The old Campbell would have seen a conflict question
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - First day back in the legislature, and NDP leader Joy MacPhail raised what seemed to be a pretty good question.
As the Liberals were hard at work on their energy plan last year, they decided to hire some expert outside help to present it to the public. They turned - as the NDP had in the past - to National Public Relations' Vancouver office, and signed a $22,000 contract with Marcia Smith.
No harm there. In a perfect world governments would be able to handle these kind of things with the large gang of people on staff who charged with communicating with us. But in a perfect world I'd be smarter, too.
However only days before Energy Minister Richard Neufeld's department hired Smith, she had registered as a provincial lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Energy.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? There's not many people about to organize a counter group, the citizens for irresponsible energy.
But the coalition would be more accurately labelled the Canadian coalition of businesses worried about getting hurt by the Kyoto Accord, especially the oil and gas and coal industries. (There is no shame in being in that group; many good questions remain about the accord's approach to reducing greenhouse gases.)
Now those two jobs would strike many people as a problem. Smith was working for a special interest group to make sure it's anti-Kyoto Accord message was heard by the Liberal government. And then she's hired - at the same time - by the same government to develop a plan to explain their new energy policy to the public and stakeholders.
If it's me, and I'm sitting in my office on a grey Sunday morning putting the finishing touches on the communications plan, I'm going to wonder - did I add this sentence because it's the best for the government, or best for the companies that I'm lobbying for?
And even if I'm sure I've kept the roles separate, I'm going to wonder how this would look.
Neufeld ignored the questions, just filled in the time with a lot of blather about how great the Liberals are and how bad the New Democrats were. If you asked your kid a simple question and they answered with a lot of self-serving irrelevancies and ignored the real issue entirely, you'd wonder where you'd gone wrong. In Question Period, it's par for the course.
But an hour later Premier Gordon Campbell did a rare session with reporters in the waiting room outside his office and faced the issue.
He didn't see a problem, the premier said.
But couldn't the public wonder at the impartiality of a consultant drafting a plan to emphasize some parts of the energy policy and downplay others, who was also being paid to influence government energy policy? Couldn't it make people nervous to know that a person registered to lobby for an industry group was getting an advance look at the policy?
No, said the premier, and anyway the lobbying was about the Kyoto Accord, not energy.
But surely the province couldn't have developed an energy policy without considering the Kyoto Accord?
"Absolutely," said Campbell. Kyoto didn't even figure in the energy policy.
Anyway, he added, it's not the government's problem. The contract says it's up to the consultant to tell the government of any potential conflicts. The government is clean.
Here's how to figure out who's right, Campbell or MacPhail.
Cast your mind back a few years, and imagine it came to light that the NDP government had hired a consultant to help launch a new labour law policy. And imagine that it turned out the same consultant was being paid to lobby on behalf of the a group of big unions on the same issue.
I'm guessing Gordon Campbell would have found something wrong about that.
Footnote: Give the Liberals full credit in one area. The issue arose because they passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and disclose who they're working for, on what issues and who they're contacting in government. The lobbyist registry was an important step forward in accountability and openness, and the government deserves full marks for putting it in place.
Who sent a Canadian citizen to a Syrian jail?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A Canadian citizen is snatched by U.S. police while changing planes in New York. The Americans send him to Jordan, then Syria, against his will. He spends a year in jail without being charged, facing a secret trial. Then he's returned to Canada without explanation.
And our government, the people who are supposed to be protecting Canadians from abuse, wants to keep the circumstances -- including its role -- a deep, dark secret.
Maher Arar was on his way back to his Ottawa home from a Tunisian holiday when he was arrested in New York and sent to the Mideast. American police or the CIA apparently considered him a suspected terrorist.
But what's supposed to happen in such cases that the Americans can either hold a suspect, if they have charges, or deport him to Canada.
So why was Arar, a software engineer, sent to Syria, locked up for a year and separated from his wife and two young children without any charge? What role did the Canadian government and the RCMP play in the affair? And now that he's released -- having missed a year of his childrens' lives while languishing in a Syrian jail -- what justification was there for the snatching of a Canadian citizen by three foreign governments?
None of your business, says the federal government. He's back in one piece, so just drop it. (I'm paraphrasing.)
It's not just Arar who wants answers. MPs from all parties have been trying to find out how and why this happened, and what role the Canadian government played.
They especially want to know whether the RCMP set Arar up, sharing intelligence with the U.S. that led to his imprisonment. (But not to any supportable charges.)
That seems a reasonable question.
But Solicitor General Wayne Easter won't answer the MPs' questions. "Aren't you as mad as a wet hen that [United States officials] took a Canadian citizen and sent him to a Syrian gulag?" Liberal MP John Harvard demanded at a foreign affairs committee meeting this week.
Easter isn't mad. He stonewalled the committee. Discussing RCMP operational matters could compromise continuing investigations, he said. That's the same non-answer RCMP assistant commissioner Richard Proulx tried when he appeared before the committee.
MPs -- again, including Liberal MPs -- wanted to know what role the RCMP played in the arrest and whether they had told the Americans to grab Arar and send him to a Mideast jail. Proulx wouldn't answer. I'm the police, you're just MPs. Beat it. (I'm paraphrasing again.)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien said pretty much the same thing. "Every time that we have a problem in government we cannot have an inquiry on everything," he said.
A problem in government? A Canadian citizen is snatched and transported to Syria against his will, with no charges and no hearing, no access to a lawyer. He's questioned by the CIA, and his own government is denied access to him.
The rule of international law, and basic principles of human rights, were tossed aside.
Canadians deserve answers. Did the RCMP play a role in Arar's detention by the U.S.? They won't say, but the Americans say they grabbed Arar because of information provided by Canadian police.
Did the Canadian government play a role in having Arar sent to Syria -- the country he left 17 years ago as a teen? Was there an attempt to get around Canadian law, where some evidence is required before a person is arrested, by conspiring with the U.S. and Syria?
MPs from all parties haven't been able to get the answers to those questions, stonewalled by police and federal ministers.
The only solution left is a full, independent inquiry.
Our laws hold us all responsible for our actions. They are also intended to protect us from abuse by our governments.
Canadians need to know whether the government decided a citizen's rights didn't matter in this case.
Footnote: The Arar case also highlights the drift in Ottawa, where Chretien and Paul Martin are both acting like prime ministers, with the result that neither is really accountable for the decisions now being made. Chretien's desire to stay in power until February looks increasingly destructive.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Saturday, October 04, 2003
BC Liberals, NDP get warning from Ontario vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Both the NDP and the Liberals in B.C. could take a lesson from the Ontario election.
Voters turfed out the Conservative party, choosing to place spending on health, education and infrastructure ahead of tax cuts.
The Ontario Conservatives have been frequently cited as an example of how things should be done by the Campbell Liberals. Mike Harris took power promising a "common sense revolution," which would include big tax cuts and spending reductions.
Eight years later, his party is gone.
There's lots of factors - this is, after all, Canadian politics. Harris was succeeded by Ernie Eves, who was unable to convince voters he was equipped to lead. The Conservatives bungled some critical issues, like power deregulation and privatization.
But the debate over tax cuts, and the kind of society people wanted, was central to the campaign. The Conservatives went to the voters promising more tax cuts - a reduction of corporate tax worth about $550 million, savings for seniors and homeowners and people who send their kids to private schools.
It was a similar message to their promises in the last two elections, based on the same premise - that tax cuts will boost the economy, and that voters' priority is on keeping money in their own wallets.
It didn't work.
That doesn't mean that voters don't like saving money. But the Liberals successfully argued that public spending isn't bad, if it is used to deliver needed services in an effective way.
And they found a receptive audience. For the past couple of years there has been a growing sense in Ontario that the things that residents were once proud of - quality health care, good public schools, parks, clean cities, opportunities for children - were deteriorating. Talk to Ontario residents, or read their papers, and you heard of mounting concern about health care waiting lists. People noted that schools - once well-maintained and a centre of community pride - were now dirty, with scruffy yards and unpainted buildings, because there wasn't enough money.
They simply decided that they were willing to pay taxes to see those services maintained. And they didn't buy the argument that further tax cuts would generate any economic benefits. The Conservatives dropped from 59 seats to 24; the Liberals went from 35 to 72.
It's an important lesson for the BC Liberals.
The Campbell government's focus is firmly on cutting spending. The government needs to cut more than $850 million from this year's programs to meet the goal of a balanced budget by next year. And they are in a tight enough bind that the quality and value of services matters much less than the arbitrary budget deadline.
And that is the kind of government that Ontario voters rejected.
But the BC NDP, as they head toward a leadership convention next month, can also learn from Ontario.
Voters didn't take the NDP seriously or believe that the party had a credible plan for governing. The Ontario New Democrats focused on public ownership of power generation as a key issue. It wasn't enough for voters, who elected only seven MLAs - not enough for official party status in the larger legislature. (Barely a decade ago Ontario had an NDP government. The party's descent to fringe status is quite remarkable.)
The bottom line lesson is that the voters wanted a balanced government. They rejected the tax cuts before people policies of the Conservatives. And they rejected the NDP's record of bad management.
Instead they elected a government that pledged to improve schools and health care and strengthen communities, and promised to do that without major tax increases or deficits. Voters rejected the notion that tax cuts are more important than the quality of services.
The situation is different here. There is no centrist party at this point, just two choices occupying their own far sides of the spectrum.
But parties have a way of emerging, when there's a political vacuum to fill.
Footnote: The Ontario Liberals - like the Campbell government - are committed to a referendum on electoral reform. They received fewer than half the votes, but ended up with 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives captured a third of the vote, but elected fewer than one-quarter of the MLAs.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Both the NDP and the Liberals in B.C. could take a lesson from the Ontario election.
Voters turfed out the Conservative party, choosing to place spending on health, education and infrastructure ahead of tax cuts.
The Ontario Conservatives have been frequently cited as an example of how things should be done by the Campbell Liberals. Mike Harris took power promising a "common sense revolution," which would include big tax cuts and spending reductions.
Eight years later, his party is gone.
There's lots of factors - this is, after all, Canadian politics. Harris was succeeded by Ernie Eves, who was unable to convince voters he was equipped to lead. The Conservatives bungled some critical issues, like power deregulation and privatization.
But the debate over tax cuts, and the kind of society people wanted, was central to the campaign. The Conservatives went to the voters promising more tax cuts - a reduction of corporate tax worth about $550 million, savings for seniors and homeowners and people who send their kids to private schools.
It was a similar message to their promises in the last two elections, based on the same premise - that tax cuts will boost the economy, and that voters' priority is on keeping money in their own wallets.
It didn't work.
That doesn't mean that voters don't like saving money. But the Liberals successfully argued that public spending isn't bad, if it is used to deliver needed services in an effective way.
And they found a receptive audience. For the past couple of years there has been a growing sense in Ontario that the things that residents were once proud of - quality health care, good public schools, parks, clean cities, opportunities for children - were deteriorating. Talk to Ontario residents, or read their papers, and you heard of mounting concern about health care waiting lists. People noted that schools - once well-maintained and a centre of community pride - were now dirty, with scruffy yards and unpainted buildings, because there wasn't enough money.
They simply decided that they were willing to pay taxes to see those services maintained. And they didn't buy the argument that further tax cuts would generate any economic benefits. The Conservatives dropped from 59 seats to 24; the Liberals went from 35 to 72.
It's an important lesson for the BC Liberals.
The Campbell government's focus is firmly on cutting spending. The government needs to cut more than $850 million from this year's programs to meet the goal of a balanced budget by next year. And they are in a tight enough bind that the quality and value of services matters much less than the arbitrary budget deadline.
And that is the kind of government that Ontario voters rejected.
But the BC NDP, as they head toward a leadership convention next month, can also learn from Ontario.
Voters didn't take the NDP seriously or believe that the party had a credible plan for governing. The Ontario New Democrats focused on public ownership of power generation as a key issue. It wasn't enough for voters, who elected only seven MLAs - not enough for official party status in the larger legislature. (Barely a decade ago Ontario had an NDP government. The party's descent to fringe status is quite remarkable.)
The bottom line lesson is that the voters wanted a balanced government. They rejected the tax cuts before people policies of the Conservatives. And they rejected the NDP's record of bad management.
Instead they elected a government that pledged to improve schools and health care and strengthen communities, and promised to do that without major tax increases or deficits. Voters rejected the notion that tax cuts are more important than the quality of services.
The situation is different here. There is no centrist party at this point, just two choices occupying their own far sides of the spectrum.
But parties have a way of emerging, when there's a political vacuum to fill.
Footnote: The Ontario Liberals - like the Campbell government - are committed to a referendum on electoral reform. They received fewer than half the votes, but ended up with 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives captured a third of the vote, but elected fewer than one-quarter of the MLAs.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Treaty optimism great hope for B.C. economy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Newish treaty commissioner Mike Harcourt sounds pretty optimistic about the next couple of years.
But let's face it, he's a positive guy. You can't dispute the upbeat credentials of a man who falls down a cliff, almost drowns and then makes an amazing recovery from serious injuries. The former NDP premier is a walking example of the power of positive thinking.
He's right this time. The BC Treaty Commission presented its 10th annual report this week, the most upbeat I've covered. (That's not saying much, of course. The last few years have been gloomy.)
For one thing, there's some real progress this year. Harcourt noted that two agreements in principle have been ratified, and three others are almost there.
OK, it's not exactly a stunning success after 10 years and some $500 million spent on the process. Agreements in principle are a forward step, but they don't address many of the key issues, which have been left for talks on a final agreement.
But in the context of the treaty process, this is cause for celebration.
It's not just the agreements in principle. Harcourt says the parties - the federal government, provincial government and First Nations - are making progress on some of the bigger, tougher issues.
The Liberals' willingness to work towards interim agreements, on everything from revenue sharing to economic development to resource management, is allowing some measure of certainty and progress even when treaty talks are stalled.
And the Liberals - after a shakey start with their ill-advised referendum (ill-advised is column code for dumb) - have provided more resources to negotiators, and a more relaxed set of instructions about what they can do at the table.
We should be celebrating any progress. The lack of treaties is probably the greatest single barrier to economic development in much of the province. The courts have ruled that until they're are treaties, then government and private companies have a duty to engage, consult and accommodate First Nations before undertaking any activities in their traditional areas.
That's possible, of course, But it's all cumbersome and costly, and anyone contemplating a big investment, in a tourism resort or a mine or a mill, will likely look instead to a jurisdiction where the rules are clear and the zoning and regulations in place. Why spend money on planning and negotiations, with no guarantee of a successful outcome?
The treaty commission annual report quotes a 1999 study by Grant Thornton Management Consultants that found signing treaties will be worth something like $4 billion to $5 billion in economic activity, and would result in more than twice as much in new investment.
So it's good news that progress is finally being made.
But don't get too excited, too quickly. Harcourt also warned that a lot can go wrong.
Part of the reason for the recent progress is that the parties just decided to give up on including some of the toughest issues in preliminary agreements, leaving them to be resolved in the talks towards a final treaty. Agreements in principle are sorting out cash and land compensation, and some economic issues. But thorny problems like the extent of First Nations' political independence, compensation for resources taken in the past and certainty still remain.
Harcourt says they can all be dealt with, and some final treaties can be in place within 18 months - if the parties have the political will and determination.
That's a pretty big qualification. All three parties have shown themselves unable to get deals done in the past. First Nations negotiators have signed deals, only to have their communities turn them down.
And it's important to remember that most of the more than 40 negotiating tables are still far from reaching any sort of agreement.
Still, after years of disappointment, there is reason for hope on the treaty front.
And that's worth celebrating by all British Columbians.
Footnote: The commission was critical of provincial and federal governments on a couple of issues. B.C.'s unilateral offer to the Haida - long before treaty talks ahd reached that stage - have disrupted other talks, Harcourt said. And excluding First Nations from a federal-provincial task force on fisheries was a mistake that should be fixed, the commission said.
Desperate Kitimat forced to court over Alcan-Liberal pact
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It all looks rather embarrassing, the way a succession of B.C. governments have messed up their dealings with Alcan over the Kemano power project.
Unless you live in Kitimat, or Terrace. Then it's not embarrassing, it's infuriating.
I followed the Kitimat River into the aluminum town this month, a beautiful drive from Terrace. The town was laid out in the '50s, a planned community built from scratch for Alcan's work force, showcasing the best and worst in town planning of the era.
But Kitimat's got worries. About one in 10 residents have left the community in the last five years. That exodus - along with concern about the future of the town's industrial base - has driven down real estate prices and hurt small business. Tax assessments are down 40 per cent, a loss in real estate value that works out to about $20,000 a resident.
And Mayor Richard Wozney and council figure the province is letting a chance to ensure the town's future slip away.
Kitimat was born more than 50 years ago. Alcan wanted a smelter; B.C. wanted jobs in the northwest. So to get Alcan to build the smelter, the provincial government handed over the right to generate power by diverting the headwaters of the Nechako River. The company carved a tunnel through a mountain and sent the water racing to the Pacific, and had itself a dirt-cheap source of power.
The 1950 contract, and legislation authorizing the deal, were clear. The power was to be used to smelt aluminum, or for other industrial enterprises "in the vicinity of the works."
And that's the way it worked for decades.
Then in the 1990s, Alcan was allowed to sell power ' surplus to its needs.'
