that is a loss.
Our system usually requires ministers, supported by staff, to show up and answer detailed questions on the bills they introduce. The MLAs plod through them section by section, raising concerns or questions about why the changes are being made, how they'll work and what the consequences will be.
It's the chance to make sure that the purpose is on the record and that the public's questions are answered. And it's a chance to make sure that the government has not overlooked an unintended effect of a new law, or misjudged the effect on people.
The Liberals used to think that was important. When the New Democrats choked off debate on the Nisga'a treaty the Liberals were outraged. Premier Gordon Campbell called it "an absolutely disgraceful attack on the integrity of the legislature."
He was right. And now his government is doing exactly the same thing.
The labour bills are important. Changes to the Employment Standards Act and Workers' Compensation are significant and affect almost everyone in the province.
Take just one example. The WCB now increases wage loss benefits for someone disabled on the job with the rate of inflation. Under the new rules - which will only apply to new claims - benefits will increase at one per cent less than the inflation rate.
No big deal in the short term. But for a worker disabled at 25, the change could mean a loss of $600,000 by the time he reaches 65. Now his real income is maintained. Under the new rules, he would lose more than one-third of his purchasing power to inflation.
It's not necessarily a bad change. Few private disability plans are fully indexed; it costs too much and it's assumed peoples' needs decline over time. But debate would allow MLAs to question the minister about how many people will be affected and how much the average loss will be.
The WCB changes also end the practise of continuing pensions after age 65. Now the WCB will in effect contribute five per cent of benefits to an RRSP, and that money will fund the disabled workers' retirement. That's a major change; its effects should be explored in the legislature.
The ESA changes are just as significant, ending such provisions as overtime after eight hours of work and allowing employers to call in staff for two-hour shifts, while slashing enforcement.
The changes are supportable, bringing flexibility for companies and employees. But they are complex and far-reaching and the public interest would be served by a proper legislative review.
The Liberals say the rush is the price to be paid for having fixed dates for the legislative sittings. Some bills will be introduced late and rushed through at the end of each session.
But a government that respected the role of MLAs would not have waited until the last minute to drop three major bills.
The Liberals were clear about the importance of proper legislative review when they were in opposition. It's too bad they've forgotten now.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
A glimmer of treaty hope (no, it's not the referendum)
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If you're among the 30 per cent who voted in the treaty referendum, you'll remember Question 4, the one where the government wants you to say yes, parks should be maintained for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Here's a surprise. Even while Elections BC staff were starting to count through 700,000 ballots, the Liberals were getting ready to hive off a piece of park to help clear the way for a treaty deal.
It's the right thing to do. But it also underlines one of the many problems with this referendum. You're being asked to support principles which the government can ignore.
So while it wants a mandate to make parks off limits in treaty talks, the Liberal government feels free to hand over 11 hectares of Hesquiat Peninsula Provincial Park, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Hesquiaht First Nation will get the small piece of foreshore for a shellfish farm, a key economic opportunity for the tiny band. No roads will be built; the impact on the park will be minimal. A treaty one step closer, the band better off, no one hurt - and the Liberal treaty principle broken.
Good on them, of course. How can it be wrong to give people the chance to earn a living, on land they once owned, with no real damage to our interests?
But if the referendum is real, what are they doing defying the principle? And if it's not real, what's the point?
The referendum aside, there is at last some encouraging news on the treaty front.
Since last year a task force with representatives from First Nations and federal and provincial governments has been trying to find ways of making the process work better, building on recommendations from the the B.C. Treaty Commission.
It's an overdue step. After some $500 million and nine years, no treaties have been signed. First Nations have borrowed about $150 million.
The working group's plan has been reviewed by Attorney General Geoff Plant, federal ministers Robert Nault and Stephen Owen and Kathryn Teneese and Bill Wilson of the First Nations Summit.
And since April three different teams - each with representatives from First Nations, federal and provincial governments and the treaty commission - have been working on practical plans to push things forward. Their reports are expected next week.
One of the key proposals is to move some of the bigger issues to provincial and regional negotiations.
Right now there are about 40 different negotiating tables. Rather than trying to reach agreement on certainty or First Nations' government at each, the parties would try for a province-wide solution.
It won't be easy. Individual First Nations have been reluctant to give up bargaining authority to a central group and the issues are difficult.
But the alternative is gridlock. The task force noted the waste in having 40 First Nations paying for accountants' studies on complex taxation issues, when the principles could be addressed on a provincial level.
And right now, at each table, all three parties are aware that they may be setting a precedent on key issues. The fear of reaching a deal that could alter the course of all future negotiations - and be widely criticized - is blocking agreement.
The task force has other ideas that will be tougher to put into effect. They argue that more effort should go into building treaties incrementally, seeking small agreements en route to a settlement.
The principle makes sense. But turning the idea into reality at the bargaining table will be difficult.
The report won't magically fix talks. In fact one useful recommendation is that all the parties look hard at whether agreement is possible, given their goals and mandates.
But the task force has taken a realistic look at fixing the process. Its proposals should be put to the test.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals want to cut the amount of money going to injured workers by $100 million per cent - and they don't want to talk about the effect of the cuts.
It's almost as if they don't quite get this democracy thing, the notion that debate in the legislature is a way to ensure that new laws have their desired effect without causing any undue hardship. The Liberals are abusing the legislature - their own backbenchers more than anyone - by ramming through major bills without any meaningful debate.
The government introduced three major labour bills - changing the Labour Code, the Employment Standards Act and the way the Workers' Compensation Board works - with only days left in the session. That means each will receive only the most cursory reviews.
And that is a loss.
Our system usually requires ministers, supported by staff, to show up and answer detailed questions on the bills they introduce. The MLAs plod through them section by section, raising concerns or questions about why the changes are being made, how they'll work and what the consequences will be.
It's the chance to make sure that the purpose is on the record and that the public's questions are answered. And it's a chance to make sure that the government has not overlooked an unintended effect of a new law, or misjudged the effect on people.
The Liberals used to think that was important. When the New Democrats choked off debate on the Nisga'a treaty the Liberals were outraged. Premier Gordon Campbell called it "an absolutely disgraceful attack on the integrity of the legislature."
He was right. And now his government is doing exactly the same thing.
The labour bills are important. Changes to the Employment Standards Act and Workers' Compensation are significant and affect almost everyone in the province.
Take just one example. The WCB now increases wage loss benefits for someone disabled on the job with the rate of inflation. Under the new rules - which will only apply to new claims - benefits will increase at one per cent less than the inflation rate.
No big deal in the short term. But for a worker disabled at 25, the change could mean a loss of $600,000 by the time he reaches 65. Now his real income is maintained. Under the new rules, he would lose more than one-third of his purchasing power to inflation.
