VICTORIA - The Liberals are getting positively obsessed with Carole James.
Her name came up about 20 times in barely the space of an hour one afternoon before the legislature shut down for Easter, with most of the references from Christy Clark.
And when Labour Minister Graham Bruce did a press release to talk about the latest job numbers, he took the extraordinary step of singling out James as part of a little anti-NDP political spin. Cabinet ministers' news releases are political, of course, but not usually so blatantly partisan. (The job news was good - about 20,000 more people were working in the province in March than were a year ago.)
The Liberals have reason to be rattled. Under James' leadership, the NDP has risen steadily in the polls and is now ahead. Her personal approval rating is much higher than Gordon Campbell's.
But there's a dangerous lack of self-examination in the Liberal response. It's reasonable enough for the Liberals to try and get James to take firmer positions before the election, targets they can then attack.
And it's natural to conclude that when people no longer support you, it's because they just don't understand what you're doing, or don't have a full appreciation how much worse the alternatives are. That's the kind of thinking that leads to tactics like the focus on James.
But it's more important to consider the possibility that people have lost confidence because they don't think you're doing a good job, and think about how you need to change to regain their trust.
The Liberals took after James for her decision not to run in Surrey Panorama. Liberal MLA Gulzmar Cheema has won a federal Liberal nomination; he'll resign his provincial seat when the election is called. James should take the first chance to enter the legislature, Liberals say.
It's not going to happen. James says she can accomplish more this year by travelling around the province than she can in Victoria. She doesn't want to commit to a byelection campaign that could come anytime in the next year, depending on when a federal election is called and when Campbell decides to hold the byelection. And she doesn't want to risk defeat if the Liberals find a star candidate. Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum and Conservative MP Chuck Cadman have both been rumoured as potential Liberal candidates.
And, most importantly, what she has been doing has worked. Why mess with it now?
(The Liberals' claim that it was urgent that a party leader be in the legislature rang a bit hollow anyway. Campbell rarely shows up in the legislature, compared with past premiers. No attendance record is kept - it should be - but my last tally had him missing about 60 per cent of sitting days.)
Voters do have a right to expect more specifics from James and the NDP before the election.
She has opposed offshore oil and expansion of the current types of aquaculture, both important issues for coastal communities. Her position on mining, and balancing the inevitable land use conflicts, is unclear.
And while it is fine to talk about restoring funding to programs like child care for low-income British Columbians, voters are going to want to know where the money will come from. (Though it was striking that a recent Ipsos-Reid poll found that 60 per cent of British Columbians would pay higher property taxes for better municipal services.)
The Liberals risk making two mistakes with this approach.
The emphasis on James - and the rather blatant misrepresentation of her positions at times - is also raising her profile, and indicating just how nervous the Liberals have become.
And it is keeping them from some needed self-examination.
James will need to provide answers.
But she has a year to do that. And it's not likely that the Liberal attacks are going to bump the New Democrats from their election timetable.
Footnote: One of the things James is doing is raising money. The NDP pulled in about $3.4 million last year, up by more than 50 per cent over 2002. The Liberals still raised more, up 20 per cent to $5.5 million. And the Liberals also start with a significant advantage - about $1.5 million on hand for the coming campaign, compared with $150,000 for the NDP. The Greens raised $135,000 last year; Unity $42,000.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Children and families' ministry plans a mess
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals have made at least a great a mess of the ministry of children and families as their predecessors.
And that is saying something.
After thousands of hours of work by volunteers across the province - and millions of dollars - the Liberals have slammed the brakes on plans to hand responsibility for child and family services over to new regional authorities.
It's an admission of massive and damaging mismanagement.
Here's what was supposed to happen. The LIberals wanted to create 10 new regional authorities, semi-independent boards like the health authorities. There would be five non-aboriginal authorities, and five aboriginal. As well, a new community living authority would take over province-wide services for the mentally disabled.
Decision-making would be returned to involved communities, producing better results. (And saving money. The Liberals' hopes of slashing the ministry budget were based on cheaper service delivery as a result of the restructuring.)
Now it's fallen apart.
All five non-aboriginal authorities and the community living authority should have been operating now, according to the plan affirmed by former minister Gordon Hogg a year ago.
They aren't. And deputy minister Alison MacPhail, brought in after Hogg's resignation, has just emailed staff and told them the changes are put off until late 2006 or 2007. The regional committees which have worked tremendously hard on the change for two years have been shut down.
The future for the community living authority also remains uncertain. Preparations became tangled up in the Doug Walls scandal. A "readiness report" on when - or if - the transition can go ahead was supposed to be ready Feb. 27. Six weeks later, it remains outstanding.
Meanwhile, the Liberals are chopping $185 million from the ministry budget over two years, with the final $65 million coming this year. (In opposition both Gordon Campbell and current minister Christy Clark said the ministry was under-funded and should get more money. Who knew they didn't mean it?)
Hogg had justified the cuts in part by pointing to the savings from regionalization. But while that's not happening, the cuts still are.
The government has also betrayed thousands of people who have volunteered to make these changes happen. They worked their way through about $7.5 million in planning money, and devoted a huge amount of energy and time. Service clubs, churches, agencies - they all pitched in.
Those people don't understand this decision. The government says it has belatedly decided that the aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities should start operating at the same time. The aboriginal authorities won't be ready until well into 2006. So everyone waits.
But the regions say they are ready to move forward, and note the plan was always to have the non-aboriginal authorities come on-line as they are ready. They fear the government is backing away from the whole shift. They feel abused and tricked.
It's reasonable for the government to be cautious. The Liberal track record with the ministry does not inspire confidence.
But the word from the field is that the regions are ready. Joyce Preston, the province's Child, Youth and Family Advocate for six years, has worked with transition committees in the Island and Interior regions. They are on track, she says, and the change should go ahead. (Preston also wonders how aboriginal communities are supposed to develop the needed capacity when funding for that purpose is being cut.)
The government has mishandled the ministry since the election, ignoring the obvious risk of slashing budgets while trying to push forward on a major restructuring. It ha squandered money, and time.
And with that, it has lost the right to our confidence or trust.
Before the transition is put off for another three years, the people who have worked so hard on the change - and the people who depend on the services - deserve an independent review of the decision, and a full public report.
Footnote: The Liberals' handling of the ministry also raises critical questions of basic competence - the ability to develop and execute a sensible plan. The Liberals' budget plans for the ministry have been wildly over-optimistic, virtually every deadline in its restructuring has been missed, the people who signed on to support the policy changes feel betrayed and action has been pushed off past the next election.
VICTORIA - The Liberals have made at least a great a mess of the ministry of children and families as their predecessors.
And that is saying something.
After thousands of hours of work by volunteers across the province - and millions of dollars - the Liberals have slammed the brakes on plans to hand responsibility for child and family services over to new regional authorities.
It's an admission of massive and damaging mismanagement.
Here's what was supposed to happen. The LIberals wanted to create 10 new regional authorities, semi-independent boards like the health authorities. There would be five non-aboriginal authorities, and five aboriginal. As well, a new community living authority would take over province-wide services for the mentally disabled.
Decision-making would be returned to involved communities, producing better results. (And saving money. The Liberals' hopes of slashing the ministry budget were based on cheaper service delivery as a result of the restructuring.)
Now it's fallen apart.
All five non-aboriginal authorities and the community living authority should have been operating now, according to the plan affirmed by former minister Gordon Hogg a year ago.
They aren't. And deputy minister Alison MacPhail, brought in after Hogg's resignation, has just emailed staff and told them the changes are put off until late 2006 or 2007. The regional committees which have worked tremendously hard on the change for two years have been shut down.
The future for the community living authority also remains uncertain. Preparations became tangled up in the Doug Walls scandal. A "readiness report" on when - or if - the transition can go ahead was supposed to be ready Feb. 27. Six weeks later, it remains outstanding.
Meanwhile, the Liberals are chopping $185 million from the ministry budget over two years, with the final $65 million coming this year. (In opposition both Gordon Campbell and current minister Christy Clark said the ministry was under-funded and should get more money. Who knew they didn't mean it?)
Hogg had justified the cuts in part by pointing to the savings from regionalization. But while that's not happening, the cuts still are.
The government has also betrayed thousands of people who have volunteered to make these changes happen. They worked their way through about $7.5 million in planning money, and devoted a huge amount of energy and time. Service clubs, churches, agencies - they all pitched in.
Those people don't understand this decision. The government says it has belatedly decided that the aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities should start operating at the same time. The aboriginal authorities won't be ready until well into 2006. So everyone waits.
But the regions say they are ready to move forward, and note the plan was always to have the non-aboriginal authorities come on-line as they are ready. They fear the government is backing away from the whole shift. They feel abused and tricked.
It's reasonable for the government to be cautious. The Liberal track record with the ministry does not inspire confidence.
But the word from the field is that the regions are ready. Joyce Preston, the province's Child, Youth and Family Advocate for six years, has worked with transition committees in the Island and Interior regions. They are on track, she says, and the change should go ahead. (Preston also wonders how aboriginal communities are supposed to develop the needed capacity when funding for that purpose is being cut.)
The government has mishandled the ministry since the election, ignoring the obvious risk of slashing budgets while trying to push forward on a major restructuring. It ha squandered money, and time.
And with that, it has lost the right to our confidence or trust.
Before the transition is put off for another three years, the people who have worked so hard on the change - and the people who depend on the services - deserve an independent review of the decision, and a full public report.
Footnote: The Liberals' handling of the ministry also raises critical questions of basic competence - the ability to develop and execute a sensible plan. The Liberals' budget plans for the ministry have been wildly over-optimistic, virtually every deadline in its restructuring has been missed, the people who signed on to support the policy changes feel betrayed and action has been pushed off past the next election.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Liberals ignoring Games cost over-run risk
VICTORIA - The Liberals sound lost on the threat of Olympic cost over-runs.
Before the first lick of work has started, Vancouver Olympics organizers are warning that they don't have enough money to build the rinks and ski trails and other facilities needed for the 2010 Games. They'll be coming back to provincial and federal governments for more cash, says Games chair Jack Poole.
That should be a cause for concern. The Games are going to cost about $3 billion; even a small percentage over-run can turn into big dollars. And the government had promised that every cost was included.
The NDP raised the issue in the legislature, asking the government what it has found out about the size of the cost over-runs and what measures are in place to control spending.
Christy Clark responded to the questions - you couldn't say she answered them - in her capacity as deputy premier.
Nothing to worry about, she said. The province won't come up with any more money. The budget is fixed. Contingency funds are built into budgets.
That's a remarkably inaccurate answer. There is no limit to the province's commitment. To win the Games Premier Gordon Campbell promised to assume all responsibility for any Olympic cost over-runs or revenue shortfalls.
It's a reasonable enough risk, but it remains a risk. And simply wishing away the problem of cost over-runs, or hiding from them, is irresponsible.
Especially because the Games' organizers are already warning that the construction cost allowances aren't adequate to cope with inflation and other pressures over the next six years. The Games has a capital budget of $620 million, with the cost shared between the federal and provincial governments. If it's not enough, BC. taxpayers -the ones ultimately on the hook - need to know.
Cost over-runs are a constant Olympic reality. The team organizing the 2006 Games in Piedmont, Italy, visited Vancouver this month to share information. Figure on up to 15 per cent in extra costs for unexpected emergencies, they advised, and 20-per-cent cost over-runs on construction.
Provincial Auditor General Wayne Strelioff has also warned that the $139-million contingency fund included as part of the Games budget might not be adequate. "Achieving the financial results predicted by the Bid Corporation will need excellent management, effective marketing and a favourable economy," he warned.
There's no reason to panic here. There will be lots of ups and downs over the next six years of work to prepare for the Olympics.
But the government's head-in-the-sand approach does a disservice to taxpayers.
Clark didn't provide any information on possible cost over-runs. She responded with a rant about how great the Olympics would be for the province. The New Democrats just hate the idea of the Games, she said, ignoring the fact that the NDP government launched the bid for the 2010 Games. "Those members don't oppose the Olympics because of the cost," Clark said. "Those members oppose the Olympics because they don't want British Columbia to do well." (It is the kind of response that should make everyone cringe. Legitimate questions deserve real answers. Failing that, call the New Democrats stupid, or incompetent. But it's just dumb to argue that they ran for office because the want the province to do badly.)
Clark likewise brushed off a suggestion that makes imminent sense. Why not appoint the province's auditor general as the official auditor for the Games committee, asked the New Democrats?