And in 2001, when the California crisis hit, the company was selling power - very profitably - while operating the smelter at 65 per cent capacity.
That's when people got nervous in Kitimat, and started lobbying the provincial government.
Town manager Trafford Hall says no one is mad at Alcan. The company's loyalty is to shareholders. If it can make more money by shifting aluminum production to Quebec and selling the B.C. power, then that's what it will try and do. The company is just interpreting the contract to its own benefit, pushing a little and setting precedents each time the province doesn't push back, he says.
Alcan sees it differently, arguing that it is not violating the agreements. The ability to sell surplus electricity helps protect the viability of the mill, it says.
And the Liberal government agrees. Attorney General Geoff Plant says government has reviewed all the agreements since 1950, and concluded that Alcan isn't breaking the rules.
Anyway, tangling with the company could be risky, he adds. Alcan filed a massive lawsuit when the NDP cancelled the Kemano Completion Project, which would have increased power production. The NDP and Alcan reached a settlement in 1997, but Alcan kept its option to sue. Pushing the power sale issue could lead to Alcan relaunching its lawsuit, Plant says.
But Plant hasn't provided any legal opinions or analysis to support his claim that the agreement isn't being broken. And it's tough for the community to hear that avoiding a lawsuit - due in part to a previous government's incompetence - means their interests get short shrift.
Lobbying hasn't worked. Now Kitimat is preparing to go to court to argue that the contracts are being broken, the province isn't acting, and a judge should review the entire case.
It shouldn't be necessary. But it's hard to see an alternative. The original agreement with Alcan gave up a valuable public resource in return for a major investment, with a clear requirement that electricity be used to benefit the region.
If some government has quietly changed the deal, the public is owed a clear explanation of when and why.
Footnote: Alcan released an economic study it paid for this month in response to the community's concerns. It warned of continued job losses at the town's big three employers, and said the community needed more entrepreneurs. And, the study added unsurprisingly, everyone should be nicer to Alcan to encourage investment.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Newish treaty commissioner Mike Harcourt sounds pretty optimistic about the next couple of years.
But let's face it, he's a positive guy. You can't dispute the upbeat credentials of a man who falls down a cliff, almost drowns and then makes an amazing recovery from serious injuries. The former NDP premier is a walking example of the power of positive thinking.
He's right this time. The BC Treaty Commission presented its 10th annual report this week, the most upbeat I've covered. (That's not saying much, of course. The last few years have been gloomy.)
For one thing, there's some real progress this year. Harcourt noted that two agreements in principle have been ratified, and three others are almost there.
OK, it's not exactly a stunning success after 10 years and some $500 million spent on the process. Agreements in principle are a forward step, but they don't address many of the key issues, which have been left for talks on a final agreement.
But in the context of the treaty process, this is cause for celebration.
It's not just the agreements in principle. Harcourt says the parties - the federal government, provincial government and First Nations - are making progress on some of the bigger, tougher issues.
The Liberals' willingness to work towards interim agreements, on everything from revenue sharing to economic development to resource management, is allowing some measure of certainty and progress even when treaty talks are stalled.
And the Liberals - after a shakey start with their ill-advised referendum (ill-advised is column code for dumb) - have provided more resources to negotiators, and a more relaxed set of instructions about what they can do at the table.
We should be celebrating any progress. The lack of treaties is probably the greatest single barrier to economic development in much of the province. The courts have ruled that until they're are treaties, then government and private companies have a duty to engage, consult and accommodate First Nations before undertaking any activities in their traditional areas.
That's possible, of course, But it's all cumbersome and costly, and anyone contemplating a big investment, in a tourism resort or a mine or a mill, will likely look instead to a jurisdiction where the rules are clear and the zoning and regulations in place. Why spend money on planning and negotiations, with no guarantee of a successful outcome?
The treaty commission annual report quotes a 1999 study by Grant Thornton Management Consultants that found signing treaties will be worth something like $4 billion to $5 billion in economic activity, and would result in more than twice as much in new investment.
So it's good news that progress is finally being made.
But don't get too excited, too quickly. Harcourt also warned that a lot can go wrong.
Part of the reason for the recent progress is that the parties just decided to give up on including some of the toughest issues in preliminary agreements, leaving them to be resolved in the talks towards a final treaty. Agreements in principle are sorting out cash and land compensation, and some economic issues. But thorny problems like the extent of First Nations' political independence, compensation for resources taken in the past and certainty still remain.
Harcourt says they can all be dealt with, and some final treaties can be in place within 18 months - if the parties have the political will and determination.
That's a pretty big qualification. All three parties have shown themselves unable to get deals done in the past. First Nations negotiators have signed deals, only to have their communities turn them down.
And it's important to remember that most of the more than 40 negotiating tables are still far from reaching any sort of agreement.
Still, after years of disappointment, there is reason for hope on the treaty front.
And that's worth celebrating by all British Columbians.
Footnote: The commission was critical of provincial and federal governments on a couple of issues. B.C.'s unilateral offer to the Haida - long before treaty talks ahd reached that stage - have disrupted other talks, Harcourt said. And excluding First Nations from a federal-provincial task force on fisheries was a mistake that should be fixed, the commission said.
Desperate Kitimat forced to court over Alcan-Liberal pact
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It all looks rather embarrassing, the way a succession of B.C. governments have messed up their dealings with Alcan over the Kemano power project.
Unless you live in Kitimat, or Terrace. Then it's not embarrassing, it's infuriating.
I followed the Kitimat River into the aluminum town this month, a beautiful drive from Terrace. The town was laid out in the '50s, a planned community built from scratch for Alcan's work force, showcasing the best and worst in town planning of the era.
But Kitimat's got worries. About one in 10 residents have left the community in the last five years. That exodus - along with concern about the future of the town's industrial base - has driven down real estate prices and hurt small business. Tax assessments are down 40 per cent, a loss in real estate value that works out to about $20,000 a resident.
And Mayor Richard Wozney and council figure the province is letting a chance to ensure the town's future slip away.
Kitimat was born more than 50 years ago. Alcan wanted a smelter; B.C. wanted jobs in the northwest. So to get Alcan to build the smelter, the provincial government handed over the right to generate power by diverting the headwaters of the Nechako River. The company carved a tunnel through a mountain and sent the water racing to the Pacific, and had itself a dirt-cheap source of power.
The 1950 contract, and legislation authorizing the deal, were clear. The power was to be used to smelt aluminum, or for other industrial enterprises "in the vicinity of the works."
And that's the way it worked for decades.
Then in the 1990s, Alcan was allowed to sell power ' surplus to its needs.'
And in 2001, when the California crisis hit, the company was selling power - very profitably - while operating the smelter at 65 per cent capacity.
That's when people got nervous in Kitimat, and started lobbying the provincial government.
Town manager Trafford Hall says no one is mad at Alcan. The company's loyalty is to shareholders. If it can make more money by shifting aluminum production to Quebec and selling the B.C. power, then that's what it will try and do. The company is just interpreting the contract to its own benefit, pushing a little and setting precedents each time the province doesn't push back, he says.
Alcan sees it differently, arguing that it is not violating the agreements. The ability to sell surplus electricity helps protect the viability of the mill, it says.
And the Liberal government agrees. Attorney General Geoff Plant says government has reviewed all the agreements since 1950, and concluded that Alcan isn't breaking the rules.
Anyway, tangling with the company could be risky, he adds. Alcan filed a massive lawsuit when the NDP cancelled the Kemano Completion Project, which would have increased power production. The NDP and Alcan reached a settlement in 1997, but Alcan kept its option to sue. Pushing the power sale issue could lead to Alcan relaunching its lawsuit, Plant says.
But Plant hasn't provided any legal opinions or analysis to support his claim that the agreement isn't being broken. And it's tough for the community to hear that avoiding a lawsuit - due in part to a previous government's incompetence - means their interests get short shrift.
Lobbying hasn't worked. Now Kitimat is preparing to go to court to argue that the contracts are being broken, the province isn't acting, and a judge should review the entire case.
It shouldn't be necessary. But it's hard to see an alternative. The original agreement with Alcan gave up a valuable public resource in return for a major investment, with a clear requirement that electricity be used to benefit the region.
If some government has quietly changed the deal, the public is owed a clear explanation of when and why.
Footnote: Alcan released an economic study it paid for this month in response to the community's concerns. It warned of continued job losses at the town's big three employers, and said the community needed more entrepreneurs. And, the study added unsurprisingly, everyone should be nicer to Alcan to encourage investment.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Two choices. Adrienne Clarkson and the odd attitude of the province's college of physicians and surgeons. Both 650 words, with footnote to take them to 710 or so.
Cheers
Paul
Clarkson's Great White North tour out of line
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Much that's wrong with this country can be found in Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's million-dollar junket to Russia, Finland and Iceland.
I almost didn't write about the 19-day trip with 59 "talented Canadians." Too easy, I thought. But then some of the usual Upper Canadian suspects started defending the Great White North tour as a modest and reasonable initiative by a charming and stylish governor general.
Modest? The price tag will be more than $1 million, or about $900 per person each day.
The justification for the trip is that Canadians share a bond with other people who live in cold countries, and some good will come of sending some of our smart people to talk to their smart people.
Or, as Clarkson says: "By bringing these talented Canadians to help us represent Canada we will engage Russians, Finns and Icelanders in a vigorous exchange of ideas and culture affirming and strengthening our shared northern identity."
I have no idea what that means. And I certainly don't know how sending failed Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae and his writer wife on a trip to Russia is a worthwhile way to spend your money.
In fact, how the heck can anyone justify a Northern identity junket in which only 10 of 60 people actually live in the North? Almost half the group comes from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal; fully one-quarter come from the remote Northern outpost of Toronto.
I'm sure they're fine folks. But why are you paying so Clarkson can take seven wine experts with her to Finland and Iceland? Why should you send soprano Measha Brueggergosman and architect Howard Sutcliffe off to some nice hotels and fine dinners, when you're probably trying to figure out how to pay for a weekend away?
You may wonder why the politicians are so silent on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're going along. Victoria MP David Anderson is heading a group of senators and MPs going along on the trip. Foreign junkets are a regular perk for MPs who further the cause of world democracy by heading off to some pleasant country for 10 days on your bill.
It's not wrong to send Canadians abroad - if there is a clear, useful purpose, and a justification for the guest list.
But this trip fails the sniff test. Clarkson is taking her spouse, John Ralston Saul. Eight other married couples are on the guest list, adding to the impression the jaunt is as much a holiday as a working trip on behalf of Canada.
It's not a lot of money, in the context of the federal government.
But symbols matter, especially in this case. The role of the Governor General is symbolic, a representative of the Queen who can graciously hand out awards, help communities celebrate milestones and generally make Canadians feel better about who we are.
This trip is also a symbol. Clarkson has picked 60 people much like her - affluent people, largely from the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, mainly from the arts and gentle left. (One Albertan is going along, a composer from Calgary; six British Columbians are on board.) They are heading off on a dream trip, with no clearly articulated purpose, at someone else's expense.
It's not what Canadians expect. And it sends a message that the people in charge in Ottawa don't really care much about what we do expect.
Under Clarkson's hand, the budget for the governor general has climbed from $11 million to almost $19 million. A Parliamentary committee had talked about examining the spending, but Liberal members are shying away.
That's too bad. We don't need witchhunts that seize on big expense accounts and kick the spender around.
But we do need to know that our money is being spent wisely and carefully. The fact that this trip doesn't meet that test justifies a closer look at the governor general's $19 million budget.
Who owes patients protection from bad doctors?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It doesn't feel me with confidence to hear the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons argue that it has no responsibility to protect individual patients from dangerous doctors.
The college agrees it has a role in protecting the public. But not in protecting people, the college argues. Not people like the 19 women who are suing over sexual abuse by a Campbell River doctor.
The 19 women are suing Dr. Mark Stewart, who was sentenced to four years in jail for sexual assaults on patients. They're also suing the college, prepared to argue that the college was recklessly negligent in dealing with past complaints, and that its failures led to the women being abused.
The evidence remains to be heard in court. But before that could happen, the college applied to be dropped from the suit. No professional regulating body had ever been sued in this way, its lawyer argued. Allowing such lawsuits would make it impossible for the college to do its job of regulating the medical profession, and anyway the college is charged with the protection of the public, but isn't responsible for protecting individuals. Even if the college was negligent in dealing with bad or abusive doctors, it's immune from legal action, they argued.
Madame Justice Lynn Smith didn't agree. Requiring the college to act in good faith in dealing with allegations of abuse by doctors doesn't compromise its ability to protect the public and the rights of doctors.
You could suggest, I suppose, that this is an other one of those cases of judicial activism that people like to grumble about. If it is, it's a case to be celebrated.
It doesn't seem too much to expect, that the college - which has all the authority for regulating doctors, and hearing complaints - would accept responsibility for the job it's doing.
The ruling - and the college's argument its role doesn't include protecting patients - brought to mind a report earlier this year by provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner.
Looking at 10 years of investigations into complaints about the college and other professional regulatory bodies, he said they often just don't get it.
"They still believe, perhaps because it is the members who elect the governors and pay for the colleges' operations, that the colleges are primarily there to protect the interests of the members."
That's an especially alarming because the Liberals have chopped the Ombudsman's budget. The office will no longer be able to investigate complaints about how the colleges do their jobs, Kushner reported.
And the case also brought to mind the government's readiness to blow up the College of Teachers, arguing that it had paid too much attention to the concerns of its members and not enough to the need to serve students. (A legitimate criticism, and one that required action - although not such extreme action as the government's radical overhaul.
The college is taking steps to improve its work in protecting patients. The college announced earlier this year that it will set up a web site to allow patients to see the doctor they are considering visiting has faced disciplinary action in the past, and what for. (The college sends out news releases of disciplinary decisions right now, but it remains difficult for most patients to get the information.)
It's a laudable idea, one that gives patients information they should have.
But it also comes six years after the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons provided the same service to patients in that province.
The court case should raise renewed concerns about the cuts to the Ombudsman's budget, and the college's view of its role.
When the college regulating doctors doesn't even see that it has a responsibility to individual patients, then the public needs a watchdog.
And at the same time, we owe a debt to the courts for insisting that the college face up to its responsibilities to patients.
Footnote: The plan to take over the college of teachers has run into a snag, as thousands of teachers threaten to withhold the membership fees that support the organization. If you're not a member, you can't legally teach in B.C., but school districts can hardly fire protesters if numbers are too great.
Cheers
Paul
Clarkson's Great White North tour out of line
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Much that's wrong with this country can be found in Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's million-dollar junket to Russia, Finland and Iceland.
I almost didn't write about the 19-day trip with 59 "talented Canadians." Too easy, I thought. But then some of the usual Upper Canadian suspects started defending the Great White North tour as a modest and reasonable initiative by a charming and stylish governor general.
Modest? The price tag will be more than $1 million, or about $900 per person each day.
The justification for the trip is that Canadians share a bond with other people who live in cold countries, and some good will come of sending some of our smart people to talk to their smart people.
Or, as Clarkson says: "By bringing these talented Canadians to help us represent Canada we will engage Russians, Finns and Icelanders in a vigorous exchange of ideas and culture affirming and strengthening our shared northern identity."
I have no idea what that means. And I certainly don't know how sending failed Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae and his writer wife on a trip to Russia is a worthwhile way to spend your money.
In fact, how the heck can anyone justify a Northern identity junket in which only 10 of 60 people actually live in the North? Almost half the group comes from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal; fully one-quarter come from the remote Northern outpost of Toronto.
I'm sure they're fine folks. But why are you paying so Clarkson can take seven wine experts with her to Finland and Iceland? Why should you send soprano Measha Brueggergosman and architect Howard Sutcliffe off to some nice hotels and fine dinners, when you're probably trying to figure out how to pay for a weekend away?
You may wonder why the politicians are so silent on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're going along. Victoria MP David Anderson is heading a group of senators and MPs going along on the trip. Foreign junkets are a regular perk for MPs who further the cause of world democracy by heading off to some pleasant country for 10 days on your bill.
It's not wrong to send Canadians abroad - if there is a clear, useful purpose, and a justification for the guest list.
But this trip fails the sniff test. Clarkson is taking her spouse, John Ralston Saul. Eight other married couples are on the guest list, adding to the impression the jaunt is as much a holiday as a working trip on behalf of Canada.
It's not a lot of money, in the context of the federal government.
But symbols matter, especially in this case. The role of the Governor General is symbolic, a representative of the Queen who can graciously hand out awards, help communities celebrate milestones and generally make Canadians feel better about who we are.
This trip is also a symbol. Clarkson has picked 60 people much like her - affluent people, largely from the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, mainly from the arts and gentle left. (One Albertan is going along, a composer from Calgary; six British Columbians are on board.) They are heading off on a dream trip, with no clearly articulated purpose, at someone else's expense.
It's not what Canadians expect. And it sends a message that the people in charge in Ottawa don't really care much about what we do expect.
Under Clarkson's hand, the budget for the governor general has climbed from $11 million to almost $19 million. A Parliamentary committee had talked about examining the spending, but Liberal members are shying away.
That's too bad. We don't need witchhunts that seize on big expense accounts and kick the spender around.
But we do need to know that our money is being spent wisely and carefully. The fact that this trip doesn't meet that test justifies a closer look at the governor general's $19 million budget.