It's not necessarily a bad change. Few private disability plans are fully indexed; it costs too much and it's assumed peoples' needs decline over time. But debate would allow MLAs to question the minister about how many people will be affected and how much the average loss will be.
The WCB changes also end the practise of continuing pensions after age 65. Now the WCB will in effect contribute five per cent of benefits to an RRSP, and that money will fund the disabled workers' retirement. That's a major change; its effects should be explored in the legislature.
The ESA changes are just as significant, ending such provisions as overtime after eight hours of work and allowing employers to call in staff for two-hour shifts, while slashing enforcement.
The changes are supportable, bringing flexibility for companies and employees. But they are complex and far-reaching and the public interest would be served by a proper legislative review.
The Liberals say the rush is the price to be paid for having fixed dates for the legislative sittings. Some bills will be introduced late and rushed through at the end of each session.
But a government that respected the role of MLAs would not have waited until the last minute to drop three major bills.
The Liberals were clear about the importance of proper legislative review when they were in opposition. It's too bad they've forgotten now.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
A glimmer of treaty hope (no, it's not the referendum)
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If you're among the 30 per cent who voted in the treaty referendum, you'll remember Question 4, the one where the government wants you to say yes, parks should be maintained for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Here's a surprise. Even while Elections BC staff were starting to count through 700,000 ballots, the Liberals were getting ready to hive off a piece of park to help clear the way for a treaty deal.
It's the right thing to do. But it also underlines one of the many problems with this referendum. You're being asked to support principles which the government can ignore.
So while it wants a mandate to make parks off limits in treaty talks, the Liberal government feels free to hand over 11 hectares of Hesquiat Peninsula Provincial Park, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Hesquiaht First Nation will get the small piece of foreshore for a shellfish farm, a key economic opportunity for the tiny band. No roads will be built; the impact on the park will be minimal. A treaty one step closer, the band better off, no one hurt - and the Liberal treaty principle broken.
Good on them, of course. How can it be wrong to give people the chance to earn a living, on land they once owned, with no real damage to our interests?
But if the referendum is real, what are they doing defying the principle? And if it's not real, what's the point?
The referendum aside, there is at last some encouraging news on the treaty front.
Since last year a task force with representatives from First Nations and federal and provincial governments has been trying to find ways of making the process work better, building on recommendations from the the B.C. Treaty Commission.
It's an overdue step. After some $500 million and nine years, no treaties have been signed. First Nations have borrowed about $150 million.
The working group's plan has been reviewed by Attorney General Geoff Plant, federal ministers Robert Nault and Stephen Owen and Kathryn Teneese and Bill Wilson of the First Nations Summit.
And since April three different teams - each with representatives from First Nations, federal and provincial governments and the treaty commission - have been working on practical plans to push things forward. Their reports are expected next week.
One of the key proposals is to move some of the bigger issues to provincial and regional negotiations.
Right now there are about 40 different negotiating tables. Rather than trying to reach agreement on certainty or First Nations' government at each, the parties would try for a province-wide solution.
It won't be easy. Individual First Nations have been reluctant to give up bargaining authority to a central group and the issues are difficult.
But the alternative is gridlock. The task force noted the waste in having 40 First Nations paying for accountants' studies on complex taxation issues, when the principles could be addressed on a provincial level.
And right now, at each table, all three parties are aware that they may be setting a precedent on key issues. The fear of reaching a deal that could alter the course of all future negotiations - and be widely criticized - is blocking agreement.
The task force has other ideas that will be tougher to put into effect. They argue that more effort should go into building treaties incrementally, seeking small agreements en route to a settlement.
The principle makes sense. But turning the idea into reality at the bargaining table will be difficult.
The report won't magically fix talks. In fact one useful recommendation is that all the parties look hard at whether agreement is possible, given their goals and mandates.
But the task force has taken a realistic look at fixing the process. Its proposals should be put to the test.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Monday, May 20, 2002
Poll first warning of big trouble for Campbell
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The first anniversary poll results should scare Gordon Campbell.
Oh, the Liberals still have the support of enough voters to win re-election handily.
But the Ipsos-Reid poll results show the Liberals are seen as mean, uncaring, reckless and untrustworthy by many voters. Give voters who feel that way an option, and they'll bolt.
The poll, taken in early May, found 62 per cent of British Columbians were disappointed with the Liberals' performance, with an even higher percentage feeling let down by Campbell. About half British Columbians think the province and its economy are in worse shape now than it was when the Liberals were elected. Only 20 per cent believe things have improved.
It gets worse. About 70 per cent say health care has deteriorated under the Liberals; 60 per cent say education has declined.
And despite things like the softwood lumber dispute, about 60 per cent blame the Liberals for the worsening situation.
Fixing the economy and protecting education and health were the cornerstones of the Campbell campaign. And they're getting failing grades on all three.
That should worry the Liberals plenty, especially as almost half the voters believe health care will be in even worse shape in three years. It will be tough to convince those people to stick it out through the tough times, especially if things haven't turned around in less than three years, when the next election campaign begins.
But that's not the really bad news.
Two out of three British Columbians think "the BC Liberals don't care about the people who are most affected by the changes they make" and the same number agree the government is making decisions without "really thinking them through."
Those are damaging findings. Voters will tolerate mistakes. And they'll accept short-term sacrifice for long-term gain, if they believe that the pain is shared fairly and truly necessary.
But they won't accept a government that doesn't care about their suffering, or that they can't trust.
Why do people feel that way?
Here's Campbell, in an anniversary interview with the Vancouver Sun, in his second try at answering a simple question - what would he say to someone whose life has gotten tougher under the Liberals, who has been laid off or lost benefits or is paying more for prescriptions?
"I say that we're doing our best to make sure we create an opportunity in the future for them that they can build on," Campbell offered.
What ever happened to sorry? What ever happened to thanking those who are losing out for making the sacrifice?
The poll also found almost half those surveyed said their trust in the Liberals has faded since the election. That's not surprising, given the gap between what the Liberals promised and what they have delivered. Few job losses, they promised, before eliminating one-third of government jobs. Contracts would be honoured, they said, before ripping them up. Health and education would be protected, they said, before approving funding that has forced cuts.
The LIberals have been quick to dismiss criticism, blaming poor communication or slagging opponents as "special interests."
But health care wait times have grown. School classes will be larger and support for students reduced. The economy is worse now than it was a year ago, with unemployment up and B.C. sliding lower in the economic growth forecasts. And the $4.4-billion deficit is the largest in history.
If an election were held today, the Liberals would get 45 per cent of the votes. That's enough for a big majority, especially as the opposition support is split between the Greens and the NDP. And about 60 per cent of voters still think the harsh actions now will pay off in the future.
If the Liberals want to hold that support, they need to look closely at the poll results, and acknowledge both the reality behind peoples' perceptions and the real pain being caused by some of their changes.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
So-so grades for Liberals' first year
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - So how are they doing, one year after the election?