Again, no answer. But it's a sound proposal, given the taxpayers' interest in financial accountability.
The Games and the Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements are slated to cost provincial taxpayers $1.3 billion, with our share of convention centre expansion and the RAV line to the Vancouver airport on top of that.
If cost over-runs are already threatening to push our share higher, we have a right to answers, not bluster.
Footnote: Clark accused NDP leader Carole James of opposing the Games, and called on her to seek a seat in the legislature so people would know where she stands on this and other issues. The attack - part of a new Liberal attempt to focus on James - backfired when MacPhail noted Campbell is rarely in the legislature either; his attendance is the poorest of any premier in history, she added.
Martin's Dosanjh move makes mockery of democracy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - How dumb does Paul Martin think we are?
Mr. Democratic Deficit has been going on about the need to give politics back to the people, promising a new way of doing things.
But then he rolled in to Vancouver and did exactly the opposite, a genial despot with a pleasant smile.
Martin wiped out the democratic right of thousands of voters to decide who should represent them in Ottawa, turned our system on its head and still maintained he's the champion of political reform.
By appointing Liberal candidates - or clearing the way for them - Martin exempted his favourites from that irritating nomination process, where you have to win community support and sign up members in order to become a Liberal candidate. That's apparently for the lesser lights. If Martin thinks you have the right stuff, you can skip all that annoying democracy stuff - just like ex-premier Ujjal Dosanjh.
I like Dosanjh. And while his move from provincial NDP leader to federal Liberal candidate raises lots of interesting questions - where are the provincial Liberals on the political spectrum, if an alleged federal Liberal finds a more comfortable home in the NDP - it's his decision.
But it's outrageous that Martin presumes to dictate to the Liberal voters in Vancouver South who their candidate will be. Basic democracy gives them the right to make that choice. Martin is taking it away, because he knows best.
Which is one of the problem with politics as practised today. Martin doesn't know best. We do. Martin, Gordon Campbell, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Carole James, they are all very smart I'm sure. But we are, collectively, smarter.
It's bizarre on so many levels.
The Liberals don't actually need a lot of help in arranging nomination contests to get the results the party bosses want. A guy named Bob Russell worked for a long-time to win the Liberal nomination over here in Saanich-Gulf Islands. But he wasn't on the good side of the Martin machine, which backed a succession of candidates against him. The first two dropped out; the third, Pia Shandel, was pushed out of the race by the Martin people only days before the nomination meeting.
That should have clinched it for Russell. Party rules say would-be candidates have to declare at least seven days before the nomination meeting. But rules are apparently meant to be bent. With three days to go, lawyer David Mulroney - a former vice-president in MP David Anderson's riding association, whose firm gets almost a $1 million a year in federal government work - got special permission to enter the race. And surprise, with no time to campaign or sign up members, he won. (Fired Liberal aide David Basi had earlier signed up hundreds of new members in the riding.)
Dosanjh is the only candidate officially imposed by Martin so far. But the way was also cleared for former Canfor head David Emerson and Shirley Chan, with similar treatment likely for B.C. party president Bill Cunningham.
Either through dictate, or backroom dealing, Martin and his people arranged for their favourite candidates to get special treatment.
Voters lose in at least two ways. Their right to choose a candidate has been stolen.
And the favoured candidates owe their loyalty not to the people in the riding, but to Martin and his team. How independent are MPs who owe their nominations to the boss going to be?
Martin is counting on the hand-picked candidates to be high-profile enough to turn around the Liberal fortunes in B.C.
It's a risk. In Dosanjh's case, two other Liberals had already been working to get the nomination. Brushed aside by Martin, neither they nor their supporters are likely to work terribly hard in this election campaign.
And for voters concerned about the Liberals' scandal-plagued reputation for political favoritism, Martin's machinations have just reinforced their worst fears about the "new" Liberal government.
Footnote: Dosanjh's jump to the federal Liberals prompted rare agreement between provincial Liberals and New Democrats - all agree it's a bad thing. New Democrats accused Dosanjh of opportunism and betrayal, lending legitimacy to the Martin government. And provincial Liberals not only don't look forward to dealing with Dosanjh in Ottawa, they aren't happy with Martin's endorsement of a key player in the former NDP government.
Before the first lick of work has started, Vancouver Olympics organizers are warning that they don't have enough money to build the rinks and ski trails and other facilities needed for the 2010 Games. They'll be coming back to provincial and federal governments for more cash, says Games chair Jack Poole.
That should be a cause for concern. The Games are going to cost about $3 billion; even a small percentage over-run can turn into big dollars. And the government had promised that every cost was included.
The NDP raised the issue in the legislature, asking the government what it has found out about the size of the cost over-runs and what measures are in place to control spending.
Christy Clark responded to the questions - you couldn't say she answered them - in her capacity as deputy premier.
Nothing to worry about, she said. The province won't come up with any more money. The budget is fixed. Contingency funds are built into budgets.
That's a remarkably inaccurate answer. There is no limit to the province's commitment. To win the Games Premier Gordon Campbell promised to assume all responsibility for any Olympic cost over-runs or revenue shortfalls.
It's a reasonable enough risk, but it remains a risk. And simply wishing away the problem of cost over-runs, or hiding from them, is irresponsible.
Especially because the Games' organizers are already warning that the construction cost allowances aren't adequate to cope with inflation and other pressures over the next six years. The Games has a capital budget of $620 million, with the cost shared between the federal and provincial governments. If it's not enough, BC. taxpayers -the ones ultimately on the hook - need to know.
Cost over-runs are a constant Olympic reality. The team organizing the 2006 Games in Piedmont, Italy, visited Vancouver this month to share information. Figure on up to 15 per cent in extra costs for unexpected emergencies, they advised, and 20-per-cent cost over-runs on construction.
Provincial Auditor General Wayne Strelioff has also warned that the $139-million contingency fund included as part of the Games budget might not be adequate. "Achieving the financial results predicted by the Bid Corporation will need excellent management, effective marketing and a favourable economy," he warned.
There's no reason to panic here. There will be lots of ups and downs over the next six years of work to prepare for the Olympics.
But the government's head-in-the-sand approach does a disservice to taxpayers.
Clark didn't provide any information on possible cost over-runs. She responded with a rant about how great the Olympics would be for the province. The New Democrats just hate the idea of the Games, she said, ignoring the fact that the NDP government launched the bid for the 2010 Games. "Those members don't oppose the Olympics because of the cost," Clark said. "Those members oppose the Olympics because they don't want British Columbia to do well." (It is the kind of response that should make everyone cringe. Legitimate questions deserve real answers. Failing that, call the New Democrats stupid, or incompetent. But it's just dumb to argue that they ran for office because the want the province to do badly.)
Clark likewise brushed off a suggestion that makes imminent sense. Why not appoint the province's auditor general as the official auditor for the Games committee, asked the New Democrats?
Again, no answer. But it's a sound proposal, given the taxpayers' interest in financial accountability.
The Games and the Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements are slated to cost provincial taxpayers $1.3 billion, with our share of convention centre expansion and the RAV line to the Vancouver airport on top of that.
If cost over-runs are already threatening to push our share higher, we have a right to answers, not bluster.
Footnote: Clark accused NDP leader Carole James of opposing the Games, and called on her to seek a seat in the legislature so people would know where she stands on this and other issues. The attack - part of a new Liberal attempt to focus on James - backfired when MacPhail noted Campbell is rarely in the legislature either; his attendance is the poorest of any premier in history, she added.
Martin's Dosanjh move makes mockery of democracy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - How dumb does Paul Martin think we are?
Mr. Democratic Deficit has been going on about the need to give politics back to the people, promising a new way of doing things.
But then he rolled in to Vancouver and did exactly the opposite, a genial despot with a pleasant smile.
Martin wiped out the democratic right of thousands of voters to decide who should represent them in Ottawa, turned our system on its head and still maintained he's the champion of political reform.
By appointing Liberal candidates - or clearing the way for them - Martin exempted his favourites from that irritating nomination process, where you have to win community support and sign up members in order to become a Liberal candidate. That's apparently for the lesser lights. If Martin thinks you have the right stuff, you can skip all that annoying democracy stuff - just like ex-premier Ujjal Dosanjh.
I like Dosanjh. And while his move from provincial NDP leader to federal Liberal candidate raises lots of interesting questions - where are the provincial Liberals on the political spectrum, if an alleged federal Liberal finds a more comfortable home in the NDP - it's his decision.
But it's outrageous that Martin presumes to dictate to the Liberal voters in Vancouver South who their candidate will be. Basic democracy gives them the right to make that choice. Martin is taking it away, because he knows best.
Which is one of the problem with politics as practised today. Martin doesn't know best. We do. Martin, Gordon Campbell, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Carole James, they are all very smart I'm sure. But we are, collectively, smarter.
It's bizarre on so many levels.
The Liberals don't actually need a lot of help in arranging nomination contests to get the results the party bosses want. A guy named Bob Russell worked for a long-time to win the Liberal nomination over here in Saanich-Gulf Islands. But he wasn't on the good side of the Martin machine, which backed a succession of candidates against him. The first two dropped out; the third, Pia Shandel, was pushed out of the race by the Martin people only days before the nomination meeting.
That should have clinched it for Russell. Party rules say would-be candidates have to declare at least seven days before the nomination meeting. But rules are apparently meant to be bent. With three days to go, lawyer David Mulroney - a former vice-president in MP David Anderson's riding association, whose firm gets almost a $1 million a year in federal government work - got special permission to enter the race. And surprise, with no time to campaign or sign up members, he won. (Fired Liberal aide David Basi had earlier signed up hundreds of new members in the riding.)
Dosanjh is the only candidate officially imposed by Martin so far. But the way was also cleared for former Canfor head David Emerson and Shirley Chan, with similar treatment likely for B.C. party president Bill Cunningham.
Either through dictate, or backroom dealing, Martin and his people arranged for their favourite candidates to get special treatment.
Voters lose in at least two ways. Their right to choose a candidate has been stolen.
And the favoured candidates owe their loyalty not to the people in the riding, but to Martin and his team. How independent are MPs who owe their nominations to the boss going to be?
Martin is counting on the hand-picked candidates to be high-profile enough to turn around the Liberal fortunes in B.C.
It's a risk. In Dosanjh's case, two other Liberals had already been working to get the nomination. Brushed aside by Martin, neither they nor their supporters are likely to work terribly hard in this election campaign.
And for voters concerned about the Liberals' scandal-plagued reputation for political favoritism, Martin's machinations have just reinforced their worst fears about the "new" Liberal government.
Footnote: Dosanjh's jump to the federal Liberals prompted rare agreement between provincial Liberals and New Democrats - all agree it's a bad thing. New Democrats accused Dosanjh of opportunism and betrayal, lending legitimacy to the Martin government. And provincial Liberals not only don't look forward to dealing with Dosanjh in Ottawa, they aren't happy with Martin's endorsement of a key player in the former NDP government.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Legislature an embarrassment to British Columbians
VICTORIA - It was a sleazy week down at the legislature, one that should make every MLA rethink what they are doing here. No one can be happy with the way the legislature has worked for the last decade.
Last week was a particularly low point, on both sides of the House.
The New Democrats have been raising questions about alleged financial and personal improprieties by Liberal MLAs, based on information provided to them by unidentified sources. It's a risky area; great damage can be done with false accusations.
The Liberals opened the door for the questions. When MLA Elayne Brenzinger quit the party and criticized Premier Gordon Campbell, whip Kevin Krueger revealed that she had been secretly suspended from caucus last year after an altercation with a staff member.
Has anyone else been secretly suspended, reporters asked. A few, Krueger replied, before deciding it was time to invoke caucus secrecy.
Too late, though. Because now people wondered which MLAs had been suspended, and what they had done that was bad enough to get them booted.
And they wondered why the Liberals didn't tell suspended MLAs' constituents that they weren't represented within the government. (It didn't used to be that way. The NDP had no secret suspensions; in Opposition the Liberals said when and why MLAs were suspended.)
The NDP has been pushing for answers. They have made specific charges, asking if MLA Richard Stewart had been suspended for "inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member" and whether Burnaby-Willingdon MLA John Nuraney had been suspended from caucus for "financial improprieties."
The Liberals were outraged. Stewart denied the charges. MacPhail acknowledged she had no proof, and accepted the denial. But she wouldn't apologize. (Nuraney wouldn't confirm or deny his suspension.)
A case can be made for raising the issue. McPhail said Krueger opened the door, the issue is significant, and her source had previously proved accurate.