Who owes patients protection from bad doctors?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It doesn't feel me with confidence to hear the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons argue that it has no responsibility to protect individual patients from dangerous doctors.
The college agrees it has a role in protecting the public. But not in protecting people, the college argues. Not people like the 19 women who are suing over sexual abuse by a Campbell River doctor.
The 19 women are suing Dr. Mark Stewart, who was sentenced to four years in jail for sexual assaults on patients. They're also suing the college, prepared to argue that the college was recklessly negligent in dealing with past complaints, and that its failures led to the women being abused.
The evidence remains to be heard in court. But before that could happen, the college applied to be dropped from the suit. No professional regulating body had ever been sued in this way, its lawyer argued. Allowing such lawsuits would make it impossible for the college to do its job of regulating the medical profession, and anyway the college is charged with the protection of the public, but isn't responsible for protecting individuals. Even if the college was negligent in dealing with bad or abusive doctors, it's immune from legal action, they argued.
Madame Justice Lynn Smith didn't agree. Requiring the college to act in good faith in dealing with allegations of abuse by doctors doesn't compromise its ability to protect the public and the rights of doctors.
You could suggest, I suppose, that this is an other one of those cases of judicial activism that people like to grumble about. If it is, it's a case to be celebrated.
It doesn't seem too much to expect, that the college - which has all the authority for regulating doctors, and hearing complaints - would accept responsibility for the job it's doing.
The ruling - and the college's argument its role doesn't include protecting patients - brought to mind a report earlier this year by provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner.
Looking at 10 years of investigations into complaints about the college and other professional regulatory bodies, he said they often just don't get it.
"They still believe, perhaps because it is the members who elect the governors and pay for the colleges' operations, that the colleges are primarily there to protect the interests of the members."
That's an especially alarming because the Liberals have chopped the Ombudsman's budget. The office will no longer be able to investigate complaints about how the colleges do their jobs, Kushner reported.
And the case also brought to mind the government's readiness to blow up the College of Teachers, arguing that it had paid too much attention to the concerns of its members and not enough to the need to serve students. (A legitimate criticism, and one that required action - although not such extreme action as the government's radical overhaul.
The college is taking steps to improve its work in protecting patients. The college announced earlier this year that it will set up a web site to allow patients to see the doctor they are considering visiting has faced disciplinary action in the past, and what for. (The college sends out news releases of disciplinary decisions right now, but it remains difficult for most patients to get the information.)
It's a laudable idea, one that gives patients information they should have.
But it also comes six years after the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons provided the same service to patients in that province.
The court case should raise renewed concerns about the cuts to the Ombudsman's budget, and the college's view of its role.
When the college regulating doctors doesn't even see that it has a responsibility to individual patients, then the public needs a watchdog.
And at the same time, we owe a debt to the courts for insisting that the college face up to its responsibilities to patients.
Footnote: The plan to take over the college of teachers has run into a snag, as thousands of teachers threaten to withhold the membership fees that support the organization. If you're not a member, you can't legally teach in B.C., but school districts can hardly fire protesters if numbers are too great.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Collins' gloomy economic forecast should make you nervous
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - As the boss, you should be a little worried about Gary Collins' first quarter financial report.
After all, you write the cheques. When the finance minister shows up to report on the progress for the first three months of this budget year, it's your approval he needs.
In a past corporate life I used to go through this process, both as a presenter, putting the best face on often ugly news, and as an audience, waiting to see how much confidence I could have in the brave plans of managers.
I wouldn't be calling in the outplacement counsellors to help Collins pursue other interests yet. But it is time to get nervous.
Too many things have gone wrong. The Liberals knocked down their forecast for economic growth this year and next when they presented the latest update. The economy is now expected to grow 1.5 per cent this year, down from the 2.4 per cent the government predicted back in February. B.C. will have the worst performing economy in Canada.
There has been a ton of bad luck - SARS and mad cow scares, a soaring dollar, and of course the softwood dispute.
But the prolonged softwood shouldn't have been a shock. And other provinces have confronted many of the same issues, and done better than B.C.
And anyway, you don't hire managers to tell you that things have gone wrong - well, except for accountants - you hire them to fix things.
Here are three things that should concern you in Collins' report.
First, and most importantly, the government's economic measures are not producing results. The New Era of prosperity isn't here, and the government's own projections have B.C. limping along at the Canadian average through 2007. Politicians can cherry pick statistics and trot out all the upbeat anecdotes they like. The fact is that the B.C. is under-performing.
Second, the prospects for a quick recovery look slim. The first quarter reforecast knocked personal income tax revenues down from budget, because we aren't earning as much. And it says the shortfalls will be greater over the following two years. The same pattern is true for sales tax. We don't have the money to spend the Liberals expected.
And third, the Liberals' promise to bring in a balanced budget in six months is looking risky.
They'll make it. Give Collins credit - he has hit all his targets so far, and there's no reason to doubt him when he says he'll hit this one. But missing the target isn't the only risk.
The government's plan called for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. But that included a $500-million cushion, and before the forest fires a real deficit that was up to $1 billion lower was likely.
Not now. Moving from a $2.3-billion deficit to a balanced budget in one jump will require a big jump in revenues, or a sharp decline in expenses. The plan calls for revenue to jump by $1 billion next year, a steep but doable target.
The Liberals also want to cut spending by $850 million. Every ministry, outside health and education, must spend less than it did this year. Even the solicitor general's ministry, concerned with safety and emergency preparedness, faces a 20-per-cent cut.
Even hitting those targets leaves the government with a razor-thin surplus, and no cushion for emergencies like this year's $500 million forecast allowance.
It can be done. But the danger is that the poor economic performance - the Liberals' original plans predicted much higher growth and revenues - are going to force dangerous cuts, made not because they make sense but because an artificial political deadline looms.
You're the boss. It might be time to congratulate the finance minister on managing to the budget. But it also might be time to note the lack of real results.
After all, that's what managers get paid for.
Footnote: The Vancouver missing women's case has now cost you something like $40 million. The investigation - mostly at the Pickton farm - will cost $26 million this year, on top of more than $10 million last year. Trial costs are expected to reach another $4 million this year. How much would it have cost to keep them alive, instead of sifting through dirt to learn about their deaths?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - As the boss, you should be a little worried about Gary Collins' first quarter financial report.
After all, you write the cheques. When the finance minister shows up to report on the progress for the first three months of this budget year, it's your approval he needs.
In a past corporate life I used to go through this process, both as a presenter, putting the best face on often ugly news, and as an audience, waiting to see how much confidence I could have in the brave plans of managers.
I wouldn't be calling in the outplacement counsellors to help Collins pursue other interests yet. But it is time to get nervous.
Too many things have gone wrong. The Liberals knocked down their forecast for economic growth this year and next when they presented the latest update. The economy is now expected to grow 1.5 per cent this year, down from the 2.4 per cent the government predicted back in February. B.C. will have the worst performing economy in Canada.
There has been a ton of bad luck - SARS and mad cow scares, a soaring dollar, and of course the softwood dispute.
But the prolonged softwood shouldn't have been a shock. And other provinces have confronted many of the same issues, and done better than B.C.
And anyway, you don't hire managers to tell you that things have gone wrong - well, except for accountants - you hire them to fix things.
Here are three things that should concern you in Collins' report.
First, and most importantly, the government's economic measures are not producing results. The New Era of prosperity isn't here, and the government's own projections have B.C. limping along at the Canadian average through 2007. Politicians can cherry pick statistics and trot out all the upbeat anecdotes they like. The fact is that the B.C. is under-performing.
Second, the prospects for a quick recovery look slim. The first quarter reforecast knocked personal income tax revenues down from budget, because we aren't earning as much. And it says the shortfalls will be greater over the following two years. The same pattern is true for sales tax. We don't have the money to spend the Liberals expected.
And third, the Liberals' promise to bring in a balanced budget in six months is looking risky.
They'll make it. Give Collins credit - he has hit all his targets so far, and there's no reason to doubt him when he says he'll hit this one. But missing the target isn't the only risk.
The government's plan called for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. But that included a $500-million cushion, and before the forest fires a real deficit that was up to $1 billion lower was likely.
Not now. Moving from a $2.3-billion deficit to a balanced budget in one jump will require a big jump in revenues, or a sharp decline in expenses. The plan calls for revenue to jump by $1 billion next year, a steep but doable target.
The Liberals also want to cut spending by $850 million. Every ministry, outside health and education, must spend less than it did this year. Even the solicitor general's ministry, concerned with safety and emergency preparedness, faces a 20-per-cent cut.
Even hitting those targets leaves the government with a razor-thin surplus, and no cushion for emergencies like this year's $500 million forecast allowance.
It can be done. But the danger is that the poor economic performance - the Liberals' original plans predicted much higher growth and revenues - are going to force dangerous cuts, made not because they make sense but because an artificial political deadline looms.
You're the boss. It might be time to congratulate the finance minister on managing to the budget. But it also might be time to note the lack of real results.
After all, that's what managers get paid for.
Footnote: The Vancouver missing women's case has now cost you something like $40 million. The investigation - mostly at the Pickton farm - will cost $26 million this year, on top of more than $10 million last year. Trial costs are expected to reach another $4 million this year. How much would it have cost to keep them alive, instead of sifting through dirt to learn about their deaths?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
No stars, but credible candidates at NDP debates
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, so the heavens didn't open and send down a golden shaft of light to illuminate a new leader who could guide the NDP out of the wilderness.
But at least there's a decent roster of candidates offering a chance for the drifting New Democrats to redefine themselves.
Seven candidates are ready for a series of debates around the province, events which will actually matter. There's no star, and Gordon Campbell isn't going to be in panic about any of the candidates. (Although those chants of 'Orcherton, Orcherton' from the premier's office may indicate who they would like to face in 2005.)
Who cares, you might ask?
You should. One party states tend not to be a good thing. And given the way we flail around in this province, the New Democrats could be elected just because we get mad at the Liberals. We should at least make sure they're not clueless.
Any one of five candidates has some sort of shot at winning. It's early days, and their policies, positions and personal qualities will become clearer, or fuzzier.
Left and right don't really work anymore as useful labels. But you can parse this race on the basis of how far the candidates want to run from what the NDP used to be. (What was that? Some would say a reckless, incompetent government that rewarded its friends; others would say a government committed to economic development and social opportunity. I'd say both.)
Put Steve Orcherton at the 'hey, we did OK camp.' He was an MLA in the Clark government, one of a small group that never made it into cabinet. He's proud of the record, and favours an interventionist government to take from the rich and give to the poor, with close ties to unions and a special place for them in the party.
Put Nils Jensen at the other end. He joined the party when he launched his leadership bid and figures the NDP needs a fresh, centrist start. Jensen's a Crown prosecutor and Oak Bay councillor. He's also the chair of the water board here in Victoria, a group that always seems to lean towards zealotry on the conservation side.
Jensen looks like a surprisingly strong candidate right now. He's toured much of the province already, and got more positive attention for the NDP than all the other candidates put together. The best way to get any job is to start doing it and wait for people to notice. That's working so far for Jensen.
In between, there's Leonard Krog, a Nanaimo MLA in the Harcourt government who has lost out in several election tries since. He's more centrist than Orcherton, and likely more competent. But his endorsement by former ministers Dale Lovick and Jan Pullinger, a warning label to many New Democrats.
Carole James is probably closer to Jensen. James is a widely respected former Victoria school board trustee and chair of the BC School Trustees Association. She now lives in Prince George. James lost a Victoria seat by 35 votes in the last election. She has decent credentials, but it remains to be seen if they are the right preparation for political leadership.
And Craig Keating, the North Vancouver councillor, also tends to be in the new directions camp.
It's a decent field, competing for what is a pretty bad job. No seat, little budget, bleak electoral prospects, a millstone-like record to lug around. It's hardly a golden opportunity.
Maybe that will turn out to be a plus. In the last NDP race, when there was the chance to be premier - even briefly - thousands of instant New Democrats signed up and the contest approached farce.
This time, about 13,000 core members have the chance to give some thought to what kind of party makes sense for the province.
Footnote: Unions are still going to be big players in this process. About 30 per cent of the delegate slots at the November leadership convention will be reserved for union-appointed voters. The rest will be selected at constituency association meetings.
It's doomed, but offer to Haida still a good move
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Just because the Haida immediately dumped on the province's surprise treaty offer doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Attorney General Geoff Plant caught everyone off guard when he called reporters down to his office to offer the Haida control of 2,000 square kilometres in the Queen Charlottes - if they come back to the treaty table.
It won't happen. The Haida broke off talks eight years ago. Last year they launched a suit in BC Supreme Court claiming all the islands and resources around them. The head of the council of the Haida Nation quickly rejected the offer as "mischief."
Plant says it's a serious offer, and a generous one. The 3,700 Haida would get ownership of 100,000 hectares and partial control of a further 100,000 hectares.
That sounds good, especially given the Haida's current land base of about 1,700 hectares. But the Haida are claiming five times as much land as the government has offered. And they're not in a bad position, legally and politically, to be optimistic about the eventual results of their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, most of the pressure is on the province. The BC Court of Appeal ruled last year that the government hasn't been fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate the Haida on logging issues. Licence-holder Weyerhaeuser has agreed to cut its timber harvest in half, until a long-term plan is in place.
That's a lot of lost jobs. Add in the investment chill created by the uncertainty over ownership, the province's inability to get land use decisions made, and the Haida's ability to create problems for existing operators, and you have a major headache for the government.
That headache escalates to four-alarm status when you start considering the Liberals' big hopes for an offshore oil and gas industry by 2010. Oil companies have made it clear that a resolution of First Nations issues has to happen before they even look seriously at the offshore potential.
The province is appealing the B.C. ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's likely one factor in this surprise offer. The courts have said that negotiation is the preferred way to resolve treaty disputes. If the Supreme Court decides either side hasn't been willing to make a reasonable effort at negotiation, that could hurt their case.
This offer probably counts as a reasonable effort. It's undercut - badly - by the lack of federal participation. B.C. has put up land, but Plant says the government never asked the federal government to put forward any monetary proposal. But the offer still signals a willingness to resume talks.
Why aren't the Haida interested? Guujaw, head of the Haida council, says the offer falls far short of what they're claiming. (That is to say, everything.)
That's an unreasonable expectation - about one-third of the Charlotte land is privately owned. But they have a good claim for a big chunk of land, given that no treaty was signed and most of the land is available. It's a question of ownership, and the Haida have a strong, clean claim.
The province isn't just dangling the land offer as bait; it's also wielding a stick. Plant says the offer is good for six months. After that, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
"If we're not able to get the treaty process started meaningfully with the Haida then we are going to look for ways to more enthusiastically assert our ability to make land use decisions to restore access to the land base," Plant says. If the Haida disagree with the government's actions, they can head back to court. (That's risky, especially for government, which faces the prospect of damaging losses in future court cases, direct action on the ground and international boycotts.)
Plant's offer is still a good move, with more positives than negatives. The government signalled its willingness to negotiate to the Haida, the public and the courts. That can't hurt; there's a small chance it could help. And in the world of negotiations, that makes it worth a try.
Footnote: The latest development is a reminder of how distant the prospect of offshore oil and has development remains. Oil companies looking at the opposition of federal Environment Minister David Anderson and the land claim problems are going to keep B.C.'s offshore far down their priority list.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, so the heavens didn't open and send down a golden shaft of light to illuminate a new leader who could guide the NDP out of the wilderness.
But at least there's a decent roster of candidates offering a chance for the drifting New Democrats to redefine themselves.
Seven candidates are ready for a series of debates around the province, events which will actually matter. There's no star, and Gordon Campbell isn't going to be in panic about any of the candidates. (Although those chants of 'Orcherton, Orcherton' from the premier's office may indicate who they would like to face in 2005.)
Who cares, you might ask?
You should. One party states tend not to be a good thing. And given the way we flail around in this province, the New Democrats could be elected just because we get mad at the Liberals. We should at least make sure they're not clueless.
Any one of five candidates has some sort of shot at winning. It's early days, and their policies, positions and personal qualities will become clearer, or fuzzier.
Left and right don't really work anymore as useful labels. But you can parse this race on the basis of how far the candidates want to run from what the NDP used to be. (What was that? Some would say a reckless, incompetent government that rewarded its friends; others would say a government committed to economic development and social opportunity. I'd say both.)
Put Steve Orcherton at the 'hey, we did OK camp.' He was an MLA in the Clark government, one of a small group that never made it into cabinet. He's proud of the record, and favours an interventionist government to take from the rich and give to the poor, with close ties to unions and a special place for them in the party.
Put Nils Jensen at the other end. He joined the party when he launched his leadership bid and figures the NDP needs a fresh, centrist start. Jensen's a Crown prosecutor and Oak Bay councillor. He's also the chair of the water board here in Victoria, a group that always seems to lean towards zealotry on the conservation side.
Jensen looks like a surprisingly strong candidate right now. He's toured much of the province already, and got more positive attention for the NDP than all the other candidates put together. The best way to get any job is to start doing it and wait for people to notice. That's working so far for Jensen.
In between, there's Leonard Krog, a Nanaimo MLA in the Harcourt government who has lost out in several election tries since. He's more centrist than Orcherton, and likely more competent. But his endorsement by former ministers Dale Lovick and Jan Pullinger, a warning label to many New Democrats.