The Liberals unleashed a flurry of activity in the first months after their win, ticking through their 90-day commitments and coming up with shockers like the massive, and it has to be said, reckless tax cut.
The problem in trying to assess just how well this government is doing is that there are few quick fixes in this world. Changing a health care system, for example, doesn't happen overnight, and the benefits come much more slowly than the pain.
But British Columbians are entitled to assess the government's performance in much the same way a wise shareholder would judge management. The new team deserves deserve time. But they also have to be held to account for performance so far.
On the economic front, that performance hasn't been good. The Liberals ran on a promise to restore prosperity. They introduced about $2 billion worth of tax cuts, promising they would stimulate the economy.
But since the Liberals were elected the unemployment rate has climbed almost two points, to 8.7 per cent. About 8,000 fewer people are working.
The broader economic outlook doesn't look much better. The most recent economic forecast, from the Bank of Montreal, predicts B.C.'s growth will fall from sixth in Canada to last this year. It will only climb to ninth next year.
And the deficit has climbed to a record $4.4 billion, thanks in large part to the tax cuts' effects on government revenue.
Shareholders would be getting mighty nervous about that kind of performance, even given the Sept. 11 and softwood shocks.
The standard management response is that it takes time to fix the mess left by the last guys, the economy has been rough and that things have to get worse before they get better.
Should we buy it? Probably. The Liberals have slowly been making the province more appealing to investors. The tax cuts will help, although not nearly as much a Finance Minister Gary Collins claimed. They have worked to reduce the barriers to investment for mining, aquaculture and energy companies, and the employment law changes introduced this week should also please business.But those moves have been undercut by the government's inability to develop an effective softwood lumber strategy.
The challenge for Premier Gordon Campbell is to turn the changes into more jobs and investment. So far that has not happened.
What about other areas?
The Liberals' promised new era in health care looks like the old era, only worse. When the Liberals were elected, you waited 17. 5 weeks for a hip replacement. Now you wait 18.9. When the Liberals were elected, doctors had engaged in sporadic regional protests. Now they're taking job action across the province. Communities are losing local access to health care.
Despite the problems, give them higher marks here. The Liberals have at least tackled the job of reforming the system.
The story in education is the same. The Liberals, by choking off the money supply, have brought larger classes, school closures and cuts to support for students - hardly what they promised. But again they have started a process that may lead to a more effective, affordable school system
There is a theme here. Governments making big changes are asking citizens to make a leap of faith, trusting that the changes will pay off and the government is competent and honourable.
And that's a problem for the Liberals. They promised improved education, and brought major cuts. They promised no significant civil service cuts, and then set cut one-third of jobs. They promised to respect contracts, and then ripped them up. It's not a record that inspires trust.
The bottom line?
Much has gone wrong, some things have gone right, interim results are poor.
But the direction, despite some major concerns, is both right and consistent with the election campaign.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The first anniversary poll results should scare Gordon Campbell.
Oh, the Liberals still have the support of enough voters to win re-election handily.
But the Ipsos-Reid poll results show the Liberals are seen as mean, uncaring, reckless and untrustworthy by many voters. Give voters who feel that way an option, and they'll bolt.
The poll, taken in early May, found 62 per cent of British Columbians were disappointed with the Liberals' performance, with an even higher percentage feeling let down by Campbell. About half British Columbians think the province and its economy are in worse shape now than it was when the Liberals were elected. Only 20 per cent believe things have improved.
It gets worse. About 70 per cent say health care has deteriorated under the Liberals; 60 per cent say education has declined.
And despite things like the softwood lumber dispute, about 60 per cent blame the Liberals for the worsening situation.
Fixing the economy and protecting education and health were the cornerstones of the Campbell campaign. And they're getting failing grades on all three.
That should worry the Liberals plenty, especially as almost half the voters believe health care will be in even worse shape in three years. It will be tough to convince those people to stick it out through the tough times, especially if things haven't turned around in less than three years, when the next election campaign begins.
But that's not the really bad news.
Two out of three British Columbians think "the BC Liberals don't care about the people who are most affected by the changes they make" and the same number agree the government is making decisions without "really thinking them through."
Those are damaging findings. Voters will tolerate mistakes. And they'll accept short-term sacrifice for long-term gain, if they believe that the pain is shared fairly and truly necessary.
But they won't accept a government that doesn't care about their suffering, or that they can't trust.
Why do people feel that way?
Here's Campbell, in an anniversary interview with the Vancouver Sun, in his second try at answering a simple question - what would he say to someone whose life has gotten tougher under the Liberals, who has been laid off or lost benefits or is paying more for prescriptions?
"I say that we're doing our best to make sure we create an opportunity in the future for them that they can build on," Campbell offered.
What ever happened to sorry? What ever happened to thanking those who are losing out for making the sacrifice?
The poll also found almost half those surveyed said their trust in the Liberals has faded since the election. That's not surprising, given the gap between what the Liberals promised and what they have delivered. Few job losses, they promised, before eliminating one-third of government jobs. Contracts would be honoured, they said, before ripping them up. Health and education would be protected, they said, before approving funding that has forced cuts.
The LIberals have been quick to dismiss criticism, blaming poor communication or slagging opponents as "special interests."
But health care wait times have grown. School classes will be larger and support for students reduced. The economy is worse now than it was a year ago, with unemployment up and B.C. sliding lower in the economic growth forecasts. And the $4.4-billion deficit is the largest in history.
If an election were held today, the Liberals would get 45 per cent of the votes. That's enough for a big majority, especially as the opposition support is split between the Greens and the NDP. And about 60 per cent of voters still think the harsh actions now will pay off in the future.
If the Liberals want to hold that support, they need to look closely at the poll results, and acknowledge both the reality behind peoples' perceptions and the real pain being caused by some of their changes.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
So-so grades for Liberals' first year
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - So how are they doing, one year after the election?
The Liberals unleashed a flurry of activity in the first months after their win, ticking through their 90-day commitments and coming up with shockers like the massive, and it has to be said, reckless tax cut.
The problem in trying to assess just how well this government is doing is that there are few quick fixes in this world. Changing a health care system, for example, doesn't happen overnight, and the benefits come much more slowly than the pain.
But British Columbians are entitled to assess the government's performance in much the same way a wise shareholder would judge management. The new team deserves deserve time. But they also have to be held to account for performance so far.
On the economic front, that performance hasn't been good. The Liberals ran on a promise to restore prosperity. They introduced about $2 billion worth of tax cuts, promising they would stimulate the economy.
But since the Liberals were elected the unemployment rate has climbed almost two points, to 8.7 per cent. About 8,000 fewer people are working.
The broader economic outlook doesn't look much better. The most recent economic forecast, from the Bank of Montreal, predicts B.C.'s growth will fall from sixth in Canada to last this year. It will only climb to ninth next year.