But once she accepted Stewart's denial, she should have apologized.
MacPhail didn't. So when she rose in Question Period, the Liberals shouted, booed and then walked out. Finance Minister Gary Collins said MacPhail's questions would be ignored until she apologized.
MacPhail attempted to remedy her error, apologizing the next day.
But the Liberals also need to acknowledge their errors. Walking out of the legislature was wrong, and abused the voters who sent them there. The Liberals are free to be angry, but in any workplace, you are expected to swallow your anger and do your job.
And the voters in MacPhail's riding sent her there to represent them. Part of that representation includes asking question of the government. The Liberals may not like that. But voters, not governments, get to decide who can be an opposition MP.
The Liberals also have to lift the secrecy from these suspensions of caucus members. They did when it was useful to make Brenzinger look bad; they can't go all noble now.
Voters have a right to know. Liberal MLAs don't work for the party, or the caucus. They work for the voters. And if the voters are deprived of their representation in government because of alleged misconduct, they should know.
The principle of caucus secrecy is fine, allowing governments to have intense internal policy debates before emerging with a common position. But it wasn't intend as a way to cover up serious wrongdoing by members of a government.
Much is made of tradition down at the legislature; it sometimes inures us all to reality.
Force an average British Columbian to spend a day watching the legislature at work and he would be angry and ashamed - at the rudeness, the mindless obstructionism, the foolish posturing, the softball questions, the negativity.
The legislature should represent our best ideals, a place of compassion and commonsense, of meaningful debate and honest answers.
It's not. It's so far removed from that ideal that we should all be a little ashamed.
Footnote: Several Liberal MLAs wrote letters to the editor disputing my suggestion that they were doing themselves and their constituents a disservice by using Question Period to lob softballs at ministers. Here's Brenzinger on the process: "The questions are given to us. We're told who's going to say it, at what time. We practice in caucus what the question is. The minister knows the question and answers it. I just thought: 'This isn't democracy.'"
Last week was a particularly low point, on both sides of the House.
The New Democrats have been raising questions about alleged financial and personal improprieties by Liberal MLAs, based on information provided to them by unidentified sources. It's a risky area; great damage can be done with false accusations.
The Liberals opened the door for the questions. When MLA Elayne Brenzinger quit the party and criticized Premier Gordon Campbell, whip Kevin Krueger revealed that she had been secretly suspended from caucus last year after an altercation with a staff member.
Has anyone else been secretly suspended, reporters asked. A few, Krueger replied, before deciding it was time to invoke caucus secrecy.
Too late, though. Because now people wondered which MLAs had been suspended, and what they had done that was bad enough to get them booted.
And they wondered why the Liberals didn't tell suspended MLAs' constituents that they weren't represented within the government. (It didn't used to be that way. The NDP had no secret suspensions; in Opposition the Liberals said when and why MLAs were suspended.)
The NDP has been pushing for answers. They have made specific charges, asking if MLA Richard Stewart had been suspended for "inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member" and whether Burnaby-Willingdon MLA John Nuraney had been suspended from caucus for "financial improprieties."
The Liberals were outraged. Stewart denied the charges. MacPhail acknowledged she had no proof, and accepted the denial. But she wouldn't apologize. (Nuraney wouldn't confirm or deny his suspension.)
A case can be made for raising the issue. McPhail said Krueger opened the door, the issue is significant, and her source had previously proved accurate.
But once she accepted Stewart's denial, she should have apologized.
MacPhail didn't. So when she rose in Question Period, the Liberals shouted, booed and then walked out. Finance Minister Gary Collins said MacPhail's questions would be ignored until she apologized.
MacPhail attempted to remedy her error, apologizing the next day.
But the Liberals also need to acknowledge their errors. Walking out of the legislature was wrong, and abused the voters who sent them there. The Liberals are free to be angry, but in any workplace, you are expected to swallow your anger and do your job.
And the voters in MacPhail's riding sent her there to represent them. Part of that representation includes asking question of the government. The Liberals may not like that. But voters, not governments, get to decide who can be an opposition MP.
The Liberals also have to lift the secrecy from these suspensions of caucus members. They did when it was useful to make Brenzinger look bad; they can't go all noble now.
Voters have a right to know. Liberal MLAs don't work for the party, or the caucus. They work for the voters. And if the voters are deprived of their representation in government because of alleged misconduct, they should know.
The principle of caucus secrecy is fine, allowing governments to have intense internal policy debates before emerging with a common position. But it wasn't intend as a way to cover up serious wrongdoing by members of a government.
Much is made of tradition down at the legislature; it sometimes inures us all to reality.
Force an average British Columbian to spend a day watching the legislature at work and he would be angry and ashamed - at the rudeness, the mindless obstructionism, the foolish posturing, the softball questions, the negativity.
The legislature should represent our best ideals, a place of compassion and commonsense, of meaningful debate and honest answers.
It's not. It's so far removed from that ideal that we should all be a little ashamed.
Footnote: Several Liberal MLAs wrote letters to the editor disputing my suggestion that they were doing themselves and their constituents a disservice by using Question Period to lob softballs at ministers. Here's Brenzinger on the process: "The questions are given to us. We're told who's going to say it, at what time. We practice in caucus what the question is. The minister knows the question and answers it. I just thought: 'This isn't democracy.'"
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Poll bad for Liberals, worse for democracy
Poll bad for Liberals, worse for democracy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Iatest poll showing the NDP ahead of the Liberals is depressing, no matter which party you support today.
The Ipsos-Reid poll results should be most gloomy for Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. His party, which won the support of almost 60 per cent of B.C. voters only three years ago, has fallen to second place. If an election were held today, 42 per cent of voters would support the NDP, and only 39 per cent the Liberals. Only one-third of voters approve of Campbell's performance on the job.
It's a dazzling collapse, and so far the Liberals seem to be blind to its significance. If you were in charge of an organization, and 60 per cent of the people it served thought you were doing a poor job, you would likely acknowledge their view and change your actions and direction in response to their concerns. That isn't happening.
But that's not what is so depressing.
The truly grim news is that about half the people prepared to vote Liberal, or New Democrat, aren't actually making the choice because they think the party they back will do a good job. Their support is based on their dislike for the other options available.
OK, we're cynical these days. We even have a right to our suspicion of the ability of any party to deliver competent, even-handed government that responds to our concerns.
But these poll results should scare us. Some 1.2 million people will likely vote NDP or LIberal next year. And almost 600,000 of them won't actually have confidence in the party they are supporting. They will just find them less appalling than the other guys. (The Liberals have slightly higher positive support, but not enough to matter.)
Grumpy people have always voted that way, muttering bleakly about all politicians being the same as they marked their ballot. And more people have been simply opting out, staying home on election day.
But half the people who plan to vote now say they will be holding their nose and expecting a government that doesn't represent them, and won't do a good job.
That's dangerous.
Practically, it leads to the kind of big swings we're seeing now. B.C. needs a government that can win continued support from a majority of voters and offer a program that unfolds over a decade. Instead we get governments that are considered disappointments by two-thirds of voters before the first year is out. (That's no exaggeration - take the people who voted for other parties, add the people who voted for the winner just because they were least offensive, and you have a majority of voters already expecting bad things from the new government.)
It's partly our problem, I suppose. We don't acknowledge the difficulty of governing, and we cling too desperately to the idea that some new government can make everything right.
But political parties - Liberals and New Democrats - have to demonstrate that they recognize a responsibility to deliver the kind of government that voters want. When 60 per cent of voters think you are doing a bad job, you have an obligation to respond. That doesn't mean that politicians need abandon principle and flutter in the political winds. They do need to acknowledge an obligation to respect the views of the public.
Give Campbell credit. He's taken the biggest step of any political leader in North America by setting up a Citizens' Assembly to reform the way we elect politicians, with their recommendation to go to a referendum at the same time as the next election in May 2005. The assembly is now entering the most important part of its work, and deserves our support and attention.
But that's not enough given the current political crisis.
The political parties - all of them - have to accept responsibility for the growing and dangerous gap between government and the governed.
Footnote: The poll results are bad news for Lower Mainland MLAs. The Liberals' lead has vanished in the Greater Vancouver area with the two parties tied at 41-per-cent support. The wild card may be Chris Delaney and the Unity Party, at six per cent in the region. Unity growth could be fatal to Liberal candidates in close battles.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Iatest poll showing the NDP ahead of the Liberals is depressing, no matter which party you support today.
The Ipsos-Reid poll results should be most gloomy for Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. His party, which won the support of almost 60 per cent of B.C. voters only three years ago, has fallen to second place. If an election were held today, 42 per cent of voters would support the NDP, and only 39 per cent the Liberals. Only one-third of voters approve of Campbell's performance on the job.
It's a dazzling collapse, and so far the Liberals seem to be blind to its significance. If you were in charge of an organization, and 60 per cent of the people it served thought you were doing a poor job, you would likely acknowledge their view and change your actions and direction in response to their concerns. That isn't happening.
But that's not what is so depressing.
The truly grim news is that about half the people prepared to vote Liberal, or New Democrat, aren't actually making the choice because they think the party they back will do a good job. Their support is based on their dislike for the other options available.
OK, we're cynical these days. We even have a right to our suspicion of the ability of any party to deliver competent, even-handed government that responds to our concerns.
But these poll results should scare us. Some 1.2 million people will likely vote NDP or LIberal next year. And almost 600,000 of them won't actually have confidence in the party they are supporting. They will just find them less appalling than the other guys. (The Liberals have slightly higher positive support, but not enough to matter.)
Grumpy people have always voted that way, muttering bleakly about all politicians being the same as they marked their ballot. And more people have been simply opting out, staying home on election day.
But half the people who plan to vote now say they will be holding their nose and expecting a government that doesn't represent them, and won't do a good job.
That's dangerous.
Practically, it leads to the kind of big swings we're seeing now. B.C. needs a government that can win continued support from a majority of voters and offer a program that unfolds over a decade. Instead we get governments that are considered disappointments by two-thirds of voters before the first year is out. (That's no exaggeration - take the people who voted for other parties, add the people who voted for the winner just because they were least offensive, and you have a majority of voters already expecting bad things from the new government.)
It's partly our problem, I suppose. We don't acknowledge the difficulty of governing, and we cling too desperately to the idea that some new government can make everything right.
But political parties - Liberals and New Democrats - have to demonstrate that they recognize a responsibility to deliver the kind of government that voters want. When 60 per cent of voters think you are doing a bad job, you have an obligation to respond. That doesn't mean that politicians need abandon principle and flutter in the political winds. They do need to acknowledge an obligation to respect the views of the public.
Give Campbell credit. He's taken the biggest step of any political leader in North America by setting up a Citizens' Assembly to reform the way we elect politicians, with their recommendation to go to a referendum at the same time as the next election in May 2005. The assembly is now entering the most important part of its work, and deserves our support and attention.
But that's not enough given the current political crisis.
The political parties - all of them - have to accept responsibility for the growing and dangerous gap between government and the governed.
Footnote: The poll results are bad news for Lower Mainland MLAs. The Liberals' lead has vanished in the Greater Vancouver area with the two parties tied at 41-per-cent support. The wild card may be Chris Delaney and the Unity Party, at six per cent in the region. Unity growth could be fatal to Liberal candidates in close battles.
Harper stands a real chance - if he finds the centre
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - You've got to hand it to Stephen Harper.
He helped merge the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, a move that actually resembled a take-over.
He put together a national leadership campaign that managed to capture significant support in Ontario, the nut the right must crack if it's to be a national party.
And he's managed to emerge as the leader of the new party as it is about to face a tired, scandal-plagued Liberal government in an election.
For Harper, that last fact is the most significant.
Uniting the right isn't enough in Canada. Take all the Conservative and Alliance votes in the last election and put them in one pool, and the Liberals would still have won enough seats to form the government. 'The right' in Canada - admittedly a vague enough concept - isn't big enough to win a national election in normal times. Track the polling on all the most important issues, and Canadians come down solidly in the centre. We support spending on public health care, and taxes to pay for it; oppose two-tier medical care; believe that effective markets require strong government regulation; and value personal freedom on issues of conscience like gay marriage and abortion.
If Harper simply tries to impose the old Alliance-Reform policies on the new party it will remain on the edge of success.
That's especially true if voters get any hint that Harper and the party are ideologues, people who are not prepared to temper their own beliefs with a healthy respect for the views of other Canadians.