Carole James is probably closer to Jensen. James is a widely respected former Victoria school board trustee and chair of the BC School Trustees Association. She now lives in Prince George. James lost a Victoria seat by 35 votes in the last election. She has decent credentials, but it remains to be seen if they are the right preparation for political leadership.
And Craig Keating, the North Vancouver councillor, also tends to be in the new directions camp.
It's a decent field, competing for what is a pretty bad job. No seat, little budget, bleak electoral prospects, a millstone-like record to lug around. It's hardly a golden opportunity.
Maybe that will turn out to be a plus. In the last NDP race, when there was the chance to be premier - even briefly - thousands of instant New Democrats signed up and the contest approached farce.
This time, about 13,000 core members have the chance to give some thought to what kind of party makes sense for the province.
Footnote: Unions are still going to be big players in this process. About 30 per cent of the delegate slots at the November leadership convention will be reserved for union-appointed voters. The rest will be selected at constituency association meetings.
It's doomed, but offer to Haida still a good move
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Just because the Haida immediately dumped on the province's surprise treaty offer doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Attorney General Geoff Plant caught everyone off guard when he called reporters down to his office to offer the Haida control of 2,000 square kilometres in the Queen Charlottes - if they come back to the treaty table.
It won't happen. The Haida broke off talks eight years ago. Last year they launched a suit in BC Supreme Court claiming all the islands and resources around them. The head of the council of the Haida Nation quickly rejected the offer as "mischief."
Plant says it's a serious offer, and a generous one. The 3,700 Haida would get ownership of 100,000 hectares and partial control of a further 100,000 hectares.
That sounds good, especially given the Haida's current land base of about 1,700 hectares. But the Haida are claiming five times as much land as the government has offered. And they're not in a bad position, legally and politically, to be optimistic about the eventual results of their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, most of the pressure is on the province. The BC Court of Appeal ruled last year that the government hasn't been fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate the Haida on logging issues. Licence-holder Weyerhaeuser has agreed to cut its timber harvest in half, until a long-term plan is in place.
That's a lot of lost jobs. Add in the investment chill created by the uncertainty over ownership, the province's inability to get land use decisions made, and the Haida's ability to create problems for existing operators, and you have a major headache for the government.
That headache escalates to four-alarm status when you start considering the Liberals' big hopes for an offshore oil and gas industry by 2010. Oil companies have made it clear that a resolution of First Nations issues has to happen before they even look seriously at the offshore potential.
The province is appealing the B.C. ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's likely one factor in this surprise offer. The courts have said that negotiation is the preferred way to resolve treaty disputes. If the Supreme Court decides either side hasn't been willing to make a reasonable effort at negotiation, that could hurt their case.
This offer probably counts as a reasonable effort. It's undercut - badly - by the lack of federal participation. B.C. has put up land, but Plant says the government never asked the federal government to put forward any monetary proposal. But the offer still signals a willingness to resume talks.
Why aren't the Haida interested? Guujaw, head of the Haida council, says the offer falls far short of what they're claiming. (That is to say, everything.)
That's an unreasonable expectation - about one-third of the Charlotte land is privately owned. But they have a good claim for a big chunk of land, given that no treaty was signed and most of the land is available. It's a question of ownership, and the Haida have a strong, clean claim.
The province isn't just dangling the land offer as bait; it's also wielding a stick. Plant says the offer is good for six months. After that, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
"If we're not able to get the treaty process started meaningfully with the Haida then we are going to look for ways to more enthusiastically assert our ability to make land use decisions to restore access to the land base," Plant says. If the Haida disagree with the government's actions, they can head back to court. (That's risky, especially for government, which faces the prospect of damaging losses in future court cases, direct action on the ground and international boycotts.)
Plant's offer is still a good move, with more positives than negatives. The government signalled its willingness to negotiate to the Haida, the public and the courts. That can't hurt; there's a small chance it could help. And in the world of negotiations, that makes it worth a try.
Footnote: The latest development is a reminder of how distant the prospect of offshore oil and has development remains. Oil companies looking at the opposition of federal Environment Minister David Anderson and the land claim problems are going to keep B.C.'s offshore far down their priority list.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Learning from the fires: what happens next
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A friend called from Kelowna, 12 hours before the fires swept through more than 200 homes. He is middle-aged, calm; his home was in no danger.
But the awe and fear in his voice came through the phone line. The sight of the flames against the night sky had shaken him.
As I write this the fires have eased, at least briefly. It's time to begin considering what comes next.
There's been an obvious financial impact on the government, and the people of the province.
Firefighting costs will top $200 million this week, and have been climbing at up to $7 million per day. On top of those costs, emergency aid has cost about $30 million so far, and is running about $1 million a day.
The government had budgeted $55 million for firefighting this year, so Finance Minister Gary Collins has an obvious problem.
He says the province still has the flexibility to deal with the overruns. There's a $170-million contingency fund, intended to cover all the unexpected spending by ministries. Collins has also set aside a $500-million 'forecast allowance,' a super cushion to let the government come in on budget even if things go wrong.
But the contingency fund, for all ministries for an entire year, is gone before the fiscal year is half over. And a big bite will be taken out of the forecast allowance.
The budget calls for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. Given Collins' conservatism, most observers would have expected the target to be beaten by more than $500 million. That looks much less likely.
The other question is how badly the fires will hurt the economy. Some 3,000 forest workers are off the job already, barred from tinder dry woods. Sawmills are running out of logs, and unless the situation improves the job losses could mount with each week. (The fear of lost production has pushed up prices, so mills in other areas should be more profitable.)
Tourism is taking an immediate hit. People who planned a houseboat trip on the Shuswap are hesitating. Americans considering a trip to B.C. are staying home. That's business that won't be recaptured.
The larger question is whether there will be a lasting impact on tourists who fear that B.C. has become a less attractive destination. A special tourist marketing campaign will be needed to cope with the fallout from SARS and the fires.
So far, the focus has been on fighting the fires and helping the dispossessed. Desperate people have celebrated the efforts of firefighters and the visits by politicians.
But once the smoke has cleared, an independent inquiry is badly needed.
Fires are part of life in a forested province, where people want to live among the trees. But B.C. has been much less active in clearing fallen trees and other wood waste from forest floors than other jurisdictions. The province's auditor general warned two years ago that years of successful efforts to reduce small fires had allowed a dangerous concentration of fuel, setting the stage for much large blazes.
And he warned that B.C. was ill-prepared, offering a number of specific recommendations to avert disaster, or at least reduce its cost.
Progress on his recommendations has been slow. Even Liberal MLAs complained a year ago that too little was being done by the government. (For example, Solicitor General Rich Coleman created a provincial fire department in response to these blazes; the auditor general warned two years ago that such a change was needed.)
Along with the inquiry, there will have to be extraordinary help for the people and communities involved. The federal and provincial governments have a disaster relief formula. But finding homes for hundreds of families and helping communities cope with lost infrastructure will strain the normal programs.
Fires, even terribly damaging fires, may be part of life in B.C. But we need to be sure that we are doing everything reasonable to manage the risk. And independent inquiry will help make sure that happens.
Footnote: The first political pressure point will likely be compensation. Premier Gordon Campbell says the province will ease a policy which denies compensation to people who could have bought insurance, but expect some conflict.
Sometimes people just die and it's not a medical crisis
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time we thought a little harder about how significant it is that 4,000 people died in France during a heat wave, or that eight people died in a Surrey nursing home after a 'SARS-like virus' struck.
People get edgy if you suggest some deaths matter more than others.
But they do.
Take the emergence of a mysterious virus at the Kinsmen Place Lodge in Surrey. Eleven people have died since the outbreak began six weeks ago, out of about 150 people at the home. That sounds pretty serious.
But in a typical month at the lodge, four or five people die. The residents are old, and many are unwell. The number of deaths even potentially linked to the disease is smaller than it may appear.
The normal rate of five deaths a month means 60 people die at the facility in a normal year. The average lifespan for someone admitted to the lodge is thus something like 2.5 years.
And that means that the three additional deaths in recent weeks have resulted in something like 7.5 years of life lost.
That's not a measurement most of us use, although actuaries, insurance companies and public health officials are all keenly interested. But we should. A disease that claims healthy young victims robs them of decades; an infection in a nursing home that strikes the most vulnerable may simply mean death comes a few months early.
I'm not questioning the significance of the loss for the families involved.
But it's a matter of math. Car crashes among 15 to 24 year olds claimed 85 British Columbians in 2000, with an average loss of 55 years of expected life for each victim. Three extra deaths mean something like 155 years of life lost. Those deaths are more significant -- for society, the economy, family.
The equation will be much the same in France, where the government -- and families -- has been much criticized for the deaths of up to 5,000 people in the current heat wave, many of them elderly or sick.
If there has been neglect, or a failure to act, then that is shameful. If there are public health lessons to learn, we should heed them.
But we should also be open to the possibility that for many victims, already weakened, death within months was almost certain. The heat wave may have advanced the end, but not by much.
That doesn't mean, again, that we should do nothing about the illness or environmental problems that kill the old and the sick. Life has value, at 90 or at nine.
But it doesn't have equal value, especially given the limit on available resources and the apparently inexhaustible supply of new, costly treatments.
We are all going to die. By the time we are somewhere like the Surrey lodge, we are going to die fairly soon. And it's time to shed the notion that all deaths, or illnesses, call for the same response.
We aren't close to coming to that realization. A major U.S. study found that 27 per cent of health care expenditures in California and Massachusetts went towards patients in the final 12 months of their lives.
The figure for B.C. is similar, which means about $2.7 billion will be spent on 28,000 people who will die in the next year, or $100,000 each. The average expense for the rest of us will be about $2,100 each.
That's not necessarily wrong, if the spending is wise, bringing comfort to a person's final months or a real chance of success.
But the same study found one in eight patients over 85, with cancer unresponsive to chemotherapy, had received the costly and unpleasant treatment in the last three months of their lives.
To what end?
It's not our job to consign people to death once they pass a certain age.
But it is our job to make intelligent, rational decisions about how we try to deal with the real world of health challenges, whether it's in a Surrey nursing home or a Paris apartment.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A friend called from Kelowna, 12 hours before the fires swept through more than 200 homes. He is middle-aged, calm; his home was in no danger.
But the awe and fear in his voice came through the phone line. The sight of the flames against the night sky had shaken him.
As I write this the fires have eased, at least briefly. It's time to begin considering what comes next.
There's been an obvious financial impact on the government, and the people of the province.
Firefighting costs will top $200 million this week, and have been climbing at up to $7 million per day. On top of those costs, emergency aid has cost about $30 million so far, and is running about $1 million a day.
The government had budgeted $55 million for firefighting this year, so Finance Minister Gary Collins has an obvious problem.
He says the province still has the flexibility to deal with the overruns. There's a $170-million contingency fund, intended to cover all the unexpected spending by ministries. Collins has also set aside a $500-million 'forecast allowance,' a super cushion to let the government come in on budget even if things go wrong.
But the contingency fund, for all ministries for an entire year, is gone before the fiscal year is half over. And a big bite will be taken out of the forecast allowance.
The budget calls for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. Given Collins' conservatism, most observers would have expected the target to be beaten by more than $500 million. That looks much less likely.
The other question is how badly the fires will hurt the economy. Some 3,000 forest workers are off the job already, barred from tinder dry woods. Sawmills are running out of logs, and unless the situation improves the job losses could mount with each week. (The fear of lost production has pushed up prices, so mills in other areas should be more profitable.)
Tourism is taking an immediate hit. People who planned a houseboat trip on the Shuswap are hesitating. Americans considering a trip to B.C. are staying home. That's business that won't be recaptured.
The larger question is whether there will be a lasting impact on tourists who fear that B.C. has become a less attractive destination. A special tourist marketing campaign will be needed to cope with the fallout from SARS and the fires.
So far, the focus has been on fighting the fires and helping the dispossessed. Desperate people have celebrated the efforts of firefighters and the visits by politicians.
But once the smoke has cleared, an independent inquiry is badly needed.
Fires are part of life in a forested province, where people want to live among the trees. But B.C. has been much less active in clearing fallen trees and other wood waste from forest floors than other jurisdictions. The province's auditor general warned two years ago that years of successful efforts to reduce small fires had allowed a dangerous concentration of fuel, setting the stage for much large blazes.
And he warned that B.C. was ill-prepared, offering a number of specific recommendations to avert disaster, or at least reduce its cost.
Progress on his recommendations has been slow. Even Liberal MLAs complained a year ago that too little was being done by the government. (For example, Solicitor General Rich Coleman created a provincial fire department in response to these blazes; the auditor general warned two years ago that such a change was needed.)
Along with the inquiry, there will have to be extraordinary help for the people and communities involved. The federal and provincial governments have a disaster relief formula. But finding homes for hundreds of families and helping communities cope with lost infrastructure will strain the normal programs.
Fires, even terribly damaging fires, may be part of life in B.C. But we need to be sure that we are doing everything reasonable to manage the risk. And independent inquiry will help make sure that happens.
Footnote: The first political pressure point will likely be compensation. Premier Gordon Campbell says the province will ease a policy which denies compensation to people who could have bought insurance, but expect some conflict.
Sometimes people just die and it's not a medical crisis
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's time we thought a little harder about how significant it is that 4,000 people died in France during a heat wave, or that eight people died in a Surrey nursing home after a 'SARS-like virus' struck.
People get edgy if you suggest some deaths matter more than others.
But they do.
Take the emergence of a mysterious virus at the Kinsmen Place Lodge in Surrey. Eleven people have died since the outbreak began six weeks ago, out of about 150 people at the home. That sounds pretty serious.
But in a typical month at the lodge, four or five people die. The residents are old, and many are unwell. The number of deaths even potentially linked to the disease is smaller than it may appear.
The normal rate of five deaths a month means 60 people die at the facility in a normal year. The average lifespan for someone admitted to the lodge is thus something like 2.5 years.
And that means that the three additional deaths in recent weeks have resulted in something like 7.5 years of life lost.
That's not a measurement most of us use, although actuaries, insurance companies and public health officials are all keenly interested. But we should. A disease that claims healthy young victims robs them of decades; an infection in a nursing home that strikes the most vulnerable may simply mean death comes a few months early.
I'm not questioning the significance of the loss for the families involved.
But it's a matter of math. Car crashes among 15 to 24 year olds claimed 85 British Columbians in 2000, with an average loss of 55 years of expected life for each victim. Three extra deaths mean something like 155 years of life lost. Those deaths are more significant -- for society, the economy, family.
The equation will be much the same in France, where the government -- and families -- has been much criticized for the deaths of up to 5,000 people in the current heat wave, many of them elderly or sick.
If there has been neglect, or a failure to act, then that is shameful. If there are public health lessons to learn, we should heed them.
But we should also be open to the possibility that for many victims, already weakened, death within months was almost certain. The heat wave may have advanced the end, but not by much.
That doesn't mean, again, that we should do nothing about the illness or environmental problems that kill the old and the sick. Life has value, at 90 or at nine.
But it doesn't have equal value, especially given the limit on available resources and the apparently inexhaustible supply of new, costly treatments.
We are all going to die. By the time we are somewhere like the Surrey lodge, we are going to die fairly soon. And it's time to shed the notion that all deaths, or illnesses, call for the same response.
We aren't close to coming to that realization. A major U.S. study found that 27 per cent of health care expenditures in California and Massachusetts went towards patients in the final 12 months of their lives.
The figure for B.C. is similar, which means about $2.7 billion will be spent on 28,000 people who will die in the next year, or $100,000 each. The average expense for the rest of us will be about $2,100 each.
That's not necessarily wrong, if the spending is wise, bringing comfort to a person's final months or a real chance of success.
But the same study found one in eight patients over 85, with cancer unresponsive to chemotherapy, had received the costly and unpleasant treatment in the last three months of their lives.
To what end?
It's not our job to consign people to death once they pass a certain age.
But it is our job to make intelligent, rational decisions about how we try to deal with the real world of health challenges, whether it's in a Surrey nursing home or a Paris apartment.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Liberals' new care rates for seniors fair
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' implementation might be a little harsh, but there's nothing wrong with their plan to increase the cost for seniors in residential care.
Not everyone sees it that way. Some seniors organizations have reacted angrily to fee increases that will hit more than 7,000 people in long-term care, dinging them for an average increase of $2,360 a year.
About 1,000 people at the top end of the income scale will see their costs jump by 30 per cent. The accommodation, board and care that have been costing $1,520 a month will suddenly jump to almost $2,000.
That is too big a jump, even given the five-month notice the government has provided. It would have been fairer to cap the increases at 10 per cent, and phase them in. Few of us could cope with a 30-per-cent increase in our living costs, at a time when our income is fixed. (Though fees haven't increased since 1997.)
But the basic principle behind the increase is sound, and the new rates don't seem unfair.
About 25,000 people live in government-supported residential care facilities, which provide more support than an assisted-care facility and less than a hospital. They pay a fee based on their income, and get 24-hour nursing care, room, board and recreational programs.
About three-quarters of them won't face any increase. People with gross income under $18,000 pay $825 now, and most have very little left over for any other expenses. They won't pay more until 2004, when the government plans to start levying annual hikes based on the consumer price index.
Everyone else faces increases.
Residents pay on a sliding scale. The higher your gross income, the higher your monthly bill.