And the deficit has climbed to a record $4.4 billion, thanks in large part to the tax cuts' effects on government revenue.
Shareholders would be getting mighty nervous about that kind of performance, even given the Sept. 11 and softwood shocks.
The standard management response is that it takes time to fix the mess left by the last guys, the economy has been rough and that things have to get worse before they get better.
Should we buy it? Probably. The Liberals have slowly been making the province more appealing to investors. The tax cuts will help, although not nearly as much a Finance Minister Gary Collins claimed. They have worked to reduce the barriers to investment for mining, aquaculture and energy companies, and the employment law changes introduced this week should also please business.But those moves have been undercut by the government's inability to develop an effective softwood lumber strategy.
The challenge for Premier Gordon Campbell is to turn the changes into more jobs and investment. So far that has not happened.
What about other areas?
The Liberals' promised new era in health care looks like the old era, only worse. When the Liberals were elected, you waited 17. 5 weeks for a hip replacement. Now you wait 18.9. When the Liberals were elected, doctors had engaged in sporadic regional protests. Now they're taking job action across the province. Communities are losing local access to health care.
Despite the problems, give them higher marks here. The Liberals have at least tackled the job of reforming the system.
The story in education is the same. The Liberals, by choking off the money supply, have brought larger classes, school closures and cuts to support for students - hardly what they promised. But again they have started a process that may lead to a more effective, affordable school system
There is a theme here. Governments making big changes are asking citizens to make a leap of faith, trusting that the changes will pay off and the government is competent and honourable.
And that's a problem for the Liberals. They promised improved education, and brought major cuts. They promised no significant civil service cuts, and then set cut one-third of jobs. They promised to respect contracts, and then ripped them up. It's not a record that inspires trust.
The bottom line?
Much has gone wrong, some things have gone right, interim results are poor.
But the direction, despite some major concerns, is both right and consistent with the election campaign.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Thursday, May 09, 2002
Chretien mocks B.C's tough times
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Pierre Pettigrew thinks the softwood lumber dispute hasn't cost jobs in B.C., Jean Chretien thinks it's a joke and the provincial government has no solutions.
And forest communities are abandoned, the ultimate losers from this trade dispute.
First Pettigrew, the international trade minister. When the U.S. formally approved the 27 per cent duty on Canadian softwood lumber last week, opposition MPs asked Pettigrew what Canada would do to help communities and workers who have lost jobs.
No need, everything's fine, he said. "There was no direct job losses linked to the situation with the U.S.," Pettigrew said outside the Commons. "The government can't intervene every time there is a natural (restructuring) in one industry's market. We have to sort things out."
This is the guy who is supposed to be championing our cause, who sat through the softwood summit only days earlier and heard there would be another 35,000 lost jobs on top of the 15,000 already gone. He didn't offer that theory then.
Pettigrew's position isn't crazy. The industry's tough times didn't start with softwood duties. The government's own studies - most recently a review of the coastal sector by resource economist Peter Pearse - indicate more mills will close because the industry needs greater efficiency, no matter what the outcome of the dispute.
B.C. even had a small increase in the volume of softwood exported in the first quarter of this year, while job losses were mounting.
But Pettigrew's comment still defies common sense.
Canada exports about $10 billion a year worth of softwood to the U.S., with about half of that from B.C. The duty will add $1.5 billion to the costs of doing business for firms ij this province. Since industry profits in B.C. were $200 million last year, there is no chance they will be able to absorb that cost, and that means lost jobs and mill closures. Pettigrew is living in an economy fantasyland if he doesn't accept that reality.
It's hard to know what fantasyland is home to Chretien. He considered the dispute good for a cheap laugh line at a Montreal fund-raiser, saying maybe the Americans are imposing duties because they're mad that we beat them at hockey.
Even in the House of Commons, Chretien brushed off the seriousness of the threat and ruled out special aid. "We don't need to create new programs to deal with the problem," he said.
So no hope from Ottawa and no indication that they even get it.
Meanwhile, back in B.C., it's hard to feel significantly more confident in the government's handling of the issue. Think back to the premier's televised state of the province address in February. The speech was about 3,500 words long. Softwood was dealt with in only 10 words. "One way or another, we'll resolve the softwood lumber dispute," he said. That's not much attention, and it's no strategy.
The softwood summit - attended by industry and unions and government, including two federal ministers, was supposed to produce a "comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy." It didn't.
There are no easy answers. Canada will fight the duty at the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, a process that could take several years. Forests Minister Mike de Jong promises that we will win. Canada has always always won the legal battles over whether we subsidize forest companies, he says. But that raises the obvious concern that those past victories meant little, or we wouldn't be in this mess.
In the meanwhile workers will get some help under existing employment insurance plans. The Liberals will finally launch the PR campaign in the U.S. that they have talked about since last year. Some companies will sue the U.S. Some will try to cut a deal, accepting a lower duty and giving up the idea of free trade.
And forest communities and the workers who live in them will face ruin, while their federal government refuses to take notice or provide meaningful help.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Canadians have betrayed their troops
By Paul WIllcocks
VICTORIA - The funerals are over for the four Canadian soldiers killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan. The flags have been raised again, the media has moved on and the families are left to face the hole left in their lives. In Ottawa, they're deciding whether to commit troops for another six months.
Now it's time for us to look in the mirror. The sorrow Canadians shared over those deaths was genuine. But it was also hypocritical, and our national shock at their deaths on the dark Afghan plain only compounds our shame.
The worst part is that the shock is genuine. Canadians collectively were stunned that our soldiers had been killed. We didn't think about what we were asking them to do when we joined this war. War is about killing and being killed in a chaotic environment. When we decided to join this odd war, we were condemning some Canadians troops to death.
Our shock shows that we did that without any real thought. The deaths were cruelly pointless. The soldiers of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were training when an American jet dropped a 250-kg bomb in their midst, killing four young men and wounding eight others.
But so-called friendly fire is a major cause of death in today's high-tech wars. About one-quarter of American casualties in the Gulf War were self-inflicted. About one-fifth of coalition casualties in Afghanistan have been linked to the same kind of errors. American and Afghan soldiers have been killed by U.S. bombs. Canadians should have known this would happen; certainly the government did.
And does it really matter how the men died? Would their families' loss be much different if they had been shot by the tattered remnants of al-Qaeda troops?
Our hypocrisy deepens. Many Canadians have expressed disappointment, even anger, at the American's response. The deaths were a non-event in the U.S., buried deep in the newspapers. President George Bush was slow to offer condolences. They just didn't matter.
But about 3,600 civilians have been killed in this war, people simply going about their business while bombers fly overhead and troops roll around the countryside. And we have paid no attention to their deaths. Those deaths, the families killed in their homes, the children run down in the street, are part of the price we agreed was necessary when we sent troops to Afghanistan.