Harper has shown every sign of avoiding that error, carefully reaching out to the Conservative faction in the new party. "We need the Red Tory vision of important national insitutions and sustainable social programs because the Conservative party will never leave the vulnerable behind," Harper said in his victory speech, a clear attempt to reassure the mainstream that he's not an extremist.
It worked within the new party. Harper won the victory with 55-per-cent support. He took every B.C. riding, and three-quarters of Ontario's ridings, and even did better in Quebec than expected. (Atlantic Canadians were less supportive, apparently still miffed about Harper's earlier comments that the region has a culture of defeat. Truth is apparently not a sufficient defence.)
Harper and BC NDP leader Carole James should be comparing notes, because both face the same challenge. They each have a constituency - he on the right, she on the left - that is not in itself large enough to elect a government. They each have the challenge of convincing other voters that they can form an inclusive government, one that is prepared to moderate its policies to win broad support.
It shouldn't be that difficult. The parties' core supporters should recognize that ideological purity will mean perpetual opposition status. It's not necessary to abandon all principle; it is necessary to recognize that compromise is essential.
But there was a certain contrariness in the old Alliance crew, an innate mistrust of power that led them to get nervous whenever the party became too successful.
Harper isn't seen as the warmest of politicians - he's a proudly dull economist.
That may be an asset. Canadians see an out-of-control federal government, and may welcome the idea of a quiet, competent leader to put things right.
You don't have to want to go out and hang out with a political leader; you just need to think he'll reflect your view of the world and provide competent leadership.
That's Harper's real challenge, and it's a significant one.
But given where the Conservatives and Alliance stood a year ago, compared with where they are today, he's already made massive progress.
And he's getting enormous help from Paul Martin, who has been unable to convince Canadians that the Liberals have not been terribly tainted by corruption, scandals and arrogance.
Footnote: Martin is left with a difficult choice. If he calls a vote this spring, then he is vulnerable to charges that he's trying to race to the public before the sponsorship scandal is complete. But if he waits until the fall, Harper has valuable time to organize a national campaign.
Random notes: Brenzinger, BC Rail follies and cursing premiers
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Random notes from the front.
The Liberals' response to the angry departure of Surrey MLA Elayne Brenzinger has left them looking sleazy.
You can expect them to be angry with Brenzinger, who left with all barrels blazing. Gordon Campbell showed " a complete and utter disregard for the opinions of caucus and its elected members, instead pressing ahead with his own secretive mandate," she wrote in her goodbye note. "Mr. Campbell's administrative style has proven itself to be chaotic, haphazard and destructive to B.C."
Any party is going to respond to that kind of criticism. The Liberals said that Brenzinger was a lightweight, and had never complained before about feeling shut out.
The public will get to judge who is most right, and the best indication will likely be Brenzinger's own performance as the legislature resumes sitting, and the issues she chooses to raise. (That didn't go well on her first day back this week.)
But the Liberals stepped boldly into the muck in responding to Brenzinger's barbs..
They offered the juicy news that she had been suspended from caucus for two weeks in December, for allegedly grabbing a staffer by the throat.
That tidbit came from caucus whip Kevin Krueger, apparently offered as a demonstration of the bad character of the MLA. Instead it raised as many questions about the general character of the Liberals.
Brenzinger's suspension was kept secret in December. Her constituents never knew that they had lost their representation within the party.
And they weren't alone. Krueger said other MLAs had also received secret suspensions for offences. But he wouldn't say who, or for how long, or what they had done to get in the premier's bad books.
It looks sleazy. MLAs have apparently done things as bad or worse than Brenzinger, and lost their right to participate in debates in caucus. But their constituents were never told, because those kinds of things must be kept secret, say the Liberals.
The need for secrecy doesn't apply when in it's in the Liberals' interests to smear someone.
The premier comes off badly in the Brenzinger affair as well. He told reporters that he didn't know she was unhappy. But Campbell did confirm that he swore at her in caucus, adding that he was just kidding around.
Most competent managers have learned that it's not just kidding around when the boss decides to swear at one member of the organization publicly. He may think it's all in good fun, but at least some of the 70 MLAs sitting in the caucus room, likely wondering if they would be next next, wouldn't be so sure.
And then there's the latest nasty fallout from the police raids on the legislature.
The government has been trying to sell another chunk of BC Rail, the short line that serves Robert Bank port south of Vancouver. Three companies are bidding, and the the deal could be worth more than $50 million.
But the Liberals had to scrub the whole thing after police warned them that confidential information about the line could have been leaked to one or more of the companies trying to buy the line.
Bad news for the Liberals, who have tried to downplay the raids' significance. But the corruption allegations have now cost taxpayers' money and stalled the government.
And they've sent a message to business that B.C. remains a wacky and risky place. The companies spent time and money preparing their bids. As of today, that's wasted capital.
Surrey MLA Gulzar Cheema is going after a federal Liberal nomination. If he gets it, he'll have to resign, paving the way for an interesting byelection. NDP leader Carole James will have to decide if she could win in Surrey, and whether her time would be best spent in the legislature.
The Liberals should be worried that Unity's Chris Delaney will run and establish a profile for Unity as a right-wing alternative. That would be Campbell's worst nightmare in the 2005 campaign.
Footnote: Several MLAs wrote letters disputing my column noting that backbenchers were serving their constituents - and themselves - badly by not raising real concerns in Question Period. Here's Brenzinger on the process: "The questions are given to us. We're told who's going to say it, at what time. We practice in caucus what the question is. The minister knows the question and answers it. I just thought: 'This isn't democracy.' I can't get up and ask the hard questions of my riding."
VICTORIA - You've got to hand it to Stephen Harper.
He helped merge the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, a move that actually resembled a take-over.
He put together a national leadership campaign that managed to capture significant support in Ontario, the nut the right must crack if it's to be a national party.
And he's managed to emerge as the leader of the new party as it is about to face a tired, scandal-plagued Liberal government in an election.
For Harper, that last fact is the most significant.
Uniting the right isn't enough in Canada. Take all the Conservative and Alliance votes in the last election and put them in one pool, and the Liberals would still have won enough seats to form the government. 'The right' in Canada - admittedly a vague enough concept - isn't big enough to win a national election in normal times. Track the polling on all the most important issues, and Canadians come down solidly in the centre. We support spending on public health care, and taxes to pay for it; oppose two-tier medical care; believe that effective markets require strong government regulation; and value personal freedom on issues of conscience like gay marriage and abortion.
If Harper simply tries to impose the old Alliance-Reform policies on the new party it will remain on the edge of success.
That's especially true if voters get any hint that Harper and the party are ideologues, people who are not prepared to temper their own beliefs with a healthy respect for the views of other Canadians.
Harper has shown every sign of avoiding that error, carefully reaching out to the Conservative faction in the new party. "We need the Red Tory vision of important national insitutions and sustainable social programs because the Conservative party will never leave the vulnerable behind," Harper said in his victory speech, a clear attempt to reassure the mainstream that he's not an extremist.
It worked within the new party. Harper won the victory with 55-per-cent support. He took every B.C. riding, and three-quarters of Ontario's ridings, and even did better in Quebec than expected. (Atlantic Canadians were less supportive, apparently still miffed about Harper's earlier comments that the region has a culture of defeat. Truth is apparently not a sufficient defence.)
Harper and BC NDP leader Carole James should be comparing notes, because both face the same challenge. They each have a constituency - he on the right, she on the left - that is not in itself large enough to elect a government. They each have the challenge of convincing other voters that they can form an inclusive government, one that is prepared to moderate its policies to win broad support.
It shouldn't be that difficult. The parties' core supporters should recognize that ideological purity will mean perpetual opposition status. It's not necessary to abandon all principle; it is necessary to recognize that compromise is essential.
But there was a certain contrariness in the old Alliance crew, an innate mistrust of power that led them to get nervous whenever the party became too successful.
Harper isn't seen as the warmest of politicians - he's a proudly dull economist.
That may be an asset. Canadians see an out-of-control federal government, and may welcome the idea of a quiet, competent leader to put things right.
You don't have to want to go out and hang out with a political leader; you just need to think he'll reflect your view of the world and provide competent leadership.
That's Harper's real challenge, and it's a significant one.
But given where the Conservatives and Alliance stood a year ago, compared with where they are today, he's already made massive progress.
And he's getting enormous help from Paul Martin, who has been unable to convince Canadians that the Liberals have not been terribly tainted by corruption, scandals and arrogance.
Footnote: Martin is left with a difficult choice. If he calls a vote this spring, then he is vulnerable to charges that he's trying to race to the public before the sponsorship scandal is complete. But if he waits until the fall, Harper has valuable time to organize a national campaign.
Random notes: Brenzinger, BC Rail follies and cursing premiers
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Random notes from the front.
The Liberals' response to the angry departure of Surrey MLA Elayne Brenzinger has left them looking sleazy.
You can expect them to be angry with Brenzinger, who left with all barrels blazing. Gordon Campbell showed " a complete and utter disregard for the opinions of caucus and its elected members, instead pressing ahead with his own secretive mandate," she wrote in her goodbye note. "Mr. Campbell's administrative style has proven itself to be chaotic, haphazard and destructive to B.C."
Any party is going to respond to that kind of criticism. The Liberals said that Brenzinger was a lightweight, and had never complained before about feeling shut out.
The public will get to judge who is most right, and the best indication will likely be Brenzinger's own performance as the legislature resumes sitting, and the issues she chooses to raise. (That didn't go well on her first day back this week.)
But the Liberals stepped boldly into the muck in responding to Brenzinger's barbs..
They offered the juicy news that she had been suspended from caucus for two weeks in December, for allegedly grabbing a staffer by the throat.
That tidbit came from caucus whip Kevin Krueger, apparently offered as a demonstration of the bad character of the MLA. Instead it raised as many questions about the general character of the Liberals.
Brenzinger's suspension was kept secret in December. Her constituents never knew that they had lost their representation within the party.
And they weren't alone. Krueger said other MLAs had also received secret suspensions for offences. But he wouldn't say who, or for how long, or what they had done to get in the premier's bad books.
It looks sleazy. MLAs have apparently done things as bad or worse than Brenzinger, and lost their right to participate in debates in caucus. But their constituents were never told, because those kinds of things must be kept secret, say the Liberals.
The need for secrecy doesn't apply when in it's in the Liberals' interests to smear someone.
The premier comes off badly in the Brenzinger affair as well. He told reporters that he didn't know she was unhappy. But Campbell did confirm that he swore at her in caucus, adding that he was just kidding around.
Most competent managers have learned that it's not just kidding around when the boss decides to swear at one member of the organization publicly. He may think it's all in good fun, but at least some of the 70 MLAs sitting in the caucus room, likely wondering if they would be next next, wouldn't be so sure.
And then there's the latest nasty fallout from the police raids on the legislature.
The government has been trying to sell another chunk of BC Rail, the short line that serves Robert Bank port south of Vancouver. Three companies are bidding, and the the deal could be worth more than $50 million.
But the Liberals had to scrub the whole thing after police warned them that confidential information about the line could have been leaked to one or more of the companies trying to buy the line.
Bad news for the Liberals, who have tried to downplay the raids' significance. But the corruption allegations have now cost taxpayers' money and stalled the government.
And they've sent a message to business that B.C. remains a wacky and risky place. The companies spent time and money preparing their bids. As of today, that's wasted capital.
Surrey MLA Gulzar Cheema is going after a federal Liberal nomination. If he gets it, he'll have to resign, paving the way for an interesting byelection. NDP leader Carole James will have to decide if she could win in Surrey, and whether her time would be best spent in the legislature.
The Liberals should be worried that Unity's Chris Delaney will run and establish a profile for Unity as a right-wing alternative. That would be Campbell's worst nightmare in the 2005 campaign.
Footnote: Several MLAs wrote letters disputing my column noting that backbenchers were serving their constituents - and themselves - badly by not raising real concerns in Question Period. Here's Brenzinger on the process: "The questions are given to us. We're told who's going to say it, at what time. We practice in caucus what the question is. The minister knows the question and answers it. I just thought: 'This isn't democracy.' I can't get up and ask the hard questions of my riding."
Monday, February 23, 2004
Time for a B.C. health consumers' association
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
An easy way to save young drivers' lives
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - They've been dying at an alarming rate, the young people around Victoria.
For the last 12 months it seems like every few weeks I open the newspaper to read about them, another young person killed in a car crash. Their friends manage to get up some sort of roadside shrine. But I've got kids; I'm not interested in more shrines.
Partly, it's a streak of bad luck. Across B.C., the number of young people killed in car crashes fell by almost 40 per cent between 1995 and 2001.