For all residents, the rates represent a pretty good deal. People pay between $825 and $1,975 a month. But the government estimates the cost of providing residential care at $4,500 a month. Taxpayers - some facing their own tough times - are already subsidizing the cost. (That $4,500 cost isn't inflated. Ask any family that despaired of long waiting lists and had to go out and find a private facility for an aged relative.)
The taxpayer subsidy is money well-spent. Affordable residential care doesn't just mean a better quality of life. Helping people live with lower levels of support is far more cost-effective than the alternative, which too often ends up being much more costly acute care.
Is the government charging too much? Someone with $12,000 a year in income pays $825 a month for food, shelter and care. That's more than 80 per cent of their income, but it still leaves about $175 a month for other expenses.
At $25,000, a resident would pay $1,080 a month, about half their income, leaving about $1.000 or other monthly expenses.
And at $65,000, a resident would pay a little over one-third of his income - about $1,975 - and have $3,430 for other expenses.
It's easier to make the case that some residents should be paying more than it is to be critical of the government's direction.
Seniors' irritation is understandable. The Liberals have pushed their cost of living up sharply, reducing Pharmacare benefits and hiking MSP premiums. For those in residential carte, this is another aggressive hit, one that should have been phased in.
And the government should have announced that the $17 million from the increases would be used to used to open new residential care beds. The money is enough to cover the operating cost for about 400; the announcement would have shown that the increases aren't just a cash grab. (To be credible the announcement would have to specify places and communities, instead of offering vague platitudes.)
But those are questions of implementation.
The principle, that people who receive benefits should pay for them, at a fair price that is within their means, is reasonable. The new rates don't appear to place an excessive demand on residents. They are fair.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' implementation might be a little harsh, but there's nothing wrong with their plan to increase the cost for seniors in residential care.
Not everyone sees it that way. Some seniors organizations have reacted angrily to fee increases that will hit more than 7,000 people in long-term care, dinging them for an average increase of $2,360 a year.
About 1,000 people at the top end of the income scale will see their costs jump by 30 per cent. The accommodation, board and care that have been costing $1,520 a month will suddenly jump to almost $2,000.
That is too big a jump, even given the five-month notice the government has provided. It would have been fairer to cap the increases at 10 per cent, and phase them in. Few of us could cope with a 30-per-cent increase in our living costs, at a time when our income is fixed. (Though fees haven't increased since 1997.)
But the basic principle behind the increase is sound, and the new rates don't seem unfair.
About 25,000 people live in government-supported residential care facilities, which provide more support than an assisted-care facility and less than a hospital. They pay a fee based on their income, and get 24-hour nursing care, room, board and recreational programs.
About three-quarters of them won't face any increase. People with gross income under $18,000 pay $825 now, and most have very little left over for any other expenses. They won't pay more until 2004, when the government plans to start levying annual hikes based on the consumer price index.
Everyone else faces increases.
Residents pay on a sliding scale. The higher your gross income, the higher your monthly bill.
For all residents, the rates represent a pretty good deal. People pay between $825 and $1,975 a month. But the government estimates the cost of providing residential care at $4,500 a month. Taxpayers - some facing their own tough times - are already subsidizing the cost. (That $4,500 cost isn't inflated. Ask any family that despaired of long waiting lists and had to go out and find a private facility for an aged relative.)
The taxpayer subsidy is money well-spent. Affordable residential care doesn't just mean a better quality of life. Helping people live with lower levels of support is far more cost-effective than the alternative, which too often ends up being much more costly acute care.
Is the government charging too much? Someone with $12,000 a year in income pays $825 a month for food, shelter and care. That's more than 80 per cent of their income, but it still leaves about $175 a month for other expenses.
At $25,000, a resident would pay $1,080 a month, about half their income, leaving about $1.000 or other monthly expenses.
And at $65,000, a resident would pay a little over one-third of his income - about $1,975 - and have $3,430 for other expenses.
It's easier to make the case that some residents should be paying more than it is to be critical of the government's direction.
Seniors' irritation is understandable. The Liberals have pushed their cost of living up sharply, reducing Pharmacare benefits and hiking MSP premiums. For those in residential carte, this is another aggressive hit, one that should have been phased in.
And the government should have announced that the $17 million from the increases would be used to used to open new residential care beds. The money is enough to cover the operating cost for about 400; the announcement would have shown that the increases aren't just a cash grab. (To be credible the announcement would have to specify places and communities, instead of offering vague platitudes.)
But those are questions of implementation.
The principle, that people who receive benefits should pay for them, at a fair price that is within their means, is reasonable. The new rates don't appear to place an excessive demand on residents. They are fair.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Liberals can learn a good lesson from Coquihalla mess
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Here's hoping Gordon Campbell and the Liberals learn from the great Coquihalla debacle.
The idea of privatizing the highway, and locking rising tolls in place for 55 years, should have been an obvious non-starter for both political and practical reasons.
The Liberals' policy on toll roads pledges that tolls will be introduced to pay for new construction, letting travellers see a link between a toll and improved service. Instead Interior residents just saw that they were going to be paying "temporary" tolls for another 55 years, subsidizing new toll-free roads in other parts of the province (read the Lower Mainland). And despite the government's claims, drivers knew the construction costs that the tolls were supposed to cover were repaid years ago.
It was a cash grab that would hurt the so-called Heartland. And the people reacted accordingly.
The first question for the Liberals is how they got into such a mess. A party in touch with the voters - and listening to MLAs who were willing to speak out on behalf of their constituents - would have seen the wave of public anger heading toward them like an out-of-control semi on the long downhill into Merritt.
Instead, the Liberals stumbled into the disaster and then compounded their problems. They did a lousy job of making the case for the proposal. When people objected, the government's first response edged on insult. The problem, said Transport Minister Judith Reid, is that people just don't understand the plan. The government's solution included spending taxpayers' money on an ad campaign promoting the scheme, a move that just added to the public anger. It galls to have the people elected tell you that you're too dim to see their wisdom; it hurts even more when they use your money to try and sell you on their plans.
Campbell kept pushing the plan when everyone from unions to chambers of commerce to mayors to seniors had made their fundamental opposition clear.
It was a costly mistake.
The government has spent more than $4 million on studies, professional fees and other work preparing for the Coquihalla privatization. A small sum in government, perhaps, but still $4 million that could have been used elsewhere.
It has managed to unite opposition across the Interior, leaving Liberal MLAs in a hole.
And it has undermined its credibility with the international business community. Cabinet has already been warned that companies interested in private-public partnerships have a lot of international options. If B.C. is going to attract companies to build and operate everything from toll bridges to hospitals - a key part of Liberal plans - it has to be competitive.
And a key element in competitiveness is consistency. Killing one of the first major projects for political reasons, after companies spent money preparing to bid, is a black eye for the province.
That's a shame, because both toll roads and public-private partnerships make sense as a way to finance and build new transportation projects. The principle that users should pay, and that costs can be reduced by encouraging competition among private companies, makes sense.
The Liberals have tended towards inflexibility, locked on course whatever the public reaction or the obvious flaws in plans. (Look how long it took the government to acknowledge its plans for children and families were hopelessly compromised.)
But Campbell's decision to abandon the bad Coquihalla plan has been well-received, even though it appears grudging. He'd do well to remember that, and to look to the example of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein who has shown a willingness to walk away from a bad idea. People accept mistakes, from politicians or partners; they just want them to be acknowledged and set right quickly.
For the public, the lesson is clear as well. Get mad enough, and organize a broad enough base of opposition, and governments almost have to respond.
Footnote: The Liberals' transportation problems aren't behind them. Ottawa and the province are fighting over the amount of the federal contribution to a rapid transit line to the Vancouver airport. But Ottawa has also said the choice is between supporting the transit line or improving the highway through the Kicking Horse Pass. It's another decision that will be watched closely in the regions.
Getting tough with drunk drivers by reducing penalties
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA – I learned to scorn mandatory jail sentences when the young guy that I’d seen at church with his wife and two little girls got five years.
He’d taken over the family business - a big responsibility for a young man - and it was failing. And one desperate morning he decided to rob a bank. He was arrested within 25 minutes, after police followed him from the bank back to the shop.
The mandatory minimum for armed robbery was five years, with no flexibility allowed. So that’s what he got.
What he did was wrong. But that was a sentence that did nothing for society, him or his little girls.
It’s still a popular solution to every social or criminal problem that comes along. Make the penalties tougher, and take away the courts’ discretion to consider the benefits of alternatives.
But the get-tough methods don't work. And in fact, they can have quite the opposite effect.
That’s why the Liberal plan to get tough on impaired driving actually includes lighter penalties for people who get behind the wheel drunk.
Politicians have made drunk driving laws tougher. The penalties - especially the provisions for licence suspensions - have grown more punitive and less flexible. The idea was that tough punishment would keep impaired drivers off the road.
But things rarely work out as planned. Economists call it the law of unintended consequences; in trying to accomplish one goal, we actually produce quite different results.
So it’s been with impaired driving. We made penalties tougher, raising fines and lengthening licence suspensions, and took away judges’ ability to be flexible in imposing them.
But the penalties became so severe that more and more people decided it was worth pleading not guilty and going to trial. Even if they lost, they would have 18 months of creeping through the process to prepare for the loss of their licence.
As a result police had to put more time into gathering information before charges were laid, so they would be ready for a trial. The cases crowded the courts, with 25 per cent of provincial court trial time taken up with impaired driving cases.
So police and prosecutors started looking to alternatives to criminal charges, like 24-hour roadside suspensions. And the number of impaired charges dropped.
The get-tough changes actually made the punishment less severe.
Consider the numbers. Last year about 560,000 people in B.C. drove while impaired. Only 50,000 of those were caught by police.
Only 10 per cent of those people were hit with a criminal charge. Police dealt with 90 per cent of impaired drivers by imposing a 24-hour licence suspension.
That means about 4,500 people ended up facing criminal charges. Almost a third weren't convicted. So only about 3,000 people ended up being handed one of those tougher penalties. The changes actually reduced the real consequences for drunk drivers.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman proposes to change that by introducing new provincial offences carrying penalties more severe than a 24-hour suspension, but lighter than Criminal Code sanctions. Fines may be lower, and licence suspensions shorter and more flexible. (You might be allowed to drive to work, for example.)
Repeat offenders or those in crashes could expect Criminal Code charges. But most people would face lesser charges, with penalties much like we used to impose for impaired driving before sanctions were toughened.
The proposed shift to lighter penalties is still a proposal, part of a package of changes proposed by Coleman and now awaiting public comment.
But they will likely go ahead, along with mandatory education or rehab programs for offenders, a requirement already in place in every other province.
It's a useful lesson. Smarter, targeted enforcement and education are what's needed, despite the political appeal of tougher penalties.
Footnote: Most of the proposed changes make sense, but not all. Coleman announced last week that people who receive two 24-hour roadside suspensions within two years could lose their licence for 90 days. Those suspensions are handed out by police, without a court hearing. The longer suspension isn't mandatory, but it remains too severe a penalty to impose without giving the driver the opportunity for a full hearing.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Here's hoping Gordon Campbell and the Liberals learn from the great Coquihalla debacle.
The idea of privatizing the highway, and locking rising tolls in place for 55 years, should have been an obvious non-starter for both political and practical reasons.
The Liberals' policy on toll roads pledges that tolls will be introduced to pay for new construction, letting travellers see a link between a toll and improved service. Instead Interior residents just saw that they were going to be paying "temporary" tolls for another 55 years, subsidizing new toll-free roads in other parts of the province (read the Lower Mainland). And despite the government's claims, drivers knew the construction costs that the tolls were supposed to cover were repaid years ago.
It was a cash grab that would hurt the so-called Heartland. And the people reacted accordingly.
The first question for the Liberals is how they got into such a mess. A party in touch with the voters - and listening to MLAs who were willing to speak out on behalf of their constituents - would have seen the wave of public anger heading toward them like an out-of-control semi on the long downhill into Merritt.
Instead, the Liberals stumbled into the disaster and then compounded their problems. They did a lousy job of making the case for the proposal. When people objected, the government's first response edged on insult. The problem, said Transport Minister Judith Reid, is that people just don't understand the plan. The government's solution included spending taxpayers' money on an ad campaign promoting the scheme, a move that just added to the public anger. It galls to have the people elected tell you that you're too dim to see their wisdom; it hurts even more when they use your money to try and sell you on their plans.
Campbell kept pushing the plan when everyone from unions to chambers of commerce to mayors to seniors had made their fundamental opposition clear.
It was a costly mistake.
The government has spent more than $4 million on studies, professional fees and other work preparing for the Coquihalla privatization. A small sum in government, perhaps, but still $4 million that could have been used elsewhere.
It has managed to unite opposition across the Interior, leaving Liberal MLAs in a hole.
And it has undermined its credibility with the international business community. Cabinet has already been warned that companies interested in private-public partnerships have a lot of international options. If B.C. is going to attract companies to build and operate everything from toll bridges to hospitals - a key part of Liberal plans - it has to be competitive.
And a key element in competitiveness is consistency. Killing one of the first major projects for political reasons, after companies spent money preparing to bid, is a black eye for the province.
That's a shame, because both toll roads and public-private partnerships make sense as a way to finance and build new transportation projects. The principle that users should pay, and that costs can be reduced by encouraging competition among private companies, makes sense.
The Liberals have tended towards inflexibility, locked on course whatever the public reaction or the obvious flaws in plans. (Look how long it took the government to acknowledge its plans for children and families were hopelessly compromised.)
But Campbell's decision to abandon the bad Coquihalla plan has been well-received, even though it appears grudging. He'd do well to remember that, and to look to the example of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein who has shown a willingness to walk away from a bad idea. People accept mistakes, from politicians or partners; they just want them to be acknowledged and set right quickly.
For the public, the lesson is clear as well. Get mad enough, and organize a broad enough base of opposition, and governments almost have to respond.
Footnote: The Liberals' transportation problems aren't behind them. Ottawa and the province are fighting over the amount of the federal contribution to a rapid transit line to the Vancouver airport. But Ottawa has also said the choice is between supporting the transit line or improving the highway through the Kicking Horse Pass. It's another decision that will be watched closely in the regions.
Getting tough with drunk drivers by reducing penalties
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA – I learned to scorn mandatory jail sentences when the young guy that I’d seen at church with his wife and two little girls got five years.
He’d taken over the family business - a big responsibility for a young man - and it was failing. And one desperate morning he decided to rob a bank. He was arrested within 25 minutes, after police followed him from the bank back to the shop.
The mandatory minimum for armed robbery was five years, with no flexibility allowed. So that’s what he got.
What he did was wrong. But that was a sentence that did nothing for society, him or his little girls.
It’s still a popular solution to every social or criminal problem that comes along. Make the penalties tougher, and take away the courts’ discretion to consider the benefits of alternatives.
But the get-tough methods don't work. And in fact, they can have quite the opposite effect.
That’s why the Liberal plan to get tough on impaired driving actually includes lighter penalties for people who get behind the wheel drunk.
Politicians have made drunk driving laws tougher. The penalties - especially the provisions for licence suspensions - have grown more punitive and less flexible. The idea was that tough punishment would keep impaired drivers off the road.
But things rarely work out as planned. Economists call it the law of unintended consequences; in trying to accomplish one goal, we actually produce quite different results.
So it’s been with impaired driving. We made penalties tougher, raising fines and lengthening licence suspensions, and took away judges’ ability to be flexible in imposing them.
But the penalties became so severe that more and more people decided it was worth pleading not guilty and going to trial. Even if they lost, they would have 18 months of creeping through the process to prepare for the loss of their licence.
As a result police had to put more time into gathering information before charges were laid, so they would be ready for a trial. The cases crowded the courts, with 25 per cent of provincial court trial time taken up with impaired driving cases.
So police and prosecutors started looking to alternatives to criminal charges, like 24-hour roadside suspensions. And the number of impaired charges dropped.
The get-tough changes actually made the punishment less severe.
Consider the numbers. Last year about 560,000 people in B.C. drove while impaired. Only 50,000 of those were caught by police.
Only 10 per cent of those people were hit with a criminal charge. Police dealt with 90 per cent of impaired drivers by imposing a 24-hour licence suspension.
That means about 4,500 people ended up facing criminal charges. Almost a third weren't convicted. So only about 3,000 people ended up being handed one of those tougher penalties. The changes actually reduced the real consequences for drunk drivers.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman proposes to change that by introducing new provincial offences carrying penalties more severe than a 24-hour suspension, but lighter than Criminal Code sanctions. Fines may be lower, and licence suspensions shorter and more flexible. (You might be allowed to drive to work, for example.)
Repeat offenders or those in crashes could expect Criminal Code charges. But most people would face lesser charges, with penalties much like we used to impose for impaired driving before sanctions were toughened.
The proposed shift to lighter penalties is still a proposal, part of a package of changes proposed by Coleman and now awaiting public comment.
But they will likely go ahead, along with mandatory education or rehab programs for offenders, a requirement already in place in every other province.
It's a useful lesson. Smarter, targeted enforcement and education are what's needed, despite the political appeal of tougher penalties.
Footnote: Most of the proposed changes make sense, but not all. Coleman announced last week that people who receive two 24-hour roadside suspensions within two years could lose their licence for 90 days. Those suspensions are handed out by police, without a court hearing. The longer suspension isn't mandatory, but it remains too severe a penalty to impose without giving the driver the opportunity for a full hearing.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Another tragic case of our indifference to young girls
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A 12-year-old girl goes for a drive with three men. They give her beer, then try to have sex with her. She ends up in the hospital for three days.