War is about killing, although we don't like to acknowledge that reality. The U.S. military wants to honour four Canadian soldiers who fought alongside American units. They're extraordinarily skilled sharpshooters; one killed an enemy gunman 2.4 km away, a likely record. Canadian defence officials were hesitant to allow the recognition and David Bercuson, director of the University of Calgary's Centre of Military and Strategic Studies thinks he knows why.
"Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact. . . that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
It is an extraordinary thing to ask someone to do on our behalf. To stare through sniper sight at another man, take a deep breath, squeeze the trigger. . .and then two seconds later, watch him fall down dead.
I've given too little thought to the mission our troops, some 900 on the ground and 1,700 in supporting roles, have been sent on. I haven't written anything about it.
I didn't even think much about that the decision to join U.S. combat troops, instead of a British-led peace-keeping force. (Canadian troops have an extraordinary peace-keeping tradition, at a high price. More than 100 Canadians have died on peace-keeping missions, more than any other country.)
Our casual indifference, sending our soldiers off to war with no real thought about that that means, was an insult to our troops. We should be ashamed.
Paul WIllcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Pierre Pettigrew thinks the softwood lumber dispute hasn't cost jobs in B.C., Jean Chretien thinks it's a joke and the provincial government has no solutions.
And forest communities are abandoned, the ultimate losers from this trade dispute.
First Pettigrew, the international trade minister. When the U.S. formally approved the 27 per cent duty on Canadian softwood lumber last week, opposition MPs asked Pettigrew what Canada would do to help communities and workers who have lost jobs.
No need, everything's fine, he said. "There was no direct job losses linked to the situation with the U.S.," Pettigrew said outside the Commons. "The government can't intervene every time there is a natural (restructuring) in one industry's market. We have to sort things out."
This is the guy who is supposed to be championing our cause, who sat through the softwood summit only days earlier and heard there would be another 35,000 lost jobs on top of the 15,000 already gone. He didn't offer that theory then.
Pettigrew's position isn't crazy. The industry's tough times didn't start with softwood duties. The government's own studies - most recently a review of the coastal sector by resource economist Peter Pearse - indicate more mills will close because the industry needs greater efficiency, no matter what the outcome of the dispute.
B.C. even had a small increase in the volume of softwood exported in the first quarter of this year, while job losses were mounting.
But Pettigrew's comment still defies common sense.
Canada exports about $10 billion a year worth of softwood to the U.S., with about half of that from B.C. The duty will add $1.5 billion to the costs of doing business for firms ij this province. Since industry profits in B.C. were $200 million last year, there is no chance they will be able to absorb that cost, and that means lost jobs and mill closures. Pettigrew is living in an economy fantasyland if he doesn't accept that reality.
It's hard to know what fantasyland is home to Chretien. He considered the dispute good for a cheap laugh line at a Montreal fund-raiser, saying maybe the Americans are imposing duties because they're mad that we beat them at hockey.
Even in the House of Commons, Chretien brushed off the seriousness of the threat and ruled out special aid. "We don't need to create new programs to deal with the problem," he said.
So no hope from Ottawa and no indication that they even get it.
Meanwhile, back in B.C., it's hard to feel significantly more confident in the government's handling of the issue. Think back to the premier's televised state of the province address in February. The speech was about 3,500 words long. Softwood was dealt with in only 10 words. "One way or another, we'll resolve the softwood lumber dispute," he said. That's not much attention, and it's no strategy.
The softwood summit - attended by industry and unions and government, including two federal ministers, was supposed to produce a "comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy." It didn't.
There are no easy answers. Canada will fight the duty at the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, a process that could take several years. Forests Minister Mike de Jong promises that we will win. Canada has always always won the legal battles over whether we subsidize forest companies, he says. But that raises the obvious concern that those past victories meant little, or we wouldn't be in this mess.
In the meanwhile workers will get some help under existing employment insurance plans. The Liberals will finally launch the PR campaign in the U.S. that they have talked about since last year. Some companies will sue the U.S. Some will try to cut a deal, accepting a lower duty and giving up the idea of free trade.
And forest communities and the workers who live in them will face ruin, while their federal government refuses to take notice or provide meaningful help.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Canadians have betrayed their troops
By Paul WIllcocks
VICTORIA - The funerals are over for the four Canadian soldiers killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan. The flags have been raised again, the media has moved on and the families are left to face the hole left in their lives. In Ottawa, they're deciding whether to commit troops for another six months.
Now it's time for us to look in the mirror. The sorrow Canadians shared over those deaths was genuine. But it was also hypocritical, and our national shock at their deaths on the dark Afghan plain only compounds our shame.
The worst part is that the shock is genuine. Canadians collectively were stunned that our soldiers had been killed. We didn't think about what we were asking them to do when we joined this war. War is about killing and being killed in a chaotic environment. When we decided to join this odd war, we were condemning some Canadians troops to death.
Our shock shows that we did that without any real thought. The deaths were cruelly pointless. The soldiers of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were training when an American jet dropped a 250-kg bomb in their midst, killing four young men and wounding eight others.
But so-called friendly fire is a major cause of death in today's high-tech wars. About one-quarter of American casualties in the Gulf War were self-inflicted. About one-fifth of coalition casualties in Afghanistan have been linked to the same kind of errors. American and Afghan soldiers have been killed by U.S. bombs. Canadians should have known this would happen; certainly the government did.
And does it really matter how the men died? Would their families' loss be much different if they had been shot by the tattered remnants of al-Qaeda troops?
Our hypocrisy deepens. Many Canadians have expressed disappointment, even anger, at the American's response. The deaths were a non-event in the U.S., buried deep in the newspapers. President George Bush was slow to offer condolences. They just didn't matter.
But about 3,600 civilians have been killed in this war, people simply going about their business while bombers fly overhead and troops roll around the countryside. And we have paid no attention to their deaths. Those deaths, the families killed in their homes, the children run down in the street, are part of the price we agreed was necessary when we sent troops to Afghanistan.
War is about killing, although we don't like to acknowledge that reality. The U.S. military wants to honour four Canadian soldiers who fought alongside American units. They're extraordinarily skilled sharpshooters; one killed an enemy gunman 2.4 km away, a likely record. Canadian defence officials were hesitant to allow the recognition and David Bercuson, director of the University of Calgary's Centre of Military and Strategic Studies thinks he knows why.
"Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact. . . that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
It is an extraordinary thing to ask someone to do on our behalf. To stare through sniper sight at another man, take a deep breath, squeeze the trigger. . .and then two seconds later, watch him fall down dead.
I've given too little thought to the mission our troops, some 900 on the ground and 1,700 in supporting roles, have been sent on. I haven't written anything about it.