But that's not much comfort when you're looking at the high school grad photo of another young person who didn't have to die.
We can't solve the problem. But we could save lives, with one simple, unintrusive change to the driving rules.
Vancouver Island has had an RCMP crash team for nine months, so far studying the details of six major crashes. They don't call them accidents. That suggests some inexplicable mechanical failure, or fate. In every case reviewed so far, the crash was no accident. Someone made a bad choice and caused the wreck.
The team looks at every aspect of the crashes. Not just the road conditions, or the driver's actions, but the type of car, the role of the passengers or the friends who let someone leave a party.
All the crashes share "an incredible amount of risk-taking," says Staff Sgt. Ted Smith. Speed, drugs and alcohol, crowded cars, hot cars - all are part of the equation.
And the drivers most likely to take those risks are young. Anyone who looks back honestly will acknowledge a certain combination of stupidity and self-confidence; men will remember a sense of invincibility and a huge inability to calculate consequences.
Tough to change.
But all six crashes share one common element we could address. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute - there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," Smith recently told Victoria media.
And we can change that. For drivers with 'New' or 'Learner' status, we can make seatbelt use effectively mandatory. The offence carries a $75 fine. But the regulations could be changed to impose a 90-day licence suspension for any inexperienced caught not wearing one, with serious enforcement.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive. At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will reinforce the idea that driving is an activity with some significant risks, that calls for care and caution.
There's no discrimination here. The rules would apply to all new drivers, not young drivers. And the law requiring seatbelt use is already in place.
At the same time, the province should make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries points for drivers, instead of just a fine. Most other offences already do - including some that don't involve an actual driving error. If we're serious about the law, it's a reasonable step.
It's tough to be exact about seatbelt use. ICBC estimates about 87 per cent usage for the province as a whole. A Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C., seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
That translates into a lot of needless deaths and injuries, a significant burden on the health care system and too many tragedies for families.
There are lots of things we could consider. Vancouver Island's chief medical health officer - along with many police officers - has said the return of photo radar would save lives. The government's planned changes to impaired driving laws - killed too quickly by an ill-informed public outcry - would also have helped.
But meanwhile, changing the seatbelt rules shouldn't be difficult, or controversial. A few simple regulatory changes, a clear mandate to police ? and we've saved some lives.
Footnote: Anyone looking for more motivation should know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, ICBC gets to keep a whack of your money if you're hurt. Even if you're the innocent victim, you'll generally lose 25 per cent of any settlement if you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time of collision. An Alberta court cut one award by 75 per cent.
VICTORIA - They've been dying at an alarming rate, the young people around Victoria.
For the last 12 months it seems like every few weeks I open the newspaper to read about them, another young person killed in a car crash. Their friends manage to get up some sort of roadside shrine. But I've got kids; I'm not interested in more shrines.
Partly, it's a streak of bad luck. Across B.C., the number of young people killed in car crashes fell by almost 40 per cent between 1995 and 2001.
But that's not much comfort when you're looking at the high school grad photo of another young person who didn't have to die.
We can't solve the problem. But we could save lives, with one simple, unintrusive change to the driving rules.
Vancouver Island has had an RCMP crash team for nine months, so far studying the details of six major crashes. They don't call them accidents. That suggests some inexplicable mechanical failure, or fate. In every case reviewed so far, the crash was no accident. Someone made a bad choice and caused the wreck.
The team looks at every aspect of the crashes. Not just the road conditions, or the driver's actions, but the type of car, the role of the passengers or the friends who let someone leave a party.
All the crashes share "an incredible amount of risk-taking," says Staff Sgt. Ted Smith. Speed, drugs and alcohol, crowded cars, hot cars - all are part of the equation.
And the drivers most likely to take those risks are young. Anyone who looks back honestly will acknowledge a certain combination of stupidity and self-confidence; men will remember a sense of invincibility and a huge inability to calculate consequences.
Tough to change.
But all six crashes share one common element we could address. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute - there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," Smith recently told Victoria media.
And we can change that. For drivers with 'New' or 'Learner' status, we can make seatbelt use effectively mandatory. The offence carries a $75 fine. But the regulations could be changed to impose a 90-day licence suspension for any inexperienced caught not wearing one, with serious enforcement.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive. At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will reinforce the idea that driving is an activity with some significant risks, that calls for care and caution.
There's no discrimination here. The rules would apply to all new drivers, not young drivers. And the law requiring seatbelt use is already in place.
At the same time, the province should make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries points for drivers, instead of just a fine. Most other offences already do - including some that don't involve an actual driving error. If we're serious about the law, it's a reasonable step.
It's tough to be exact about seatbelt use. ICBC estimates about 87 per cent usage for the province as a whole. A Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C., seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
That translates into a lot of needless deaths and injuries, a significant burden on the health care system and too many tragedies for families.
There are lots of things we could consider. Vancouver Island's chief medical health officer - along with many police officers - has said the return of photo radar would save lives. The government's planned changes to impaired driving laws - killed too quickly by an ill-informed public outcry - would also have helped.
But meanwhile, changing the seatbelt rules shouldn't be difficult, or controversial. A few simple regulatory changes, a clear mandate to police ? and we've saved some lives.
Footnote: Anyone looking for more motivation should know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, ICBC gets to keep a whack of your money if you're hurt. Even if you're the innocent victim, you'll generally lose 25 per cent of any settlement if you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time of collision. An Alberta court cut one award by 75 per cent.
Time for a B.C. health consumers' association
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
Liberals the kings of expanded gambling
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's bizarre to see the party that promised to stop gambling expansion now planning on slots in every corner of the province, from Fort Nelson to Prince Rupert.
That's the next phase in the government's plan to get more money from gambling.
The communities won't be getting casinos. And the government hasn't yet abandoned its oppositions to slots in bars.
Instead the next step is to put slot machines in local bingo halls, or "community gaming entertainment centres," as the BC Lottery Corp. now wants to start calling them.
There's nothing unusual in government's becoming addicted to gambling. B.C. isn't even that bad yet, compared to other provinces.
But it's downright weird that a party which opposed expanded gambling ferociously for years, pointing to the damage done, would turn out to be the gambling kings.
The Liberals New Era campaign promise was clear: "Stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Nice words, but what's happened since?
Instead of stopping the expansion, the Liberals jumped heavily into the gambling business.
When the Liberals were elected, there were 2,400 slots in 10 casinos. By the end of this year, the Liberals will have doubled the number of slot machines. (The Liberals also said they opposed slots at race tracks during the election campaign; now they're on their way.)
And when they took over, gambling netted $562 million for the government. The Liberals have increased that by 50-per-cent in three years, to $850 million this year. They want to crack the $1-billion profit mark in two years, making gambling as important to government revenues as the forest industry.
Their official explanation is lame. Solicitor General Rich Coleman told an open cabinet meeting that the NDP indicated to some casino operators, sometime, that they could someday have slots. Freezing the expansion would break these vague promises and the province might get sued, he said.
It's an ironic claim from a government that has happily ripped up real agreements. And it's simply not credible. The Liberals have worked to expand the scale and scope of gambling; they could have slowed the expansion legally and fairly by holding proponents to their original plans and schedules. Many would be gone by now.
The defense certainly doesn't cover the plan to put slots in bingo halls, providing gambling opportunities in many more towns and neighbourhoods. (We already pumped about $3.2-billion into slot machines in B.C. last year.)
The new fondness for gambling is understandable. Without the expansion since the election, the Liberals would be looking at a $200-million budget deficit this year, not a surplus.
They're looking to recruit even more gamblers, through advertising and appealing games. The BC Lottery Corp. says 59 per cent of B.C. adults bet with the corporation in a typical month. Its goal is to get that up to 65 per cent over the next four years. That's another 200,000 people persuaded to gamble. Most of them will just waste a bit of money. But according to the corporation's own figures, about 8,000 will become problem gamblers, joining 75,000 existing problem gamblers in B.C.
The Liberals used to put those people first. They warned about the damage to families, the increased crime, loan-sharking and suicides. That's why they said no gambling expansion.
The BC Lottery Corp. is just doing its job, and doing it well enough that the corporation was honoured as the 2003 BC Marketer of the Year. It has an 18-person marketing department and a $10-million budget just to get more people to play lotteries and Keno.
But it should scare us that the best marketers in the whole province are promoting gambling, in co-operation with a government that's encouraging its spread.
There's no doubt the money is good. But the Liberals used to think that wasn't enough.
Footnote: The flip-flop is breathtaking. In 1998 Gordon Campbell bristled at the idea that the Liberals might waffle on gambling. "We fought tooth and nail against their plan to bring Vegas-style gambling, slot machines and VLTs to B.C. We want an independent review of gambling and a provincial referendum. The social costs of gambling expansion -- increased crime, broken families and increased poverty -- are simply too high a price to pay."
VICTORIA - It's bizarre to see the party that promised to stop gambling expansion now planning on slots in every corner of the province, from Fort Nelson to Prince Rupert.
That's the next phase in the government's plan to get more money from gambling.
The communities won't be getting casinos. And the government hasn't yet abandoned its oppositions to slots in bars.
Instead the next step is to put slot machines in local bingo halls, or "community gaming entertainment centres," as the BC Lottery Corp. now wants to start calling them.
There's nothing unusual in government's becoming addicted to gambling. B.C. isn't even that bad yet, compared to other provinces.
But it's downright weird that a party which opposed expanded gambling ferociously for years, pointing to the damage done, would turn out to be the gambling kings.
The Liberals New Era campaign promise was clear: "Stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Nice words, but what's happened since?
Instead of stopping the expansion, the Liberals jumped heavily into the gambling business.
When the Liberals were elected, there were 2,400 slots in 10 casinos. By the end of this year, the Liberals will have doubled the number of slot machines. (The Liberals also said they opposed slots at race tracks during the election campaign; now they're on their way.)
And when they took over, gambling netted $562 million for the government. The Liberals have increased that by 50-per-cent in three years, to $850 million this year. They want to crack the $1-billion profit mark in two years, making gambling as important to government revenues as the forest industry.
Their official explanation is lame. Solicitor General Rich Coleman told an open cabinet meeting that the NDP indicated to some casino operators, sometime, that they could someday have slots. Freezing the expansion would break these vague promises and the province might get sued, he said.
It's an ironic claim from a government that has happily ripped up real agreements. And it's simply not credible. The Liberals have worked to expand the scale and scope of gambling; they could have slowed the expansion legally and fairly by holding proponents to their original plans and schedules. Many would be gone by now.
The defense certainly doesn't cover the plan to put slots in bingo halls, providing gambling opportunities in many more towns and neighbourhoods. (We already pumped about $3.2-billion into slot machines in B.C. last year.)
The new fondness for gambling is understandable. Without the expansion since the election, the Liberals would be looking at a $200-million budget deficit this year, not a surplus.
They're looking to recruit even more gamblers, through advertising and appealing games. The BC Lottery Corp. says 59 per cent of B.C. adults bet with the corporation in a typical month. Its goal is to get that up to 65 per cent over the next four years. That's another 200,000 people persuaded to gamble. Most of them will just waste a bit of money. But according to the corporation's own figures, about 8,000 will become problem gamblers, joining 75,000 existing problem gamblers in B.C.
The Liberals used to put those people first. They warned about the damage to families, the increased crime, loan-sharking and suicides. That's why they said no gambling expansion.
The BC Lottery Corp. is just doing its job, and doing it well enough that the corporation was honoured as the 2003 BC Marketer of the Year. It has an 18-person marketing department and a $10-million budget just to get more people to play lotteries and Keno.
But it should scare us that the best marketers in the whole province are promoting gambling, in co-operation with a government that's encouraging its spread.
There's no doubt the money is good. But the Liberals used to think that wasn't enough.
Footnote: The flip-flop is breathtaking. In 1998 Gordon Campbell bristled at the idea that the Liberals might waffle on gambling. "We fought tooth and nail against their plan to bring Vegas-style gambling, slot machines and VLTs to B.C. We want an independent review of gambling and a provincial referendum. The social costs of gambling expansion -- increased crime, broken families and increased poverty -- are simply too high a price to pay."
Unions, governments head toward bizarre showdown
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - RMH Teleservices wasn't ready to roll over when the BCGEU tried to sign up the 1,600 workers at its Surrey call centre.
The union launched its organizing campaign; the company campaigned right back. And things got weird, and ugly.
The resulting dispute has created the Liberals' first big battle with unions over a private sector issue. They're threatening to boycott the Labour Relations Board over its support for the company's tactics.