And two of the three men are acquitted of sex assault charges, apparently because a jury accepted their argument that the acts were consensual, and they thought she was 14 - and thus legal. Just a liaison, beside a truck, on a Saskatchewan road.
I'm not going to second guess the jury because only someone who sits through a trial is entitled to do that. I am going to note that the girl was native. And that at least six times in his charge to the jury the judge referred to the two accused as "boys," an odd and inaccurate term for men of 21 and 25. And that police failed to videotape interviews with her, her medical examination was inadequate and the prosecutor didn't do a strong job of raising doubt about getting a kid drunk and then claiming consent.
I'm going to blame Jean Chretien.
This case might not have happened - and certainly the verdict would have been different - if the federal Liberals had made one simple change and raised the age of consent between adult and child to 16.
The federal Liberals have decided that sex between a 14-year-old girl and a 50-year-old man should be legal. They are not prepared to let 14-year-olds vote, drive or drink. But at 14 - at a time when she might still be deciding what to wear to her Grade 8 grad - they believe a child should be fair game for any man who can persuade her that she's in love or dazzle her with promises and dreams.
This isn't some new problem. The B.C. government and other provinces have urged Ottawa to change the age of consent, and so have Alliance MPs, child protection groups, police and municipalities. The U.S., Britain, Australia, even Thailand, are among the countries that make the age of consent 16.
But the Chretien government refuses to take a small step that would give parents and police one more way of rescuing a child at risk, and prevent men from arguing that they had the child's consent.
Why? Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says there's no provincial consensus, so Ottawa won't act.
It's a shamefully empty defence of inaction. Eight provinces agree the law should be changed. Only Quebec and Saskatchewan - where this sad case unfolded - apparently remain concerned that police would end up arresting two 14-year-olds having consensual sex.
But all the government has to do -- as do the countries cited above -- is exempt sex between individuals of ages within two or three years of each other.
The Liberals also say they are protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a rich and valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Then arguments for raising the age of consent are compelling; the arguments against pathetic. (I am not interested in any arguments that 14-year-olds are mature enough to decide to have sex with adults; if you hold that view, I invite you to attempt to persuade the parents of a 14-year-old.)
Raising the age of consent to 16 would give police and parents a needed tool.
When adults target children for sex or profit, society will have a weapon, a law that reflects -- as the child pornography laws do -- the fact that we view sex with children differently than sex between consenting adults.
Parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter, an option that does not now exist.
Pimps and johns would both have to factor one more risk into the equation when they put young girls to work.
And never again would men accused of sexual assault on a 12-year-old be able to escape punishment by saying they thought she was 14.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
The Baker Boy bumps into the Heartland reality
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Anybody still trying to figure out why B.C.'s smaller communities are unhappy about the New Era should look at Prince Rupert's Baker Boy.
Paul Mah's business has been baking bread and treats for the Prince Rupert Hospital for 20 years. It's not a huge contract - about $10,000 a year - but it's significant, especially when times are tough.
But lst month he got a two-sentence note from the Northern Health Authority. The next week's bread order would be the last. The authority was centralizing buying and a bakery in Langley - 1,500 kms away - would be getting the contract. Thanks, and see you around.
It's apparently cheaper, and that's what matters to the health authority. Save $500 on bread, and you can avoid a cut somewhere else. (The authority, citing cost pressures, has also announced layoffs at the hospital.)
I'm sympathetic to the importance of good bottom line management. It's my money they're spending.
But it's also the money of the people paying taxes in Prince Rupert. And they've got a right to be angry when they see it being sucked out of their community, and sent down to create jobs and economic growth in the Lower Mainland or a distant regional centre.
The Baker Boy is a good example of why smaller communities are feeling abused by government policies that have given them much of the New Era pain and little of the gain.
The local hospital - or court house or school or government office - is part of the economy. By using Baker Boy, a local supplier, it kept tax money in the community. It helped create local jobs - the bakery has about 20 employees. Those people paid taxes and spent their wages in the community, sent their chioldren to school.
Some of the money even went back directly to the hospital. Mah was a big supporter - and donor - when the community raised money for a CatScan for the hospital.
Local decisions, local consequences.
But the Northern Health Authority - covering almost half the province - isn't local. Baker Boy never got a chance to bid for the right to supply bread. The health authority didn't return calls from Mah or the Prince Rupert Daily News about the cancellation.
That changed. Rupert Mayor Herb Pond and council expressed their outrage, noting rightly that the hospital is part of the economic base of the community. "Now the money that circulated locally is going down to Langley," he complained. "Is this what what the province calls taking care of the Heartland?"
And finally, the decision was reversed. Bread will come from down the street, not from 1,500 kms away. The money stays in the community. (And the pastries should be a lot fresher.)
Pond still wonders why the community - like others across the province - keeps getting hit with these kind of blows without getting the chance to be involved in the decisions.
Public institutions, like hospitals, shouldn't be used as a cash cows to keep local businesses going. If there are major savings, grab them.
But any private business I've been involved with has recognized the importance of trying to buy locally. It's tough to ask people to support you when you're turning your back on them.
There's no big outrage here, no fast ferry scandal or Coquihalla-scale protest.
But it's a small, good example of why the Liberals' "Heartland strategy" is being mocked across the province.
The people who live in these communities understand their economies and how they work. They know that right now, when a job is lost, it's likely won't be replaced. They know that the ripple effects spread through communities already facing tough times.
They shouldn't expect handouts - money transferred from the rest of the province to sustain them.
But they shouldn't be expected to watch quietly as their tax dollars - and the people and businesses they support - are shipped down the road.
Footnote: Should smaller communities have seen this coming? In the run-up to the election, the Kamloops Daily News said tax cuts would require spending cuts. Liberal candidate Claude Richmond said they were all wet. "In your editorial you say that there will have to be cuts in spending if the Liberals are going to cut personal income taxes as they claim," he wrote. "That is what the NDP wants you to believe and it just isn't so."
willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A 12-year-old girl goes for a drive with three men. They give her beer, then try to have sex with her. She ends up in the hospital for three days.
And two of the three men are acquitted of sex assault charges, apparently because a jury accepted their argument that the acts were consensual, and they thought she was 14 - and thus legal. Just a liaison, beside a truck, on a Saskatchewan road.
I'm not going to second guess the jury because only someone who sits through a trial is entitled to do that. I am going to note that the girl was native. And that at least six times in his charge to the jury the judge referred to the two accused as "boys," an odd and inaccurate term for men of 21 and 25. And that police failed to videotape interviews with her, her medical examination was inadequate and the prosecutor didn't do a strong job of raising doubt about getting a kid drunk and then claiming consent.
I'm going to blame Jean Chretien.
This case might not have happened - and certainly the verdict would have been different - if the federal Liberals had made one simple change and raised the age of consent between adult and child to 16.
The federal Liberals have decided that sex between a 14-year-old girl and a 50-year-old man should be legal. They are not prepared to let 14-year-olds vote, drive or drink. But at 14 - at a time when she might still be deciding what to wear to her Grade 8 grad - they believe a child should be fair game for any man who can persuade her that she's in love or dazzle her with promises and dreams.
This isn't some new problem. The B.C. government and other provinces have urged Ottawa to change the age of consent, and so have Alliance MPs, child protection groups, police and municipalities. The U.S., Britain, Australia, even Thailand, are among the countries that make the age of consent 16.
But the Chretien government refuses to take a small step that would give parents and police one more way of rescuing a child at risk, and prevent men from arguing that they had the child's consent.
Why? Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says there's no provincial consensus, so Ottawa won't act.
It's a shamefully empty defence of inaction. Eight provinces agree the law should be changed. Only Quebec and Saskatchewan - where this sad case unfolded - apparently remain concerned that police would end up arresting two 14-year-olds having consensual sex.
But all the government has to do -- as do the countries cited above -- is exempt sex between individuals of ages within two or three years of each other.
The Liberals also say they are protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a rich and valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Then arguments for raising the age of consent are compelling; the arguments against pathetic. (I am not interested in any arguments that 14-year-olds are mature enough to decide to have sex with adults; if you hold that view, I invite you to attempt to persuade the parents of a 14-year-old.)
Raising the age of consent to 16 would give police and parents a needed tool.
When adults target children for sex or profit, society will have a weapon, a law that reflects -- as the child pornography laws do -- the fact that we view sex with children differently than sex between consenting adults.
Parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter, an option that does not now exist.
Pimps and johns would both have to factor one more risk into the equation when they put young girls to work.
And never again would men accused of sexual assault on a 12-year-old be able to escape punishment by saying they thought she was 14.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
The Baker Boy bumps into the Heartland reality
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Anybody still trying to figure out why B.C.'s smaller communities are unhappy about the New Era should look at Prince Rupert's Baker Boy.
Paul Mah's business has been baking bread and treats for the Prince Rupert Hospital for 20 years. It's not a huge contract - about $10,000 a year - but it's significant, especially when times are tough.
But lst month he got a two-sentence note from the Northern Health Authority. The next week's bread order would be the last. The authority was centralizing buying and a bakery in Langley - 1,500 kms away - would be getting the contract. Thanks, and see you around.
It's apparently cheaper, and that's what matters to the health authority. Save $500 on bread, and you can avoid a cut somewhere else. (The authority, citing cost pressures, has also announced layoffs at the hospital.)
I'm sympathetic to the importance of good bottom line management. It's my money they're spending.
But it's also the money of the people paying taxes in Prince Rupert. And they've got a right to be angry when they see it being sucked out of their community, and sent down to create jobs and economic growth in the Lower Mainland or a distant regional centre.
The Baker Boy is a good example of why smaller communities are feeling abused by government policies that have given them much of the New Era pain and little of the gain.
The local hospital - or court house or school or government office - is part of the economy. By using Baker Boy, a local supplier, it kept tax money in the community. It helped create local jobs - the bakery has about 20 employees. Those people paid taxes and spent their wages in the community, sent their chioldren to school.
Some of the money even went back directly to the hospital. Mah was a big supporter - and donor - when the community raised money for a CatScan for the hospital.
Local decisions, local consequences.
But the Northern Health Authority - covering almost half the province - isn't local. Baker Boy never got a chance to bid for the right to supply bread. The health authority didn't return calls from Mah or the Prince Rupert Daily News about the cancellation.
That changed. Rupert Mayor Herb Pond and council expressed their outrage, noting rightly that the hospital is part of the economic base of the community. "Now the money that circulated locally is going down to Langley," he complained. "Is this what what the province calls taking care of the Heartland?"
And finally, the decision was reversed. Bread will come from down the street, not from 1,500 kms away. The money stays in the community. (And the pastries should be a lot fresher.)
Pond still wonders why the community - like others across the province - keeps getting hit with these kind of blows without getting the chance to be involved in the decisions.
Public institutions, like hospitals, shouldn't be used as a cash cows to keep local businesses going. If there are major savings, grab them.
But any private business I've been involved with has recognized the importance of trying to buy locally. It's tough to ask people to support you when you're turning your back on them.
There's no big outrage here, no fast ferry scandal or Coquihalla-scale protest.
But it's a small, good example of why the Liberals' "Heartland strategy" is being mocked across the province.
The people who live in these communities understand their economies and how they work. They know that right now, when a job is lost, it's likely won't be replaced. They know that the ripple effects spread through communities already facing tough times.
They shouldn't expect handouts - money transferred from the rest of the province to sustain them.
But they shouldn't be expected to watch quietly as their tax dollars - and the people and businesses they support - are shipped down the road.
Footnote: Should smaller communities have seen this coming? In the run-up to the election, the Kamloops Daily News said tax cuts would require spending cuts. Liberal candidate Claude Richmond said they were all wet. "In your editorial you say that there will have to be cuts in spending if the Liberals are going to cut personal income taxes as they claim," he wrote. "That is what the NDP wants you to believe and it just isn't so."
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Monday, July 07, 2003
Start fighting for real Olympic gold
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA -- OK, enough celebrating (or moaning).
Now it's time for all British Columbians to figure out how the Olympics can work for them.
That's especially true for communities outside Vancouver and Whistler, both already guaranteed huge benefits from Games spending. But it should also be a key challenge for everyone -- housing advocates, arts buffs, small business, First Nations -- who wants to stake a claim on some of the touted Olympic benefits.
And just as importantly, it should be a priority for the Liberals if they want to reap the hoped-for political and economic benefits from the multi-billion-dollar project.
Nobody was celebrating the victory more than the Liberals, who hope for an economic and psychological boost from the Games.
That can happen, but it's going to take a serious government effort to ensure that the Games aren't another example of the regions paying the taxes, and the big city getting the benefits.
Support for the Olympics is already tepid outside the Lower Mainland. A pre-Christmas poll found that about 60 per cent of those living in the Lower Mainland thought their region would benefit from the Olympics, but only 30 per cent of those in the rest of B.C. thought their communities would see any benefits.
Their concern is warranted. Vancouver and Whistler know what they're getting. Most of the $1.3 billion in Games spending identified by Auditor General Wayne Strelioff last year will go to those communities, for new facilities and improvements to the Sea-to-Sky Highway.
They'll also get a new transit line to the airport and an expanded convention centre.
So far, municipalities across the rest of the province have been invited to apply for a share of $40 million for Olympic Live Sites in their communities. They're grumbling that the money seems pretty mingy compared to the snowstorm of dollar bills settling on the Lower Mainland. It's a legitimate complaint.
Organizers point to intangible benefits --everything from increased tourism to foreign investment. They claim economic benefits of $6 billion to $10 billion.
But the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives -- two groups that rarely agree -- have both questioned the validity of the claims, noting that they are based on unreliable guesses and assumptions.
That doesn't mean spinoff benefits won't exist. But the people of the Lower Mainland and Whistler will be able to point to tangible benefits -- a rink, a road, housing.
The rest of the province is relying on ghostly economic benefits.
Those will have to be fought for.
Strelioff's review of Games planning was generally positive. But he warned that good luck and good management would be needed to keep costs on budget.
And good luck, a favourable economy and excellent management and marketing will be needed to reap the economic benefits. Strelioff quoted a consultant who did the economic impact studies for the organizing committee. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
That's the challenge for communities, and the government. It's going to take vigilance, creativity, will, money and political pressure to make sure that every decision taken over the next seven years considers how the Games can have the greatest benefits for all British Columbians. Every activity that can be pushed outside Vancouver and Whistler, should be. Every effort has to be made to ensure that the underlying key message promotes the province, not the city and the resort.
The barriers to tourism and economic growth in the rest of the province have to get the same priority that will now be given to improving the Sea to Sky Highway and the new Vancouver transit line. And some of the leadership has to come from Liberal MLAs, who should be insisting on a formal, public process for driving regional Games benefits.
Enough talking about the Heartland. It will take action and commitment to deliver any benefits from the Games.
Footnote: The Liberals have a lot resting on the Games' success. They're unlikely to be threatened in the next election, less than two years off. The vote after that will be held in 2009, less than a year before the Games. The success of the project could end up being a key issue in the campaign.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
The Liberals are letting down children and families
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's not much to celebrate in the Liberals' decision to cut spending on helping vulnerable children and adults.
The cuts have been scaled back. But it's still difficult to see any real plan behind the decision to cut support by $185 million - about 11 per cent. And that means kids who depend on us, not by choice, are at risk.
Children and Families Minister Gordon Hogg unveiled the cuts at a televised cabinet meeting. Afterwards he defended $70 million in cuts slated for next year, saying his staff assured him that the cuts could be made safely.
But then Hogg made the same claims for the plan abandoned earlier this month, which would have seen a total of $360 million in cuts. That plan turned out to be based on bad information and wrong assumptions, he told cabinet.
That's what virtually everyone outside government has said all along. And it is what they continue to say about the current cuts.
Hogg did little to ease concerns.
The biggest savings are to come from reduced spending on services provided by agencies, including $5.7-million cut to funding for agencies that support vulnerable youth and struggling families. The money is supposed to go to new, better programs. But those programs don't exist, and the change was flagged as a potential health and safety risk in a ministry report to cabinet.
So were other measures that remain part of the government's cost-cutting plan.
Ministry staff may be over-cautious, or the concerns they raised addressed.
But Hogg didn't inspire confidence that a plan is in place. He said no group homes will close, while briefing papers said homes will be close and about 200 long-term residents will be moved. He said money will be saved because communities will develop the capacity to support children in their homes. But asked how capacity would be built while the ministry is cutting 20 per cent of its staff and squeezing contract agencies, he suggested Rotary Clubs and volunteers will play a larger role.
That's a fine goal. But to base a spending cut on the emergence of volunteers is reckless.
it always looks easy on paper, chopping a million here and there and hoping people can cope.
But these cuts affects people who rely on us. The government plans to cut $1.1 million - about 25 per cent - from a fund that helps foster parents with extraordinary expenses. (This was another cut red-flagged as a health and safety risk in the ministry report.) Some foster parents are abusing the system, he says, and some children are getting things in care they couldn't get at home.
But I've talked to too many foster parents about how hard it is to get the money for a grad dress or summer camp. Cutting the amount available by about $100 child just shifts that cost on to foster parents, or penalizes children.
The Liberals have taken positive steps. Moving to a new regional model of service delivery, with separate aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities, makes sense. The concept of emphasizing early intervention and support for troubled families is morally and fiscally sound.