I didn't even think much about that the decision to join U.S. combat troops, instead of a British-led peace-keeping force. (Canadian troops have an extraordinary peace-keeping tradition, at a high price. More than 100 Canadians have died on peace-keeping missions, more than any other country.)
Our casual indifference, sending our soldiers off to war with no real thought about that that means, was an insult to our troops. We should be ashamed.
Paul WIllcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Monday, April 29, 2002
Liberals botching long-term care
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals have made a botch of launching their long-term care strategy, stumbling through missteps that must leave seniors wondering if there is any plan at all.
The theory is excellent. Provide people with the help they need to stay in their home for a longer period. They'll be happier and taxpayers will save money. But the risks are high, especially if the beds and the support aren't there.
And based on the Liberals' actions so far, that's a serious concern.
The Liberals specifically promised 5,000 new , additional long-term care beds by 2006 in their New Era campaign booklet. The said then that 4,200 beds were needed immediately.
On Monday Kathryn Whittred, the minister responsible, shredded that promise.
She told open cabinet that a bed is no longer a bed; providing support for a senior at home would now count toward the commitment.
And while her cabinet colleagues sat silently, she abandoned the commitment to 5,000 additional beds. She announced 3,500 spaces, but most will replace beds the Liberals plan to close. Whittred didn't know how many beds would close; she didn't know how many beds would be needed in future.
The next day Health Minister Colin Hansen had the missing numbers. The five health regions will close 3,000 long-term care beds, he said, but they will replace them with 4,165 new spaces. That's a net gain of 1,165, far short of the promised 5,000, but Hansen said he felt comfortable explaining the change to his constituents.
The following day the story changed again. Hansen said he was confused. The Liberals will really build 5,000 beds.
That's tough to believe. Remember the Liberals plan to add 1,200 beds over the next three years - and then 3,800 in one year, after the election, to meet their commitment.
It's especially tough to believe when you look into the three-year plans of the health regions. The Vancouver Island region has 3,050 long-term care beds now. It plans a net gain of 180 spaces over three years. The Interior region plans to close almost one-third of the existing 4,700 long-term beds, and won't replace them all. There will actually be fewer spaces.
And where will the money come to provide these promised services? Adding 5,000 beds means something like $200 million more in operating costs, at time when health regions' budgets will be frozen for two years.
The puzzles pile up. Whittred told cabinet that closure decisions would be based on detailed information. "Through BCBC's health services group, a complete inventory has been taken of all residential care facilities," she said. "This information is made available to the health authorities to help them in planning their current and future needs." But the inventory isn't complete, even though the decisions are being made.
Whittred - and Premier Gordon Campbell - also promised no senior would be moved without consultation and a clear plan. But as they made that promise, the Interior Health Authority announced that the residents of Revelstoke's Moberly Manor have received 30-days' notice that their home will close. Residents would be moved into spare beds in the town's hospital, while the search is under way for a better home.
That's not consultation. And it's rough treatment for seniors, often ill, who have already had to give up their homes.
The health region faces its own rough choices. Money is extremely tight, especially given plans for cuts to regional budgets in the third year of the Liberals' plan. Closing the manor will save about $900,000 a year to provide other services.
The gap between the promises and the reality is rightly alarming seniors and their families.
The health care system needs to change, and the results are going to be difficult for some people.
But they should be able to count on sound planning, caution and candor. And so far, the government's handling of the long-term care question falls short on all three.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Our shame at sending the young to die
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The sorrow over the deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is heartfelt, but our collective shock is stunningly hypocritical.
Did Canadians really think our troops were going to a war arranged by CNN, with great special effects and a happy ending?
War is about killing people. When we decided to join this odd war, we were deciding that some Canadian troops would die. Sadness is understandable, but shock or surprise means we never really thought about that decision.
The deaths were cruel. Soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were training when an American jet aimed a laser-guided 500-pound bomb into their midst, killing four young men and wounding eight others.
But even that should be no surprise. About 25 per cent of American casualties in the Gulf War were due to so-called friendly fire. So far, about one-fifth of the coalition deaths in Afghanistan are blamed on the same errors. The U.S. has bombed both its own soliders, and Afghan troops. Being killed by the people on your own side is part of modern war. Canadians should have known that; certainly the government did.
And does it really matter how the men died? Would their families' loss be much different if their jeep had rolled over on a dusty road, or they had been attacked by the tattered remnants of al-Qaeda?
War is about killing and being killed, although we don't like to acknowledge that. The U.S. military wants to honour four Canadian soldiers for their work as snipers in Afghanistan. One of them killed an enemy gunman 2.4 kms away, a likely record for that kind of sharpshooting.
But Canadian defence officials are blocking the medals, and David Bercuson, director of the University of Calgary's Centre of Military and Strategic Studies thinks he knows why. "Canadians don't kill - they don't even use the word kill; that's the problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the government is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact. . . that Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
It must be a strange and damaging thing for both men, the one who stares through the rifle sight, holds his breath and squeezes the trigger. . . and the one who, two seconds later, falls down dead.
It's natural that we should feel a sharp sorrow. And it's natural that we should feel betrayed by the U.S., which treated the four deaths as a non-event - brief stories buried deep in the newspaper, no public condolences from President George Bush for two days.
But so far about 3,800 civilians have been killed in this war, people simply going about their business, trying to survive as bombers fly overhead and troops roll around the countryside. That too is part of the price of war we, as Canadians, have decided must be paid. Their deaths have been buried in our papers, or been ignored. We are no more interested in the people killed in their homes than the Americans are interested in our casualties.
I have given little thought to the mission our troops have been sent on, haven't written about it. Canada had two options - a peace-keeping role under British command, or a combat role under the U.S. Our government chose combat. I didn't even think much about that.
Our indifference was an insult to our troops, the 900 on the ground and the 1,700 in supporting roles. We watched them prepare, stood on the Victoria shore as the ships set off, waving little flags. But we didn't stop and think whether we wanted to send them to kill and be killed.
Now we're shocked that four Canadians have been added to the long list of those killed in this odd war.
Shame on us. We sent people off to kill and be killed with casual indifference. Only when they were dead did we really consider the price we had asked them to pay.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
Health care change a needed gamble
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals pretty good marks for their health care changes.
It's not going to be pretty or fun, the next couple of years. The fact is, some people are probably going to die because care is 20 minutes farther away than it used to be. Some people are always going to die, even if a doctor followed each of us around every day.
But the reality is that the system can't keep rolling along in the same old way. Spending increased 6.5 per cent a year for the past five years; it already is about 40 per cent of the total provincial budget. Few of us want to see more and more of our income going to health care.
So the Liberals have frozen health care spending for the next two years, and divided the province into five regions, asking health boards to cut costs.
The regions unveiled their plans this week in a five-hour marathon press conference. It wasn't good news for many communities. The services they have come to expect will no longer be available in town. They will lose part of their economic base.