The Liberals have had skirmishes with private sector unions, but generally they have steered a moderate enough course to avoid the kind of major battles it's had with public sector unions.
But business did win some changes, including labour code revisions that give managers much freer rein to communicate with employees during a union drive.
Code changes in the Harcourt era had strictly limited company's right to respond to a union organizing effort. The aim was to prevent companies from intimidating employees so they wouldn't join a union. The effect was to give the union's supporters a free hand to promote the benefits of certifying, while leaving managers convinced that any but the most limited comment would see them slapped with an unfair labour practice complaint. That could result in automatic certification, or a mandatory vote even if the union had signed up only a few people.
The Liberals opened things up in 2002. And RMH is the first company to push the envelope under the new rules.
Some of the happenings were just weird. RMH projected changing messages on the walls of the huge workplace constantly for a week to encourage employees not to sign up, a move a touch reminiscent of 1984.
Some seemed harmless enough. Management handed out frisbees and other toys with printed messages questioning the union claims.
And some were ugly. The company's big Surrey parking lot was the scene of several encounters where anti-union employees abused women organizers with vicious and obscene insults.
The result was a string of union complaints to the LRB, charging the company with unfair labour practices in its attempts to persuade employees not to sign a union membership card.
My guess is that the complaints would have been upheld in the past.
But LRB vice-chair Ken Saunders tossed them, finding that the company's activities hadn't violated the labour code. Employees had no reason to feel coerced or threatened by the company's efforts, he said, and that's the test.
Business leaders approve. Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association says companies should be able to make their case, like the union, and the employees can decide. "They're not children," he adds.
Union leaders don't. BCGEU head George Heyman says the campaign - especially the parking lot abuse - was threatening. The employees were left believing that the company was dead opposed to a union. They were left to wonder, the union suggests, whether the phone centre would close if employees unionized.
The unions have asked the Labour Board to reconsider the decision. If not, the BC Federation of Labour has threatened a boycott of the LRB, the referee in labour disputes.
One way or another, the issue is going to end up back in the lap of Labour Minister Graham Bruce. When he gave companies more latitude to communicate, Bruce said some ground rules might be needed. He raised the idea of supervised forums where both company and union would get a chance to make their pitch.
None of those regulations ever appeared. Bruce says he was waiting to see how the changes worked out on the ground.
It's time for some action. The Liberals have done an adept job at changing the labour environment without sending the pendulum swinging back wildly toward the employers' side. That stability is good for the province.
But in the RMH ruling, the pendulum has taken too big a swing. Bruce needs to find the balance point again.
Footnote: Both sides have have signed on for this battle, with most major business organizations planning to apply for intervenor status if the labour board does hold a gearing to reconsider the decision. It's being viewed by many unions and employers as a test of where the Liberals are likely to go with their next round of labour changes.
VICTORIA - RMH Teleservices wasn't ready to roll over when the BCGEU tried to sign up the 1,600 workers at its Surrey call centre.
The union launched its organizing campaign; the company campaigned right back. And things got weird, and ugly.
The resulting dispute has created the Liberals' first big battle with unions over a private sector issue. They're threatening to boycott the Labour Relations Board over its support for the company's tactics.
The Liberals have had skirmishes with private sector unions, but generally they have steered a moderate enough course to avoid the kind of major battles it's had with public sector unions.
But business did win some changes, including labour code revisions that give managers much freer rein to communicate with employees during a union drive.
Code changes in the Harcourt era had strictly limited company's right to respond to a union organizing effort. The aim was to prevent companies from intimidating employees so they wouldn't join a union. The effect was to give the union's supporters a free hand to promote the benefits of certifying, while leaving managers convinced that any but the most limited comment would see them slapped with an unfair labour practice complaint. That could result in automatic certification, or a mandatory vote even if the union had signed up only a few people.
The Liberals opened things up in 2002. And RMH is the first company to push the envelope under the new rules.
Some of the happenings were just weird. RMH projected changing messages on the walls of the huge workplace constantly for a week to encourage employees not to sign up, a move a touch reminiscent of 1984.
Some seemed harmless enough. Management handed out frisbees and other toys with printed messages questioning the union claims.
And some were ugly. The company's big Surrey parking lot was the scene of several encounters where anti-union employees abused women organizers with vicious and obscene insults.
The result was a string of union complaints to the LRB, charging the company with unfair labour practices in its attempts to persuade employees not to sign a union membership card.
My guess is that the complaints would have been upheld in the past.
But LRB vice-chair Ken Saunders tossed them, finding that the company's activities hadn't violated the labour code. Employees had no reason to feel coerced or threatened by the company's efforts, he said, and that's the test.
Business leaders approve. Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association says companies should be able to make their case, like the union, and the employees can decide. "They're not children," he adds.
Union leaders don't. BCGEU head George Heyman says the campaign - especially the parking lot abuse - was threatening. The employees were left believing that the company was dead opposed to a union. They were left to wonder, the union suggests, whether the phone centre would close if employees unionized.
The unions have asked the Labour Board to reconsider the decision. If not, the BC Federation of Labour has threatened a boycott of the LRB, the referee in labour disputes.
One way or another, the issue is going to end up back in the lap of Labour Minister Graham Bruce. When he gave companies more latitude to communicate, Bruce said some ground rules might be needed. He raised the idea of supervised forums where both company and union would get a chance to make their pitch.
None of those regulations ever appeared. Bruce says he was waiting to see how the changes worked out on the ground.
It's time for some action. The Liberals have done an adept job at changing the labour environment without sending the pendulum swinging back wildly toward the employers' side. That stability is good for the province.
But in the RMH ruling, the pendulum has taken too big a swing. Bruce needs to find the balance point again.
Footnote: Both sides have have signed on for this battle, with most major business organizations planning to apply for intervenor status if the labour board does hold a gearing to reconsider the decision. It's being viewed by many unions and employers as a test of where the Liberals are likely to go with their next round of labour changes.
Tax cuts for rich in budget, but rest will pay more
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Add to your list of regional grievances the news that taxes are going up for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians this year, while their better-off neighbours get another tax break.
Since their first day in office, when Premier Gordon Campbell cut income taxes by 25 per cent, the Liberals have been accused of favouring higher-income British Columbians with their policies.
So far, they've been able to point out that while the rich may have done the best from the changes, all British Columbians have seen their taxes go down.
Until this year. The budget documents reveal that while total provincial taxes were reduced for people with big incomes, low and middle-income British Columbians will pay more as a result of this bydget.
The New Democrats raised the issue. But there's no spin. The numbers are straight from the budget, which always includes tables showing the taxes that will be paid by half-a-dozen typical households. The report pulls in all taxes - income tax, sales tax, MSP premiums.
It provides a review for three typical families, each with both parents working and two children.
A family with a household income of $90,000 will get another tax cut, worth about $150. But a family with income of $60,000 will pay $130 more than they did last year. A family with $30,000 will pay $435 more.
That's a big hit for a family that's already on the edge, almost an entire week's income gone to pay higher taxes.
It's not just families. A single person making $80,000 a year got another tax cut this year, but two seniors living together on combined pensions of $30,000 will pay more in taxes.
Yes, says Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe, but everyone is still paying lower taxes than they did before the 2001 tax cuts.
But the benefits aren't evenly distributed. The family raising two children on $90,000 have seen their tax bill fall by 15-per-cent under the Liberals - about $1,600. The family attempting the same feat on $30,000 has had a five-per-cent tax reduction, or about $200.
The Liberals have reduced taxes across the board. But they have also shifted the burden of paying for government services from high-income British Columbians to the rest of us by bumping fees and flat taxes.
Economically, this may make sense. There is no significant economic benefit to cutting tax rates for middle-income earners. Cutting taxes for them means they'll spend the money, not the government, but that doesn't generate increased economic activity. They're not going to move here to save a few hundred dollars in taxes.
But you can make a sound case that targeted tax cuts aimed at the top end can help attract investment and the kind of people who create jobs. The theory is that a competitive tax structure may make it worthwhile for those people to set up shop here, not in Alberta.
There's no right answer about how much each person should pay. But B.C. does appear to be out of step with other provinces. A single person in B.C. being paid $80,000 a year will pay slightly less in provincial taxes this year here than he would in Alberta. But that family of four earning $30,000 would pay twice as much in B.C. as they would on the other side of the Rockies.
Take average taxes for Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and the story is the same. Seniors living on $30,000 pays six per cent less in B.C. than the average rate for the other provinces. The $90,000 family pays 29 per cent less.
Why is it a regional issue? Because the people paying more tend to live outside Greater Vancouver, which has a higher household income. The effect has been to leave more dollars in their hands, while this year taking dollars away from B.C.'s regional communities.
The government can take a shot at making its case for shifting more of the tax dollars onto the middle class.
But it's not something I'd be happy to campaign on, heading into an increasingly difficult election.
Footnote: Thorpe was also not eager to defend the tax increases. He dodged the issue in the legislature, than ducked reporters waiting to hear the government's position by scooting out a side door of the chamber. The Liberals need a better response than a vanishing act.
VICTORIA - Add to your list of regional grievances the news that taxes are going up for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians this year, while their better-off neighbours get another tax break.
Since their first day in office, when Premier Gordon Campbell cut income taxes by 25 per cent, the Liberals have been accused of favouring higher-income British Columbians with their policies.
So far, they've been able to point out that while the rich may have done the best from the changes, all British Columbians have seen their taxes go down.
Until this year. The budget documents reveal that while total provincial taxes were reduced for people with big incomes, low and middle-income British Columbians will pay more as a result of this bydget.
The New Democrats raised the issue. But there's no spin. The numbers are straight from the budget, which always includes tables showing the taxes that will be paid by half-a-dozen typical households. The report pulls in all taxes - income tax, sales tax, MSP premiums.
It provides a review for three typical families, each with both parents working and two children.
A family with a household income of $90,000 will get another tax cut, worth about $150. But a family with income of $60,000 will pay $130 more than they did last year. A family with $30,000 will pay $435 more.
That's a big hit for a family that's already on the edge, almost an entire week's income gone to pay higher taxes.
It's not just families. A single person making $80,000 a year got another tax cut this year, but two seniors living together on combined pensions of $30,000 will pay more in taxes.
Yes, says Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe, but everyone is still paying lower taxes than they did before the 2001 tax cuts.
But the benefits aren't evenly distributed. The family raising two children on $90,000 have seen their tax bill fall by 15-per-cent under the Liberals - about $1,600. The family attempting the same feat on $30,000 has had a five-per-cent tax reduction, or about $200.
The Liberals have reduced taxes across the board. But they have also shifted the burden of paying for government services from high-income British Columbians to the rest of us by bumping fees and flat taxes.
Economically, this may make sense. There is no significant economic benefit to cutting tax rates for middle-income earners. Cutting taxes for them means they'll spend the money, not the government, but that doesn't generate increased economic activity. They're not going to move here to save a few hundred dollars in taxes.
But you can make a sound case that targeted tax cuts aimed at the top end can help attract investment and the kind of people who create jobs. The theory is that a competitive tax structure may make it worthwhile for those people to set up shop here, not in Alberta.
There's no right answer about how much each person should pay. But B.C. does appear to be out of step with other provinces. A single person in B.C. being paid $80,000 a year will pay slightly less in provincial taxes this year here than he would in Alberta. But that family of four earning $30,000 would pay twice as much in B.C. as they would on the other side of the Rockies.
Take average taxes for Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and the story is the same. Seniors living on $30,000 pays six per cent less in B.C. than the average rate for the other provinces. The $90,000 family pays 29 per cent less.
Why is it a regional issue? Because the people paying more tend to live outside Greater Vancouver, which has a higher household income. The effect has been to leave more dollars in their hands, while this year taking dollars away from B.C.'s regional communities.
The government can take a shot at making its case for shifting more of the tax dollars onto the middle class.
But it's not something I'd be happy to campaign on, heading into an increasingly difficult election.
Footnote: Thorpe was also not eager to defend the tax increases. He dodged the issue in the legislature, than ducked reporters waiting to hear the government's position by scooting out a side door of the chamber. The Liberals need a better response than a vanishing act.
Question Period makes Liberal MLAs look foolish
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I admire MLAs. They work hard, they're committed and they sacrifice a huge amount to serve.
Maybe that's why I get so worked up when I see them behaving badly. Like Mike Hunter, Rob Nijjar, Randy Hawes and Jeff Bray.