But restructuring while attempting to achieve unreasonable spending cuts is dangerous, and the potential victims are the people who have the least ability to defend themselves and the most to lose. They deserve better.
Gordon Campbell used to think so too, regularly calling on the NDP to increase funding for the ministry, warning that its work is too important to be threatened by short-term, short-sighted spending limits.
The government had options. The best would have been to cancel the next round of cuts, leaving the money in the budget. The ministry and the new agencies could push on with the plans. But if things had taken longer than planned, or the threat to children and vulnerable adults had proved real, the needed funding would be there.
Footnote: The government doesn't have money to maintain services for children in foster care. It does have enough money for an ad campaign, including full-page newspaper ads, offering a misleading defence of its education funding policies. In opposition the Liberals rightly attacked using tax dollars to sell government policies; now they're writing the cheques.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Barkerville needs more time in government hands
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I rolled into Barkerville the fall before last, swooping up the winding road from Quesnel. It was afternoon, with the low sun fighting dark clouds, and winning, and six inches of new snow on the main street.
The place was magic, a window into the incredibly difficult and risky times that shaped this province. I didn't feel like I was looking at the way things used to be, I felt like I was walking through that time.
We never saw more than a handful of other people. Wonderful for us, but even for October an indication that perhaps more can be done to attract people to the heritage site.
That's one of the things the government hopes to achieve by handing about 15 heritage sites, like Barkerville, to contractors, either companies or communities or non-profits.
The bigger goal, critics argue, is to save money by cutting funding for the sites. And in the process regional economies will be damaged and heritage put at risk, they say.
There's no right answer. Some heritage sites can be easily turned over to a private contractor or a local historical society. If the scale is small, the responsibilities relatively straightforward and the opportunity to increase revenue exists then contracting out the operation can make sense. Emily Carr House in Victoria and others across the province have been privately operated successes for years.
But the experience with Barkerville shows how the risks and problems mount when the sites are bigger. And it should be enough to make the government go slow in its plans to get out of the heritage site business.
The Barkerville experiment has the region very concerned, with good reason.
The province called for proposals in May, seeking an operator. No companies were interested - the chance for profit just isn't there. The District of Wells looked hard at taking over, at least in part because Barkerville is vital to the local economy. But the district has also now dropped out, saying that even with spending cuts and admission increases they would lose $250,000 a year on the site.
Now Communities Minister George Abbott says the government will try and reach out to other operators, and may go back to Wells with an offer of more money. The goal is still to have Barkerville off the government's hands by next spring.
The government should abandon that timeline, and the target of short-term savings. The fact that nobody who has looked hard at the potential costs and benefits has been willing to take on Barkerville is a warning. Rushing to find someone - anyone - to take over is too great a risk.
The obvious threat is to heritage values. Barkerville is a remarkable living museum, a chance for us to understand what it was like to risk everything to hunt for gold, or to start a new life in a strange land thousands of miles from home. Its 150 buildings and collection of some 300,000 are a treasure that help us understand who we are.
But the economic risk is just as serious. Barkerville's 100,000 visitors a year are an important part of the local economy. Putting that at risk by rushing forward is too dangerous.
Abbott does say the government will keep running the site if it has to, but with a reduced budget. That too is short-sighted.
This isn't all some new problem created by the Liberals. The NDP launched the contracting out process for heritage sites, and cut heritage spending.
The impact of those cuts in creating a pent-up need for major capital improvements is one of the things deterring prospective operators. (A decade ago half-a-dozen people managed the Barkerville collections; that's now down to two.)
Nothing says the government's plan won't work. A well-organized, well-financed group, with a clear mandate for preservation and growth may be found.
But it's not working now. And the uncertainty being created, and the fears of a rushed and short-sighted decision, are hurting the economy.
Footnote: One problem for the Liberals is the lack of models to learn from It's difficult to find any governments that have given up control of major heritage sites like Barkerville. The experiment is being watched - nervously - across Canada.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA -- OK, enough celebrating (or moaning).
Now it's time for all British Columbians to figure out how the Olympics can work for them.
That's especially true for communities outside Vancouver and Whistler, both already guaranteed huge benefits from Games spending. But it should also be a key challenge for everyone -- housing advocates, arts buffs, small business, First Nations -- who wants to stake a claim on some of the touted Olympic benefits.
And just as importantly, it should be a priority for the Liberals if they want to reap the hoped-for political and economic benefits from the multi-billion-dollar project.
Nobody was celebrating the victory more than the Liberals, who hope for an economic and psychological boost from the Games.
That can happen, but it's going to take a serious government effort to ensure that the Games aren't another example of the regions paying the taxes, and the big city getting the benefits.
Support for the Olympics is already tepid outside the Lower Mainland. A pre-Christmas poll found that about 60 per cent of those living in the Lower Mainland thought their region would benefit from the Olympics, but only 30 per cent of those in the rest of B.C. thought their communities would see any benefits.
Their concern is warranted. Vancouver and Whistler know what they're getting. Most of the $1.3 billion in Games spending identified by Auditor General Wayne Strelioff last year will go to those communities, for new facilities and improvements to the Sea-to-Sky Highway.
They'll also get a new transit line to the airport and an expanded convention centre.
So far, municipalities across the rest of the province have been invited to apply for a share of $40 million for Olympic Live Sites in their communities. They're grumbling that the money seems pretty mingy compared to the snowstorm of dollar bills settling on the Lower Mainland. It's a legitimate complaint.
Organizers point to intangible benefits --everything from increased tourism to foreign investment. They claim economic benefits of $6 billion to $10 billion.
But the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives -- two groups that rarely agree -- have both questioned the validity of the claims, noting that they are based on unreliable guesses and assumptions.
That doesn't mean spinoff benefits won't exist. But the people of the Lower Mainland and Whistler will be able to point to tangible benefits -- a rink, a road, housing.
The rest of the province is relying on ghostly economic benefits.
Those will have to be fought for.
Strelioff's review of Games planning was generally positive. But he warned that good luck and good management would be needed to keep costs on budget.
And good luck, a favourable economy and excellent management and marketing will be needed to reap the economic benefits. Strelioff quoted a consultant who did the economic impact studies for the organizing committee. "These benefits will not materialize automatically," they said. "They must be earned by a focused, adequately funded and skillfully executed marketing program."
That's the challenge for communities, and the government. It's going to take vigilance, creativity, will, money and political pressure to make sure that every decision taken over the next seven years considers how the Games can have the greatest benefits for all British Columbians. Every activity that can be pushed outside Vancouver and Whistler, should be. Every effort has to be made to ensure that the underlying key message promotes the province, not the city and the resort.
The barriers to tourism and economic growth in the rest of the province have to get the same priority that will now be given to improving the Sea to Sky Highway and the new Vancouver transit line. And some of the leadership has to come from Liberal MLAs, who should be insisting on a formal, public process for driving regional Games benefits.
Enough talking about the Heartland. It will take action and commitment to deliver any benefits from the Games.
Footnote: The Liberals have a lot resting on the Games' success. They're unlikely to be threatened in the next election, less than two years off. The vote after that will be held in 2009, less than a year before the Games. The success of the project could end up being a key issue in the campaign.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
The Liberals are letting down children and families
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's not much to celebrate in the Liberals' decision to cut spending on helping vulnerable children and adults.
The cuts have been scaled back. But it's still difficult to see any real plan behind the decision to cut support by $185 million - about 11 per cent. And that means kids who depend on us, not by choice, are at risk.
Children and Families Minister Gordon Hogg unveiled the cuts at a televised cabinet meeting. Afterwards he defended $70 million in cuts slated for next year, saying his staff assured him that the cuts could be made safely.
But then Hogg made the same claims for the plan abandoned earlier this month, which would have seen a total of $360 million in cuts. That plan turned out to be based on bad information and wrong assumptions, he told cabinet.
That's what virtually everyone outside government has said all along. And it is what they continue to say about the current cuts.
Hogg did little to ease concerns.
The biggest savings are to come from reduced spending on services provided by agencies, including $5.7-million cut to funding for agencies that support vulnerable youth and struggling families. The money is supposed to go to new, better programs. But those programs don't exist, and the change was flagged as a potential health and safety risk in a ministry report to cabinet.
So were other measures that remain part of the government's cost-cutting plan.
Ministry staff may be over-cautious, or the concerns they raised addressed.
But Hogg didn't inspire confidence that a plan is in place. He said no group homes will close, while briefing papers said homes will be close and about 200 long-term residents will be moved. He said money will be saved because communities will develop the capacity to support children in their homes. But asked how capacity would be built while the ministry is cutting 20 per cent of its staff and squeezing contract agencies, he suggested Rotary Clubs and volunteers will play a larger role.
That's a fine goal. But to base a spending cut on the emergence of volunteers is reckless.
it always looks easy on paper, chopping a million here and there and hoping people can cope.
But these cuts affects people who rely on us. The government plans to cut $1.1 million - about 25 per cent - from a fund that helps foster parents with extraordinary expenses. (This was another cut red-flagged as a health and safety risk in the ministry report.) Some foster parents are abusing the system, he says, and some children are getting things in care they couldn't get at home.
But I've talked to too many foster parents about how hard it is to get the money for a grad dress or summer camp. Cutting the amount available by about $100 child just shifts that cost on to foster parents, or penalizes children.
The Liberals have taken positive steps. Moving to a new regional model of service delivery, with separate aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities, makes sense. The concept of emphasizing early intervention and support for troubled families is morally and fiscally sound.
But restructuring while attempting to achieve unreasonable spending cuts is dangerous, and the potential victims are the people who have the least ability to defend themselves and the most to lose. They deserve better.
Gordon Campbell used to think so too, regularly calling on the NDP to increase funding for the ministry, warning that its work is too important to be threatened by short-term, short-sighted spending limits.
The government had options. The best would have been to cancel the next round of cuts, leaving the money in the budget. The ministry and the new agencies could push on with the plans. But if things had taken longer than planned, or the threat to children and vulnerable adults had proved real, the needed funding would be there.
Footnote: The government doesn't have money to maintain services for children in foster care. It does have enough money for an ad campaign, including full-page newspaper ads, offering a misleading defence of its education funding policies. In opposition the Liberals rightly attacked using tax dollars to sell government policies; now they're writing the cheques.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Barkerville needs more time in government hands
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I rolled into Barkerville the fall before last, swooping up the winding road from Quesnel. It was afternoon, with the low sun fighting dark clouds, and winning, and six inches of new snow on the main street.
The place was magic, a window into the incredibly difficult and risky times that shaped this province. I didn't feel like I was looking at the way things used to be, I felt like I was walking through that time.
We never saw more than a handful of other people. Wonderful for us, but even for October an indication that perhaps more can be done to attract people to the heritage site.
That's one of the things the government hopes to achieve by handing about 15 heritage sites, like Barkerville, to contractors, either companies or communities or non-profits.
The bigger goal, critics argue, is to save money by cutting funding for the sites. And in the process regional economies will be damaged and heritage put at risk, they say.
There's no right answer. Some heritage sites can be easily turned over to a private contractor or a local historical society. If the scale is small, the responsibilities relatively straightforward and the opportunity to increase revenue exists then contracting out the operation can make sense. Emily Carr House in Victoria and others across the province have been privately operated successes for years.
But the experience with Barkerville shows how the risks and problems mount when the sites are bigger. And it should be enough to make the government go slow in its plans to get out of the heritage site business.
The Barkerville experiment has the region very concerned, with good reason.
The province called for proposals in May, seeking an operator. No companies were interested - the chance for profit just isn't there. The District of Wells looked hard at taking over, at least in part because Barkerville is vital to the local economy. But the district has also now dropped out, saying that even with spending cuts and admission increases they would lose $250,000 a year on the site.
Now Communities Minister George Abbott says the government will try and reach out to other operators, and may go back to Wells with an offer of more money. The goal is still to have Barkerville off the government's hands by next spring.
The government should abandon that timeline, and the target of short-term savings. The fact that nobody who has looked hard at the potential costs and benefits has been willing to take on Barkerville is a warning. Rushing to find someone - anyone - to take over is too great a risk.
The obvious threat is to heritage values. Barkerville is a remarkable living museum, a chance for us to understand what it was like to risk everything to hunt for gold, or to start a new life in a strange land thousands of miles from home. Its 150 buildings and collection of some 300,000 are a treasure that help us understand who we are.
But the economic risk is just as serious. Barkerville's 100,000 visitors a year are an important part of the local economy. Putting that at risk by rushing forward is too dangerous.
Abbott does say the government will keep running the site if it has to, but with a reduced budget. That too is short-sighted.
This isn't all some new problem created by the Liberals. The NDP launched the contracting out process for heritage sites, and cut heritage spending.
The impact of those cuts in creating a pent-up need for major capital improvements is one of the things deterring prospective operators. (A decade ago half-a-dozen people managed the Barkerville collections; that's now down to two.)
Nothing says the government's plan won't work. A well-organized, well-financed group, with a clear mandate for preservation and growth may be found.
But it's not working now. And the uncertainty being created, and the fears of a rushed and short-sighted decision, are hurting the economy.
Footnote: One problem for the Liberals is the lack of models to learn from It's difficult to find any governments that have given up control of major heritage sites like Barkerville. The experiment is being watched - nervously - across Canada.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Same sex marriage debate an insult
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What sort of a crazy country do we live in, where our political leaders can dodge important issues and get themselves all tied up in knots over same sex marriages?
The current noisy, confused and pointless debate should anger most Canadians.
Health care, that's a serious issue. Child poverty, First Nations' problems, softwood lumber, massacres in the Congo, jobs, economic competitiveness - they're all serious issues.
But whether two people can get a sheet of paper that says they're married, that's not a serious issue.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this month that same sex couples have a legal right to get a marriage licence, the same conclusion that B.C.'s Court of Appeal reached last month. The B.C. court - following the lead of earlier rulings in Quebec and Ontario - gave the federal government until next year to fix the law. In this latest ruling, the Ontario court just tossed the law. Same sex marriages are legal there today.
Scary stuff, apparently, though I can't see why. The ruling doesn't mean churches have to accept same sex marriages. It doesn't change the legal or economic status of the couples; the economic rights of people living together have already been established.
Nothing changes, except that now two people of the same sex can take get a marriage certificate, which has the all the meaning and significance they choose to give it.
It's a piece of paper, issued by a government department. In B.C. you go down and apply for the licence, giving your name, birthday, marital status and address. You have to be over 19, or have your parents' consent. You can be married by a religious representative, or a marriage commissioner. And away you go.
You don't have to pledge to go forth and multiply. You don't have stick together until death do you part, as many opposite sex couples have demonstrated.
I usually get a little teary-eyed at weddings. It's wonderfully hopeful, two people saying that they're taking on life together. It seems to me more wonderfully hopeful in many ways if they're both men or women.
But a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to share that goodwill. Many people believe that real marriage involves a man and a woman. Some people believe it's not a real marriage unless they share the same religion, or are committed to having children. Some people believe that it's not a real marriage if you've been married before.
Which is all fine. But they don't get to impose their definition on others.
Just because same sex couples can get a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to approve, or even recognize the marriage. (''Meet my daughter and her friend. . . they've got a marriage licence but I don't think it counts.")
Some have argued that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are just saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out somewhere; government wouldn't do it; so the court did.
The courts weren't keen on deciding the issue. The first rulings gave the federal government time to revolve the conflict by changing the law, either to legalize same sex marriage, or with some creativity to preserve the current definition.
Now Ottawa is in an uproar, MPs on both sides of the issue are raging, and Ralph Klein is promising to use the notwithstanding clause to block same sex marriages. (The B.C. Liberals, are ignoring the issue.)
I figure that if two men or women want to take a try at marriage, as they define it, more power to them. It's something to be celebrated when anyone finds a person to share their life.
If you disagree, I respect your view.
But with all that faces us today, the fact that is preoccupying our politicians is just crazy.
Footnote: The real villain here is the Liberal government. On this issue, and marijuana possession, the Liberals have been told by the courts that the law won't stand up and must be changed, but the government has been too paralyzed to act.
Children and families cuts to take terrible toll
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are in a nasty mess in the ministry of children and families as it struggles with a reckless plan to chop spending by almost 25 per cent.
Slashing spending on our most vulnerable children and families is an obviously bad idea, one that is unsupported by the facts and betrays Premier Gordon Campbell's past promises to increase funding for the ministry.
But despite warnings and pleas the government has pressed on with its irresponsible plan. It has refused to admit how dangerous the cuts would be, how much damage they would do to children and vulnerable adults and how great the long-term costs.
That changed this week, sort of. The Vancouver Province's Mike Smyth reported on a government document that outlined the kind of cuts that would be needed to chop $350 million from the ministry budget, as the government plans. The report, prepared for Treasury Board, said the cuts would be deep and damaging. The Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre for mentally handicapped youth would be closed, with no place for those kids to go. The province's fetal alcohol syndrome strategy would be scrapped, foster parents - already in short supply - would face a 10 to 15 per cent pay cut and support for troubled families would be cut, with the result that more children would end up in government care. The seven-page list went on.
Finance Minister Gary Collins tried to downplay the concerns this week. The government would likely ease the depth of the cuts, he said, and a decision should be announced within the next week or so.