The new model relies heavily on centralization within the regions. Instead of six obstetricians in four hospitals, they will be grouped in two hospitals. Longer drives, but reduced overhead and a better chance of keeping specialists who can share on-call duties.
It also looks for significant savings from contracting out. Running a cafeteria isn't actually a necessary part of the health care business.
And it cuts back on the space available in the system, with hundreds of acute and long-term care beds being closed across the province.
The result is some 8,000 job losses across the system over the next three years.
The theories are all sound. The health region CEOs talked about how up to one in six hospital beds was being occupied by someone who didn't belong there, who needed lower cost care. Those people could move into long-term care. And up to one-third of the people in long-term care - nursing homes to you - could be in some sort of less costly, more independent assisted living.
Maybe. But most people I know are dragged, kicking and screaming, into long-term care. They might be reluctant to be moved out. And they might be justifiably concerned that the promised help would be clawed back as soon as times got tough. (That has been the pattern, after all.)
The health regions all received funding increases this year, averaging 7.4 per cent. The Island region got a larger increase, a reflection of past under-funding.
But that amount is slated to be frozen for the next two years, despite inflation, high wage settlements and population increases. The pressure on all programs will be intense.
How hungry will the health regions be for revenue? The Vancouver Coastal Region is looking to sell operations to Americans in off hours - Buy a bypass, get a free Canucks' ticket. Other regions are looking to charge for room amenities and sell the rights to be the official soft drink supplier to the hospital.
And that should be a concern. I was jarred to read a financial report on an American private hospital corporation that lauded its success at increasing revenue per patient. That measurement didn't seem to have much to do with health or efficiency.
But still, the Liberals have outlined a plan. Its basic strategic directions make sense. And by freezing funding they've forced change.
It would be helpful if they would simply admit that services will be reduced as a result of the funding freeze. The concept of more with less is beloved of managers, but in life one generally ends up doing less with less. The challenge is to be smart about what you stop doing.
British Columbians likely accept that. On with the experiment.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Courthouse closure battle shows Liberal weakness
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The brawl between Attorney General Geoff Plant and judges and lawyers is ultimately a sideshow, but it's one that demonstrates three of the Liberals' critical weaknesses.
Provincial court judges are mad at Plant over his plans to close 24 courthouses, and his failure to consult with them. Lawyers are angry about the same issue, and also about legal aid cuts that they say will deny many people access to justice. Lots of Liberal MLAs, facing anger back home about the courthouse closures, aren't much happier.
The tussle is an important one, even if few people are likely to pay much attention. A wrangle about the independence of the judiciary seems less important than the loss of a hospital.
But it's important to have an independent judicial system; that's one of our protections against abusive governments.
The issue here is what independent means. Chief Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan believes that independence means judges must have a significant say on whether courthouses should close. Plant believes that is a budget decision that is the responsibility of the government of the day.
Baird Ellan has a point. Surely a decision to close courthouses or make the job of judges more difficult or unpleasant could be used to interfere with the independence of the courts. It's tough to imagine that judges can really function independently if the government can choose to close courthouses without consultation.
Plant has a point too. He wants to save money, buy closing courthouses and cutting people off legal aid. He believes the voters gave the Liberals the right to make those decisions.
You get to decide who is correct.
But the whole battle highlights three serious weaknesses of this government.
First , Plant didn't consult with the judges - even in a superficial way - before he made the decision to close the court houses, although he did offer to discuss implementation after the fact.
That shows a government that thinks it has all the answers, that wisdom resides only at the centre. Shouldn't it have been seen as a possible that judges might just have some useful ideas on costs and efficiency? The move to ignore the advice of people in the system makes the government look arrogant and unreasonable. It also makes them vulnerable to big mistakes.
Second, the fact that the cuts were made without consultation indicates that they were made without a real plan. Critics have been fearful that the Liberals have set targets for spending cuts arbitrarily, without really considering the impact of the changes. The courthouse closures support that. A serious review couldn't have been done without consulting the judges.
Finally, the spat highlights the gap between the positions the Liberals took in opposition and their new stance.
The NDP tried to close fewer court houses, and Plant was critical. The chaos that would result wouldn't justify the savings, he said then.
He was an even sharper critic of the NDP's practise of siphoning money from a special tax on lawyers' services - intended to pay for legal aid - into general revenues. Now his government is increasing the tax and diverting about 10 times as much money into its coffers, while cutting more than one-third of legal aid within three years. It's a dramatic flip-flop on what was once a question of principle.
The Liberals aren't likely to retreat. Baird Ellan wrote Plant saying the judges had lost confidence in him as attorney general, but then fell silent. The Law Society of B.C. is suing over the legal aid cuts and closures, and its members will meet May 21 in an extraordinary meeting to vote on censuring Plant. Plant observes correctly that all he needs is the confidence of Premier Gordon Campbell.
But politically and practically, consultation would have been the right course, the one that created the best chance of a good public policy decision.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals pretty good marks for their health care changes.
It's not going to be pretty or fun, the next couple of years. The fact is, some people are probably going to die because care is 20 minutes farther away than it used to be. Some people are always going to die, even if a doctor followed each of us around every day.
But the reality is that the system can't keep rolling along in the same old way. Spending increased 6.5 per cent a year for the past five years; it already is about 40 per cent of the total provincial budget. Few of us want to see more and more of our income going to health care.
So the Liberals have frozen health care spending for the next two years, and divided the province into five regions, asking health boards to cut costs.
The regions unveiled their plans this week in a five-hour marathon press conference. It wasn't good news for many communities. The services they have come to expect will no longer be available in town. They will lose part of their economic base.
The new model relies heavily on centralization within the regions. Instead of six obstetricians in four hospitals, they will be grouped in two hospitals. Longer drives, but reduced overhead and a better chance of keeping specialists who can share on-call duties.
It also looks for significant savings from contracting out. Running a cafeteria isn't actually a necessary part of the health care business.
And it cuts back on the space available in the system, with hundreds of acute and long-term care beds being closed across the province.
The result is some 8,000 job losses across the system over the next three years.
The theories are all sound. The health region CEOs talked about how up to one in six hospital beds was being occupied by someone who didn't belong there, who needed lower cost care. Those people could move into long-term care. And up to one-third of the people in long-term care - nursing homes to you - could be in some sort of less costly, more independent assisted living.
Maybe. But most people I know are dragged, kicking and screaming, into long-term care. They might be reluctant to be moved out. And they might be justifiably concerned that the promised help would be clawed back as soon as times got tough. (That has been the pattern, after all.)
The health regions all received funding increases this year, averaging 7.4 per cent. The Island region got a larger increase, a reflection of past under-funding.
But that amount is slated to be frozen for the next two years, despite inflation, high wage settlements and population increases. The pressure on all programs will be intense.