When this session started, and those four MLAs got the chance to stand up in Question Period and ask the premier or any cabinet minister a question on behalf of their constituents, they blew it.
Question Period is only 15 minutes a day. It's precious time, when backbenchers stand on equal footing with the big guys, and the reporters - and some TV viewers - are paying close attention.
So what did they want to know, this quartet? They're bright; they represent Nanaimo, Vancouver, Mission, and Victoria respectively. You would expect insightful questions, a reflection of what people who live in their communities really want to know about the government's direction.
Instead you got posturing.
On Feb. 12 Hawes and Bray had their moment, and used it to ask Finance Minister Gary Collins to respond to on a budget commentary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a leftish alternative to the Fraser Institute. On Feb. 16, Nijjar had the spotlight, able to ask any question on behalf of his community. He asked Collins to reflect on the same CCPA budget commentary.
On Feb. 17, Hunter had his chance to ask questions on behalf of the people of Nanaimo. He asked Economic Development Minister John Les to comment on the same CCPA budget commentary.
I accept that the Liberals are looking for ways to paint Carole James as fiscally irresponsible. Lord knows, based on the last NDP government's track record, that's a genuine concern for voters.
And I accept that the NDP government's decision to award $200,000 in grants to the CCPA in the last days before the election looks dubious, and makes the association an easy target.
I'm even willing to accept the fact that Liberal MLAs kept picking away at the CCPA report in the so-called debate on the budget. Some day MLAs may actually offer their real insights and analysis in even routine debates, but the reality is that for now debates are generally a political performance. The Liberals want to convince people that the New Democrats are tax-and-spend wastrels. The CCPA proposals include a range of tax and fee increases. By claiming those are the New Democrat positions, the Liberals hope to convince voters that it's true or force NDP leader Carole James to offer more specifics.
But Question Period should be special. Traditionally, the opposition grills the government. But with the two-person NDP opposition limited to one set of questions each, Liberal backbenchers have had a chance to represent their constituents.
I don't expect them to try and embarrass ministers; but there is every reason to expect them to raise important local issues, and to push for answers and results.
And the best the quartet can do is asked repetitive, silly questions.
It's not just this issue.
Liberal MLAs regularly embarrass themselves with scripted softball questions that could be roughly summarized as "Could the minister tell us what a great job he's doing?" They virtually never follow up, or press for more detail
I don't want to be seen as critical of the MLAs. They are all working harder for their communities than I ever have, and accomplishing more. I accept their assurances that they are pressing hard for their communities behind the scenes. And they certainly have a role in helping the government's PR efforts.
But some of the crueler people in the Press gallery describe their daily Question Period efforts as "stooge questions."
They're right. And the MLAs deserve better, as do the people they represent.
Ultimately, the Liberals would also find that some real, effective public representation from backbenchers would help reverse the party's long slide in the opinion polls.
Footnote: The Liberals have engineered Question Period as a showcase for the competence of cabinet ministers and the government. In the process, they've made their backbench MLAs - many facing tough re-election battles - look like people who have no idea what's important to their communities. It's inaccurate and unfair.
VICTORIA - I admire MLAs. They work hard, they're committed and they sacrifice a huge amount to serve.
Maybe that's why I get so worked up when I see them behaving badly. Like Mike Hunter, Rob Nijjar, Randy Hawes and Jeff Bray.
When this session started, and those four MLAs got the chance to stand up in Question Period and ask the premier or any cabinet minister a question on behalf of their constituents, they blew it.
Question Period is only 15 minutes a day. It's precious time, when backbenchers stand on equal footing with the big guys, and the reporters - and some TV viewers - are paying close attention.
So what did they want to know, this quartet? They're bright; they represent Nanaimo, Vancouver, Mission, and Victoria respectively. You would expect insightful questions, a reflection of what people who live in their communities really want to know about the government's direction.
Instead you got posturing.
On Feb. 12 Hawes and Bray had their moment, and used it to ask Finance Minister Gary Collins to respond to on a budget commentary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a leftish alternative to the Fraser Institute. On Feb. 16, Nijjar had the spotlight, able to ask any question on behalf of his community. He asked Collins to reflect on the same CCPA budget commentary.
On Feb. 17, Hunter had his chance to ask questions on behalf of the people of Nanaimo. He asked Economic Development Minister John Les to comment on the same CCPA budget commentary.
I accept that the Liberals are looking for ways to paint Carole James as fiscally irresponsible. Lord knows, based on the last NDP government's track record, that's a genuine concern for voters.
And I accept that the NDP government's decision to award $200,000 in grants to the CCPA in the last days before the election looks dubious, and makes the association an easy target.
I'm even willing to accept the fact that Liberal MLAs kept picking away at the CCPA report in the so-called debate on the budget. Some day MLAs may actually offer their real insights and analysis in even routine debates, but the reality is that for now debates are generally a political performance. The Liberals want to convince people that the New Democrats are tax-and-spend wastrels. The CCPA proposals include a range of tax and fee increases. By claiming those are the New Democrat positions, the Liberals hope to convince voters that it's true or force NDP leader Carole James to offer more specifics.
But Question Period should be special. Traditionally, the opposition grills the government. But with the two-person NDP opposition limited to one set of questions each, Liberal backbenchers have had a chance to represent their constituents.
I don't expect them to try and embarrass ministers; but there is every reason to expect them to raise important local issues, and to push for answers and results.
And the best the quartet can do is asked repetitive, silly questions.
It's not just this issue.
Liberal MLAs regularly embarrass themselves with scripted softball questions that could be roughly summarized as "Could the minister tell us what a great job he's doing?" They virtually never follow up, or press for more detail
I don't want to be seen as critical of the MLAs. They are all working harder for their communities than I ever have, and accomplishing more. I accept their assurances that they are pressing hard for their communities behind the scenes. And they certainly have a role in helping the government's PR efforts.
But some of the crueler people in the Press gallery describe their daily Question Period efforts as "stooge questions."
They're right. And the MLAs deserve better, as do the people they represent.
Ultimately, the Liberals would also find that some real, effective public representation from backbenchers would help reverse the party's long slide in the opinion polls.
Footnote: The Liberals have engineered Question Period as a showcase for the competence of cabinet ministers and the government. In the process, they've made their backbench MLAs - many facing tough re-election battles - look like people who have no idea what's important to their communities. It's inaccurate and unfair.
Poll shows Liberals face a Heartland massacre
Poll shows Liberals face a Heartland massacre
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Liberal MLAs across the so-called Heartlands are going to be dropping like flies in next May's election unless things change in the next 14 months.
The latest poll results are encouraging for the NDP on a bunch of levels. The New Democrats and Liberals were in a dead heat in the Mustel Group poll. Each has a 40-per-cent share of decided voters.
That's a remarkable recovery from the NDP's richly deserved defeat in 2001. The party has never had this much support in the 13 years Mustel has been releasing poll results. The closest they came was in 1996, when the party hit 39 per cent - and won a majority of seats in the election.
The poll was taken just before the balanced budget was introduced, after a particularly rough patch for the Liberals marked by Gordon Hogg's resignation as children and families minister and police raids on the legislature offices of top Liberal aides.
But the poll isn't a blip. It continues a steady erosion of Liberal support.
The news is especially grim for MLAs from outside the Lower Mainland.
In Greater Vancouver, the Liberals still have a lead, with their support at 44 per cent and the NDP at 37 per cent.
But move outside the big city and voters are deserting the Liberals. In the rest of the province the NDP stands at 43 per cent and the Liberals are at 35 per cent. That means some 30 Liberal MLAs are looking at getting turfed by the voters.
The late and unlamented Heartlands strategy was supposed to improve things. It didn't work.
Publicly, the Liberals are downplaying the significance of the poll. They note - rightly - that mid-term governments tend to be unpopular, and that they have made many tough decisions.
Except this isn't a mid-term government. The election is barely a year away, and it's going to be another tough year. Government cuts are still working through the system; health care faces a major crisis this summer; and more schools are slated to be closed.
Some Liberals are also hoping that NDP support will fade once voters start thinking more seriously about the election and the party's platform becomes more specific. They hope that Carole James' inexperience will also be a factor.
But it would be more useful for the Liberals to look at why so many people have decided that they can no longer support them.
Just before the election, a Mustel poll found 87-per-cent support for the Liberals in the northwest and Interior. Since then six out of every 10 people who supported the party have changed their minds.
When that many of your fellow citizens are disappointed in your government, it's time to pay attention, and act.
Campbell thinks the government is doing a good job and people are just wrong. (As he thinks he's right and the public is wrong on whether the BC Rail sale is a broken promise.)
But next May it's the people who will decide who gets to represent them in the legislature. And based on voter attitudes today, many of those Liberal MLAs elected in 2001 won't be around for a second term.
The lack of support isn't hard to explain. B.C.'s regions have been hit hardest by service cuts, and seen the fewest economic benefits. They see big money - including some Ottawa says was supposed to go to rural infrastructure - being spent on the Lower Mainland and the Olympics.
And the government - despite efforts by some MLAs - has a strongly urban face. Vancouver is well-represented in the power positions at the cabinet table - Campbell, Colin Hansen, Geoff Plant, Christy Clark, Rich Coleman,
Gary Collins.
But it's harder to pick one or two cabinet ministers, with clout, who come to voters' minds quickly as the champions of the rest of the province.
A lot can change. But right now, the Liberals are in big trouble beyond the Lower Mainland.
Footnote: The wild cards in the election are the other parties. In 1996, a strong Reform vote hurt the Liberals. In 2001, Green support cost the NDP seats. According to the latest poll, the Greens have slumped to eight-per-cent support; the various fringe parties on the right have the support of 10 per cent of voters. Bad news for the Liberals.
Campbell has let down his own MLAs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure you should be grumpy about the money wasted in having eight MLAs fly in to Victoria for a pointless five-minute meeting.
But you should be grumpier that Gordon Campbell has broken his promise to give MLAs real power through active committees working on big issues. He used to be horrified that the NDP government didn't let the health and education committees meet. But now things aren't much different.
The health committee had been sidelined for a year when the legislature asked for a report on how to promote a healthier lifestyle, and whether the effort would pay off in savings. (A pretty good topic.) That was in December.
At the end of January, the committee met for 40 minutes and floundered. Their term officially expires March 31. There wasn't enough time to get anything done, they worried, especially on such a huge topic. Everyone went away to think.
And In February, the committee met again - for less than 10 minutes - and threw in the towel. Fuzzy mandate, no money, no time. Let's forget it.
New Democrat Joy MacPhail raised a good question. If the committee had already concluded it couldn't do anything, why waste money having people fly in for a non-meeting? A phone conference or email exchange could have saved taxpayers' money and MLAs time. "It's a waste of money," said MacPhail.
Point taken, said deputy chair Blair Suffredine. The meeting is adjourned.
The wasted money is irritating, but mistakes happen.
What's more irritating is that the committee didn't find some part of its mandate it could attack, some process it could start now that could continue after March 31 when the committee is re-appointed.
What a chance. Decide to look at automotive advertising, with cars racing along twisting highways or skidding across a desert, and how it affects young drivers. Or the relative sports participation rates in several communities, why they differ and whether the active communities have lower health care costs. Or why kids quit minor sports, or why seniors drop out of exercise programs. Just do something.
They aren't slackers, the 13 MLAs on the committee. Chair Susan Brice even said way back in April that she was disappointed the committee hadn't been given any assignment. If they thought they could have accomplished something useful, I expect they still would have gone ahead.
And that's the more serious problem. They didn't think their work would be useful; why else would they bail on the task?
Which leads back to the premier's promise to make legislature committees more effective. It hasn't happened and the direction has been backward since the Liberals' first year.
The aboriginal affairs committee, chaired by John Les, got the job of trying to come up with appropriate referendum questions. Its recommendations, made in November, 2001, were rejected. It hasn't done anything since, even though there is no shortage of issues to examine or MLAs with a keen interest.
The education committee was asked to do a general report in 2001. It has done nothing in the last two years. I've talked to MLAs with keen interest in improving results in rural schools, addressing key issues in the first years of school, developing work skills. Any one of those would be an appropriate issue for the committee to review, and produce recommendations.
And the health committee last met for any real purpose in 2002.
The promise was "a vital role in policy-making" for legislative committees, which would be able to travel the province. The reality is pretty much the status quo.
It's a loss. MLAs - from any party - know a lot about their community and bring commitment and a wide range of life experiences. The kind of committees Campbell promised - but hasn't delivered - would give them the chance to make a valuable contribution to policy development.