But the leaked report is only one document, he said, submitted before Treasury Board - the cabinet committee that reviews budgets - had a chance to grill ministry staff about the impact of the cuts.
The children's ministry is exaggerating the risks, Collins said. Some ministry staff have a "rubber stamp" that says 'health and safety risk,' he said, and they use it any time there's a proposal to change the way services are delivered.
Maybe. If you're job is to protect children from abuse, or keep troubled families from exploding, you likely care about the work and recognize that you'll get yelled at if something goes wrong. And you will likely fight budget cuts that make it even a little bit harder to keep kids safe.
And Collins is right. In government, or any organization, someone has to push back and test claims that all the spending is necessary.
But the suggestion that the problem in making these cuts is a stubborn bureaucracy unwilling to change is goofy.
The Liberals used to say the ministry needed more money to do its job, and complained about constant re-organizations. Now they want to cut spending by one-quarter, eliminate one-fifth of the staff - while they completely re-organize the ministry.
It is a formula for disaster. And despite the Liberals' vaunted three-year business plans, this was based on hope and the need to pay for the tax cuts, not a realistic assessment of the needs of children and families. That's why the plan is unraveling.
Collins said one of the problems in assessing the risk involved in making the cuts is that the ministry hasn't been well-managed and doesn't have the needed information. "They put together a plan based on the best data they had, which we now know wasn't very good data," he said.
But that's not something that would suddenly be discovered now, when the cuts are running into trouble. Competent managers would never have accepted a plan for a 23-per-cent budget cut that was based on bad and incomplete information.
The Liberals are putting children and families at risk. They're betraying their promises. And they're trying to save money now at the cost of much greater human and economic costs in future.
Footnote: Don't expect much of a change in the Liberals' plans. Collins said the budget might be increased, but the ministry will still be left facing massive budget cuts and major problems. Which raises an interesting question: why was it important to protect health and education spending, but acceptable to cut services to the most vulnerable children and families?
willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - What sort of a crazy country do we live in, where our political leaders can dodge important issues and get themselves all tied up in knots over same sex marriages?
The current noisy, confused and pointless debate should anger most Canadians.
Health care, that's a serious issue. Child poverty, First Nations' problems, softwood lumber, massacres in the Congo, jobs, economic competitiveness - they're all serious issues.
But whether two people can get a sheet of paper that says they're married, that's not a serious issue.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this month that same sex couples have a legal right to get a marriage licence, the same conclusion that B.C.'s Court of Appeal reached last month. The B.C. court - following the lead of earlier rulings in Quebec and Ontario - gave the federal government until next year to fix the law. In this latest ruling, the Ontario court just tossed the law. Same sex marriages are legal there today.
Scary stuff, apparently, though I can't see why. The ruling doesn't mean churches have to accept same sex marriages. It doesn't change the legal or economic status of the couples; the economic rights of people living together have already been established.
Nothing changes, except that now two people of the same sex can take get a marriage certificate, which has the all the meaning and significance they choose to give it.
It's a piece of paper, issued by a government department. In B.C. you go down and apply for the licence, giving your name, birthday, marital status and address. You have to be over 19, or have your parents' consent. You can be married by a religious representative, or a marriage commissioner. And away you go.
You don't have to pledge to go forth and multiply. You don't have stick together until death do you part, as many opposite sex couples have demonstrated.
I usually get a little teary-eyed at weddings. It's wonderfully hopeful, two people saying that they're taking on life together. It seems to me more wonderfully hopeful in many ways if they're both men or women.
But a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to share that goodwill. Many people believe that real marriage involves a man and a woman. Some people believe it's not a real marriage unless they share the same religion, or are committed to having children. Some people believe that it's not a real marriage if you've been married before.
Which is all fine. But they don't get to impose their definition on others.
Just because same sex couples can get a marriage licence doesn't mean anyone else has to approve, or even recognize the marriage. (''Meet my daughter and her friend. . . they've got a marriage licence but I don't think it counts.")
Some have argued that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are just saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out somewhere; government wouldn't do it; so the court did.
The courts weren't keen on deciding the issue. The first rulings gave the federal government time to revolve the conflict by changing the law, either to legalize same sex marriage, or with some creativity to preserve the current definition.
Now Ottawa is in an uproar, MPs on both sides of the issue are raging, and Ralph Klein is promising to use the notwithstanding clause to block same sex marriages. (The B.C. Liberals, are ignoring the issue.)
I figure that if two men or women want to take a try at marriage, as they define it, more power to them. It's something to be celebrated when anyone finds a person to share their life.
If you disagree, I respect your view.
But with all that faces us today, the fact that is preoccupying our politicians is just crazy.
Footnote: The real villain here is the Liberal government. On this issue, and marijuana possession, the Liberals have been told by the courts that the law won't stand up and must be changed, but the government has been too paralyzed to act.
Children and families cuts to take terrible toll
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are in a nasty mess in the ministry of children and families as it struggles with a reckless plan to chop spending by almost 25 per cent.
Slashing spending on our most vulnerable children and families is an obviously bad idea, one that is unsupported by the facts and betrays Premier Gordon Campbell's past promises to increase funding for the ministry.
But despite warnings and pleas the government has pressed on with its irresponsible plan. It has refused to admit how dangerous the cuts would be, how much damage they would do to children and vulnerable adults and how great the long-term costs.
That changed this week, sort of. The Vancouver Province's Mike Smyth reported on a government document that outlined the kind of cuts that would be needed to chop $350 million from the ministry budget, as the government plans. The report, prepared for Treasury Board, said the cuts would be deep and damaging. The Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre for mentally handicapped youth would be closed, with no place for those kids to go. The province's fetal alcohol syndrome strategy would be scrapped, foster parents - already in short supply - would face a 10 to 15 per cent pay cut and support for troubled families would be cut, with the result that more children would end up in government care. The seven-page list went on.
Finance Minister Gary Collins tried to downplay the concerns this week. The government would likely ease the depth of the cuts, he said, and a decision should be announced within the next week or so.
But the leaked report is only one document, he said, submitted before Treasury Board - the cabinet committee that reviews budgets - had a chance to grill ministry staff about the impact of the cuts.
The children's ministry is exaggerating the risks, Collins said. Some ministry staff have a "rubber stamp" that says 'health and safety risk,' he said, and they use it any time there's a proposal to change the way services are delivered.
Maybe. If you're job is to protect children from abuse, or keep troubled families from exploding, you likely care about the work and recognize that you'll get yelled at if something goes wrong. And you will likely fight budget cuts that make it even a little bit harder to keep kids safe.
And Collins is right. In government, or any organization, someone has to push back and test claims that all the spending is necessary.
But the suggestion that the problem in making these cuts is a stubborn bureaucracy unwilling to change is goofy.
The Liberals used to say the ministry needed more money to do its job, and complained about constant re-organizations. Now they want to cut spending by one-quarter, eliminate one-fifth of the staff - while they completely re-organize the ministry.
It is a formula for disaster. And despite the Liberals' vaunted three-year business plans, this was based on hope and the need to pay for the tax cuts, not a realistic assessment of the needs of children and families. That's why the plan is unraveling.
Collins said one of the problems in assessing the risk involved in making the cuts is that the ministry hasn't been well-managed and doesn't have the needed information. "They put together a plan based on the best data they had, which we now know wasn't very good data," he said.
But that's not something that would suddenly be discovered now, when the cuts are running into trouble. Competent managers would never have accepted a plan for a 23-per-cent budget cut that was based on bad and incomplete information.
The Liberals are putting children and families at risk. They're betraying their promises. And they're trying to save money now at the cost of much greater human and economic costs in future.
Footnote: Don't expect much of a change in the Liberals' plans. Collins said the budget might be increased, but the ministry will still be left facing massive budget cuts and major problems. Which raises an interesting question: why was it important to protect health and education spending, but acceptable to cut services to the most vulnerable children and families?
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Softwood deal closer, but it won't be a good one
VICTORIA - Two years into the softwood battle, and it looks like we're
heading toward a deal that will leave Canada worse off than we were under
the old agreement.
The U.S. side unveiled two important documents this week, one a response to
Canada's proposals for a temporary deal and the other a blueprint for the
forest changes needed to bring the days of border controls to an end.
In terms of the temporary deal, we're down to a process that will be
familiar to anyone who has ever tried to buy a used car or a house, or
negotiated a union contract.
Both sides accept that a negotiated deal is the way to end the dispute.
Canada still talks about letting WTO and NAFTA appeals go forward, but the
reality is that resolving the dispute that way could take years, only to be
thwarted by new American trade barriers.
Negotiations have barely begun. But it looks like Canada is heading towards
a deal that will be bad news for the forest industry for the next several
years.
You can have interesting debates about whether Canadian producers are
subsidized, or B.C. rules force companies to dump lumber when the market is
weak.
But right now this is just about bargaining and relative power, not who is
right or wrong.
The goal for the American producers is to allow as little Canadian lumber
into the country as possible. Less Canadian wood means greater demand for
their products, providing both more sales and higher prices.
Canadians want an open border. Without access to the U.S. market, our forest
industry is wrecked.
Canada's opening proposal, delivered earlier this month, called for an end
to the 27-per-cent duties being collected by the U.S. They would be replaced
with an export tax that would go into provincial coffers. Under the Canadian
proposal, there would be no export tax on the first 17 billion board feet
shipped to the U.S. each year, $25 per thousand for the next billion and
$100 for any additional shipments.
What does that mean? Canada was effectively saying we'll hold our shipments
to about one-third of the wood consumed in the U.S., more or less our
traditional share. Canada doesn't want any significant trade barriers below
that level.
The U.S. proposal was structured differently. But basically, they proposed a
tax of about $35 per thousand board feet on all shipments up to 17 billion
board feet, and a tax of $175 on all wood above that amount. Since the
lumber is only selling for about $250 these days, that level of export tax
would kill any shipments above the quota.
And that would mean Canadian exports would actually be knocked back below
traditional levels, forcing producers to cut their output by about 10 per
cent.
The settlement likely lies somewhere between the two proposals, and Canadian
industry people seem confidence common ground can be found.
But it's a good bet that the final deal will involve some tax on all
shipments to the U.S., unlike the softwood agreement that expired in 2001
and allowed Canadian producers some free access. It will also involve a
substantial tax on higher volumes, to deter Canadian firms from shipping
more wood when markets and prices are strong.
Reaching a deal is just the first problem for Canadian companies, which have
been summoned to Ottawa for a meeting Wednesday to consider options.
Graduated tax levels mean some sort of quota system needs to be in place, or
companies will just rush to get as much wood into the U.S. as quickly as
they can to avoid rising duties. And allocating that quota among companies,
and provinces, is going to produce winners and losers.
The bottom line is that after two years of uncertainty and lost jobs, Canada
is likely to end up with a softwood agreement that is worse than the one
left behind in 2001.
Footnote: The news isn't much brighter on a long-term solution. B.C.'s
planned forestry changes address some of the ground rules the U.S. sets out
for ending any trade barriers. But it's unlikely that they will go far
enough, fast enough, to satisfy U.S. producers. Log exports, and the extent
of the new auction market in timber, will remain stumbling blocks.
heading toward a deal that will leave Canada worse off than we were under
the old agreement.
The U.S. side unveiled two important documents this week, one a response to
Canada's proposals for a temporary deal and the other a blueprint for the
forest changes needed to bring the days of border controls to an end.
In terms of the temporary deal, we're down to a process that will be
familiar to anyone who has ever tried to buy a used car or a house, or
negotiated a union contract.
Both sides accept that a negotiated deal is the way to end the dispute.
Canada still talks about letting WTO and NAFTA appeals go forward, but the
reality is that resolving the dispute that way could take years, only to be
thwarted by new American trade barriers.
Negotiations have barely begun. But it looks like Canada is heading towards
a deal that will be bad news for the forest industry for the next several
years.
You can have interesting debates about whether Canadian producers are
subsidized, or B.C. rules force companies to dump lumber when the market is
weak.
But right now this is just about bargaining and relative power, not who is
right or wrong.
The goal for the American producers is to allow as little Canadian lumber
into the country as possible. Less Canadian wood means greater demand for
their products, providing both more sales and higher prices.
Canadians want an open border. Without access to the U.S. market, our forest
industry is wrecked.
Canada's opening proposal, delivered earlier this month, called for an end
to the 27-per-cent duties being collected by the U.S. They would be replaced
with an export tax that would go into provincial coffers. Under the Canadian
proposal, there would be no export tax on the first 17 billion board feet
shipped to the U.S. each year, $25 per thousand for the next billion and
$100 for any additional shipments.
What does that mean? Canada was effectively saying we'll hold our shipments
to about one-third of the wood consumed in the U.S., more or less our
traditional share. Canada doesn't want any significant trade barriers below
that level.
The U.S. proposal was structured differently. But basically, they proposed a
tax of about $35 per thousand board feet on all shipments up to 17 billion
board feet, and a tax of $175 on all wood above that amount. Since the
lumber is only selling for about $250 these days, that level of export tax
would kill any shipments above the quota.
And that would mean Canadian exports would actually be knocked back below
traditional levels, forcing producers to cut their output by about 10 per
cent.
The settlement likely lies somewhere between the two proposals, and Canadian
industry people seem confidence common ground can be found.
But it's a good bet that the final deal will involve some tax on all
shipments to the U.S., unlike the softwood agreement that expired in 2001
and allowed Canadian producers some free access. It will also involve a
substantial tax on higher volumes, to deter Canadian firms from shipping
more wood when markets and prices are strong.
Reaching a deal is just the first problem for Canadian companies, which have
been summoned to Ottawa for a meeting Wednesday to consider options.
Graduated tax levels mean some sort of quota system needs to be in place, or
companies will just rush to get as much wood into the U.S. as quickly as
they can to avoid rising duties. And allocating that quota among companies,
and provinces, is going to produce winners and losers.
The bottom line is that after two years of uncertainty and lost jobs, Canada
is likely to end up with a softwood agreement that is worse than the one
left behind in 2001.
Footnote: The news isn't much brighter on a long-term solution. B.C.'s
planned forestry changes address some of the ground rules the U.S. sets out
for ending any trade barriers. But it's unlikely that they will go far
enough, fast enough, to satisfy U.S. producers. Log exports, and the extent
of the new auction market in timber, will remain stumbling blocks.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Liberals liquor privatization plan a business flop
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Governments are in a tough spot when it comes to our legal vices.
On the one hand, our collective fondness for drinking, smoking and gambling creates a rash of problems for individuals, families and communities.
But our sins do rake in the cash for government. The B.C. government will take in more than $2 billion from our tobacco, drinking and gambling this year, almost twice as much as it earns in revenues from the province's forests.
We're not likely to give up our vices. And governments aren't likely to give up the chance to extract a largely voluntary tax.
But they still have to do it efficiently.
Which leads to the B.C. government's shaky march towards privatizing the liquor business.
The theory is sound. There's no reason why the government has to own liquor stores.
But based on the government's own numbers, the current privatization plan is going to cost taxpayers between $75 million and $150 million over the next three years, with no big benefits in service, selection or price. And that doesn't make sense.
B.C. is following in the path blazed by Alberta, still the only province with a private system 10 years after it made the switch.
But the path looks bumpy. A review of the Alberta changes released this month found that they have cost the government $500 million in tax revenue over the last decade.
Before the change Alberta's revenue from liquor sales increased as population and prices rose. But the shift to private stores also involved a change in the way taxes were levied on liquor sales. The result has been basically flat revenues and a large loss for taxpayers.
The savings weren't passed on to consumers. Prices have increased more quickly in Alberta than they have in B.C. over the decade. The study, done by the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, found prices in the two provinces are now almost identical.
And the study found no great benefits to offset the lost revenue. There are three times as many liquor stores now, but most are small, with limited selection. More people are working in them, but they're being paid about half the old rate. Some liquor-related crimes are up, but not much.
B.C.'s privatization initiative involves a more immediate cost to taxpayers. The Liquor Distribution Branch plans to close about half its 223 stores over three years, as private stores open. The LDB projects its operating profit - the money government takes in - will show no growth over the three-year period.
If the system was left alone, with revenues rising at the same rate as they have in recent years and costs controlled, the take for government would be $150 million higher.
It's not just alcohol. The Liberals used to rail against the "reckless expansion of gambling." Last month they quietly lifted the 300-slot limit on casinos, setting a province-wide cap of 5,400 machines. No increase, they say, because that's the maximum if all 18 approved casinos ever put in the maximum 300 slots. But the reality is that there about 3,300 slot machines in B.C. today and the change ensures there will be a lot more. The BC Lottery Corporation plans to increase profits by almost 50 per cent in the next three years, thanks mainly to the explosion in slots.
Meanwhile, the government quietly released a major study of problem gambling last month. It found that 4.6 per cent of British Columbians are problem gamblers, about average. But the gambling expansion is having consequences: 11 per cent of the population are "at-risk gamblers," the highest level of any jurisdiction that has done a similar study.
And expanding gambling - especially slots, the gateway drug for casino players - adds to the problem.
There's nothing wrong with making money off our vices. But governments need to recognize the risks. And they certainly need to avoid initiatives, like the liquor privatization plan, that cost taxpayers money and offer little in return.
Footnote: The liquor plan is under review. Responsibility for the whole initiative has been moved from Competition Minister Rick Thorpe to Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who is reviewing the entire project. The plan was flawed from the beginning, and needs a major rethink.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