How hungry will the health regions be for revenue? The Vancouver Coastal Region is looking to sell operations to Americans in off hours - Buy a bypass, get a free Canucks' ticket. Other regions are looking to charge for room amenities and sell the rights to be the official soft drink supplier to the hospital.
And that should be a concern. I was jarred to read a financial report on an American private hospital corporation that lauded its success at increasing revenue per patient. That measurement didn't seem to have much to do with health or efficiency.
But still, the Liberals have outlined a plan. Its basic strategic directions make sense. And by freezing funding they've forced change.
It would be helpful if they would simply admit that services will be reduced as a result of the funding freeze. The concept of more with less is beloved of managers, but in life one generally ends up doing less with less. The challenge is to be smart about what you stop doing.
British Columbians likely accept that. On with the experiment.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Courthouse closure battle shows Liberal weakness
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The brawl between Attorney General Geoff Plant and judges and lawyers is ultimately a sideshow, but it's one that demonstrates three of the Liberals' critical weaknesses.
Provincial court judges are mad at Plant over his plans to close 24 courthouses, and his failure to consult with them. Lawyers are angry about the same issue, and also about legal aid cuts that they say will deny many people access to justice. Lots of Liberal MLAs, facing anger back home about the courthouse closures, aren't much happier.
The tussle is an important one, even if few people are likely to pay much attention. A wrangle about the independence of the judiciary seems less important than the loss of a hospital.
But it's important to have an independent judicial system; that's one of our protections against abusive governments.
The issue here is what independent means. Chief Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan believes that independence means judges must have a significant say on whether courthouses should close. Plant believes that is a budget decision that is the responsibility of the government of the day.
Baird Ellan has a point. Surely a decision to close courthouses or make the job of judges more difficult or unpleasant could be used to interfere with the independence of the courts. It's tough to imagine that judges can really function independently if the government can choose to close courthouses without consultation.
Plant has a point too. He wants to save money, buy closing courthouses and cutting people off legal aid. He believes the voters gave the Liberals the right to make those decisions.
You get to decide who is correct.
But the whole battle highlights three serious weaknesses of this government.
First , Plant didn't consult with the judges - even in a superficial way - before he made the decision to close the court houses, although he did offer to discuss implementation after the fact.
That shows a government that thinks it has all the answers, that wisdom resides only at the centre. Shouldn't it have been seen as a possible that judges might just have some useful ideas on costs and efficiency? The move to ignore the advice of people in the system makes the government look arrogant and unreasonable. It also makes them vulnerable to big mistakes.
Second, the fact that the cuts were made without consultation indicates that they were made without a real plan. Critics have been fearful that the Liberals have set targets for spending cuts arbitrarily, without really considering the impact of the changes. The courthouse closures support that. A serious review couldn't have been done without consulting the judges.
Finally, the spat highlights the gap between the positions the Liberals took in opposition and their new stance.
The NDP tried to close fewer court houses, and Plant was critical. The chaos that would result wouldn't justify the savings, he said then.
He was an even sharper critic of the NDP's practise of siphoning money from a special tax on lawyers' services - intended to pay for legal aid - into general revenues. Now his government is increasing the tax and diverting about 10 times as much money into its coffers, while cutting more than one-third of legal aid within three years. It's a dramatic flip-flop on what was once a question of principle.
The Liberals aren't likely to retreat. Baird Ellan wrote Plant saying the judges had lost confidence in him as attorney general, but then fell silent. The Law Society of B.C. is suing over the legal aid cuts and closures, and its members will meet May 21 in an extraordinary meeting to vote on censuring Plant. Plant observes correctly that all he needs is the confidence of Premier Gordon Campbell.
But politically and practically, consultation would have been the right course, the one that created the best chance of a good public policy decision.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
If the workers are messed up, so are we
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure, morale stinks in lots of offices. One of the rituals of working life is complaining about the bosses' stupidity.
But the workplace problems in the B.C. government, revealed in the latest report from the province's auditor general, go far beyond the usual grumbling.
And although your first reaction may be a shrug - who cares if other people like their jobs - the problems are serious. They cost you money and hurt the service you get from government.
Auditor General Wayne Strelioff's report didn't come as a surprise to Premier Gordon Campbell, but it should still have given him a nasty jolt.
Strelioff's report was based on a survey of thousands of government workers in January, 2001. The research revealed a discouraged, frustrated workforce, made up of people who don't trust their bosses. They don't believe their leaders have any clear idea about that their departments are trying to accomplish and are afraid to offer suggestions in case they get in trouble.
If the issue was their happiness, you could likely afford to shrug.
But the real issue is organizational effectiveness - how well government works. And the auditor-general's report establishes that the organization is too sick to provide high-quality service.
The report compared the B.C. government ranks with other organizations, and found it failed to come close to the standards maintained by effective organizations.
The biggest problem is leadership. "I was disappointed to discover that employees in the B.C. public service do not trust or have confidence in their leaders," Strelioff found. "This issue permeated all of our findings and stood out overwhelmingly."
Only about 25 per cent of government employees were satisfied with their leaders. Managers were given low ratings for honest and open communications and rated as poor at providing direction or feedback.
And good ideas aren't seen as welcome. Two out of three employees believed that questioning policy or the way things are done would likely lead to criticism or punishment.
"Employees are not likely to suggest improvements or take reasonable risks if successes are unrewarded and mistakes are punished," Mr. Strelioff observes. Sounds like my workplace, you might be saying. But Strelioff compared results with surveys used to assess the best Canadian companies to work for. In those organizations about three our of four employees gave their leaders positive ratings - about three times the level of confidence and trust reported by B.C. government employees.
Young workers are particularly disgruntled. "They perceive a bureaucratic, slow-paced, hierarchal structure unattractive to young workers," the report found. "With the downsizing currently under way, the attraction of the public service as a place of employment is not likely to improve over the next few years."
It's not the Liberals' fault, although it's likely the results would be worse if the survey was repeated today.
But it is their problem. The Liberals plan a big, radical change to smaller, more creative, efficient government. That's not something you order; it's something motivated employees create.
The Liberals have promised some of the right changes, and made a big start by pulling together about 200 "leaders of today and tomorrow," including every deputy minister, for a leadership conference last week, with Campbell kicking things off.
But the Liberals still have to deal with their own broken promises about job cuts and their tendency to dismiss government workers as people not quite good enough to have made their way in the private sector.
It won't make headlines, and it's slow, hard work. But restoring trust to the government workplace may be one of the Liberals' greatest challenges.
Health cuts coming: Liberal MLAs got a detailed briefing on health cuts at a special caucus meeting Sunday. The rest of us will get the word on hospital closures and layoffs next week, with an open cabinet meeting Monday expected to set the stage for detailed announcements Tuesday.
Paul Willcocks can be reached at willcocks@ultranet.ca
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