Footnote: MLAs point out that they play a strong role in caucus and in government caucus committees on health and other issues. But those meetings are generally secret. Backbenchers deserve a chance to be seen setting policy, and representing their communities. We are at a crisis in democracy in Canada; the premier has failed to follow through on a commitment that would help address the problem.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Liberal MLAs across the so-called Heartlands are going to be dropping like flies in next May's election unless things change in the next 14 months.
The latest poll results are encouraging for the NDP on a bunch of levels. The New Democrats and Liberals were in a dead heat in the Mustel Group poll. Each has a 40-per-cent share of decided voters.
That's a remarkable recovery from the NDP's richly deserved defeat in 2001. The party has never had this much support in the 13 years Mustel has been releasing poll results. The closest they came was in 1996, when the party hit 39 per cent - and won a majority of seats in the election.
The poll was taken just before the balanced budget was introduced, after a particularly rough patch for the Liberals marked by Gordon Hogg's resignation as children and families minister and police raids on the legislature offices of top Liberal aides.
But the poll isn't a blip. It continues a steady erosion of Liberal support.
The news is especially grim for MLAs from outside the Lower Mainland.
In Greater Vancouver, the Liberals still have a lead, with their support at 44 per cent and the NDP at 37 per cent.
But move outside the big city and voters are deserting the Liberals. In the rest of the province the NDP stands at 43 per cent and the Liberals are at 35 per cent. That means some 30 Liberal MLAs are looking at getting turfed by the voters.
The late and unlamented Heartlands strategy was supposed to improve things. It didn't work.
Publicly, the Liberals are downplaying the significance of the poll. They note - rightly - that mid-term governments tend to be unpopular, and that they have made many tough decisions.
Except this isn't a mid-term government. The election is barely a year away, and it's going to be another tough year. Government cuts are still working through the system; health care faces a major crisis this summer; and more schools are slated to be closed.
Some Liberals are also hoping that NDP support will fade once voters start thinking more seriously about the election and the party's platform becomes more specific. They hope that Carole James' inexperience will also be a factor.
But it would be more useful for the Liberals to look at why so many people have decided that they can no longer support them.
Just before the election, a Mustel poll found 87-per-cent support for the Liberals in the northwest and Interior. Since then six out of every 10 people who supported the party have changed their minds.
When that many of your fellow citizens are disappointed in your government, it's time to pay attention, and act.
Campbell thinks the government is doing a good job and people are just wrong. (As he thinks he's right and the public is wrong on whether the BC Rail sale is a broken promise.)
But next May it's the people who will decide who gets to represent them in the legislature. And based on voter attitudes today, many of those Liberal MLAs elected in 2001 won't be around for a second term.
The lack of support isn't hard to explain. B.C.'s regions have been hit hardest by service cuts, and seen the fewest economic benefits. They see big money - including some Ottawa says was supposed to go to rural infrastructure - being spent on the Lower Mainland and the Olympics.
And the government - despite efforts by some MLAs - has a strongly urban face. Vancouver is well-represented in the power positions at the cabinet table - Campbell, Colin Hansen, Geoff Plant, Christy Clark, Rich Coleman,
Gary Collins.
But it's harder to pick one or two cabinet ministers, with clout, who come to voters' minds quickly as the champions of the rest of the province.
A lot can change. But right now, the Liberals are in big trouble beyond the Lower Mainland.
Footnote: The wild cards in the election are the other parties. In 1996, a strong Reform vote hurt the Liberals. In 2001, Green support cost the NDP seats. According to the latest poll, the Greens have slumped to eight-per-cent support; the various fringe parties on the right have the support of 10 per cent of voters. Bad news for the Liberals.
Campbell has let down his own MLAs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure you should be grumpy about the money wasted in having eight MLAs fly in to Victoria for a pointless five-minute meeting.
But you should be grumpier that Gordon Campbell has broken his promise to give MLAs real power through active committees working on big issues. He used to be horrified that the NDP government didn't let the health and education committees meet. But now things aren't much different.
The health committee had been sidelined for a year when the legislature asked for a report on how to promote a healthier lifestyle, and whether the effort would pay off in savings. (A pretty good topic.) That was in December.
At the end of January, the committee met for 40 minutes and floundered. Their term officially expires March 31. There wasn't enough time to get anything done, they worried, especially on such a huge topic. Everyone went away to think.
And In February, the committee met again - for less than 10 minutes - and threw in the towel. Fuzzy mandate, no money, no time. Let's forget it.
New Democrat Joy MacPhail raised a good question. If the committee had already concluded it couldn't do anything, why waste money having people fly in for a non-meeting? A phone conference or email exchange could have saved taxpayers' money and MLAs time. "It's a waste of money," said MacPhail.
Point taken, said deputy chair Blair Suffredine. The meeting is adjourned.
The wasted money is irritating, but mistakes happen.
What's more irritating is that the committee didn't find some part of its mandate it could attack, some process it could start now that could continue after March 31 when the committee is re-appointed.
What a chance. Decide to look at automotive advertising, with cars racing along twisting highways or skidding across a desert, and how it affects young drivers. Or the relative sports participation rates in several communities, why they differ and whether the active communities have lower health care costs. Or why kids quit minor sports, or why seniors drop out of exercise programs. Just do something.
They aren't slackers, the 13 MLAs on the committee. Chair Susan Brice even said way back in April that she was disappointed the committee hadn't been given any assignment. If they thought they could have accomplished something useful, I expect they still would have gone ahead.
And that's the more serious problem. They didn't think their work would be useful; why else would they bail on the task?
Which leads back to the premier's promise to make legislature committees more effective. It hasn't happened and the direction has been backward since the Liberals' first year.
The aboriginal affairs committee, chaired by John Les, got the job of trying to come up with appropriate referendum questions. Its recommendations, made in November, 2001, were rejected. It hasn't done anything since, even though there is no shortage of issues to examine or MLAs with a keen interest.
The education committee was asked to do a general report in 2001. It has done nothing in the last two years. I've talked to MLAs with keen interest in improving results in rural schools, addressing key issues in the first years of school, developing work skills. Any one of those would be an appropriate issue for the committee to review, and produce recommendations.
And the health committee last met for any real purpose in 2002.
The promise was "a vital role in policy-making" for legislative committees, which would be able to travel the province. The reality is pretty much the status quo.
It's a loss. MLAs - from any party - know a lot about their community and bring commitment and a wide range of life experiences. The kind of committees Campbell promised - but hasn't delivered - would give them the chance to make a valuable contribution to policy development.
Footnote: MLAs point out that they play a strong role in caucus and in government caucus committees on health and other issues. But those meetings are generally secret. Backbenchers deserve a chance to be seen setting policy, and representing their communities. We are at a crisis in democracy in Canada; the premier has failed to follow through on a commitment that would help address the problem.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Budget '04: All in all, I'd hoped for better
Budget '04: All in all, I'd hoped for better
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Less than an hour to tell you something useful about the shopping bag full of binders I got in the budget lock-up.
First, despite some huge problems, I'd prefer this to the NDP budgets I covered. Ministries have come in on budget; the government is on plan. There is much to praise when people do what they said they would do.
Second, the budget is balanced. A lot can go wrong, and Finance Minister Gary Collins hasn't left his usual plump cushion. But it's a real and reasonable projection, without trickery.
And third, the LIberals deserve credit for having cut government spending in many areas wisely and without serious harm.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that the budget has been balanced by chopping spending, not improving the province's economy. The Liberal vision - clearly set out in the New Era platform - was that tax cuts would lead to increased economic activity which would allow government to provide needed services. The reality was that tax cuts knocked a huge whole in government revenues and didn't provide the promised economic growth. The march to a balanced budget was made to the tune of spending cuts, some damaging.
The Liberals previewed their election campaign with this budget. It talked a great deal about how much money would be flowing to health and education over the next three years. But a check of the fine print revealed the benefits wouldn't start to flow until the end of the three-year plan - after the next election.
Meanwhile, things will be very tight.
Health care spending across government is actually projected to go down slightly next year. Even in the direct health ministry patients will be squeezed by a budget that is currently virtually frozen. Within the next two months about $130 million in new federal money will be added, but that's still only a 1.5-per-cent increase. It would take at least three times that amount to keep pace with rising costs and population growth. The health authorities - already on the edge - are going to have a desperate struggle to maintain services.
The money available for education is increasing by less than one per cent next year, and while public school enrolments are falling, there's huge demand for post-secondary training. Costs and demand are going up, and the government isn't providing enough money to meet the need.
In fact the Liberals tightened the noose around post-secondary education. B.C. had provided about $30 million in grants to needy students. But the government killed the program Tuesday. Universities and colleges will get the money instead, with their existing budgets cut to offset the increase. Despite all the talk in the Throne Speech about increasing post-secondary places, the budget for the coming year has not been increased by one dollar.
The children and families Ministry also faces both a tough budget cut and major uncertainty. Another $70 million is to be lopped from spending this year, almost entirely from support for abused and neglected children. And the budget reveals that the shift to new regional authorities - which former minister Gordon Hogg thought could start in 2003 - may be delayed until 2007.
Finance Minister Gary Collins said the budget was "a turning point."
I don't buy that. The turning point will come when the B.C. economy becomes one of the strongest in Canada and throws off enough government revenue to allow creative investments in our long-term future. The problem with focus on cost-cutting - for government or business - is that you can cut your way to disaster. A company that doesn't invest in its new products, a province that doesn't invest in the next generation - both are foolish.
Politically, the challenge may be trust. Gordon Campbell has to go to the voters and convince them that he's ready to make their lives better when he gets the chance.
It's a tough sell.
Footnote: Sorry Heartlands, you're out of the picture. This budget offered little to indicate an awareness of the problems of the province's regions. A small amount for pine beetle and fire harvest, some money for offshore oil work, but much more for the Olympics and no time commitment on forest tenure reform.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Less than an hour to tell you something useful about the shopping bag full of binders I got in the budget lock-up.
First, despite some huge problems, I'd prefer this to the NDP budgets I covered. Ministries have come in on budget; the government is on plan. There is much to praise when people do what they said they would do.
Second, the budget is balanced. A lot can go wrong, and Finance Minister Gary Collins hasn't left his usual plump cushion. But it's a real and reasonable projection, without trickery.
And third, the LIberals deserve credit for having cut government spending in many areas wisely and without serious harm.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that the budget has been balanced by chopping spending, not improving the province's economy. The Liberal vision - clearly set out in the New Era platform - was that tax cuts would lead to increased economic activity which would allow government to provide needed services. The reality was that tax cuts knocked a huge whole in government revenues and didn't provide the promised economic growth. The march to a balanced budget was made to the tune of spending cuts, some damaging.
The Liberals previewed their election campaign with this budget. It talked a great deal about how much money would be flowing to health and education over the next three years. But a check of the fine print revealed the benefits wouldn't start to flow until the end of the three-year plan - after the next election.
Meanwhile, things will be very tight.
Health care spending across government is actually projected to go down slightly next year. Even in the direct health ministry patients will be squeezed by a budget that is currently virtually frozen. Within the next two months about $130 million in new federal money will be added, but that's still only a 1.5-per-cent increase. It would take at least three times that amount to keep pace with rising costs and population growth. The health authorities - already on the edge - are going to have a desperate struggle to maintain services.
The money available for education is increasing by less than one per cent next year, and while public school enrolments are falling, there's huge demand for post-secondary training. Costs and demand are going up, and the government isn't providing enough money to meet the need.
In fact the Liberals tightened the noose around post-secondary education. B.C. had provided about $30 million in grants to needy students. But the government killed the program Tuesday. Universities and colleges will get the money instead, with their existing budgets cut to offset the increase. Despite all the talk in the Throne Speech about increasing post-secondary places, the budget for the coming year has not been increased by one dollar.
The children and families Ministry also faces both a tough budget cut and major uncertainty. Another $70 million is to be lopped from spending this year, almost entirely from support for abused and neglected children. And the budget reveals that the shift to new regional authorities - which former minister Gordon Hogg thought could start in 2003 - may be delayed until 2007.
Finance Minister Gary Collins said the budget was "a turning point."
I don't buy that. The turning point will come when the B.C. economy becomes one of the strongest in Canada and throws off enough government revenue to allow creative investments in our long-term future. The problem with focus on cost-cutting - for government or business - is that you can cut your way to disaster. A company that doesn't invest in its new products, a province that doesn't invest in the next generation - both are foolish.
Politically, the challenge may be trust. Gordon Campbell has to go to the voters and convince them that he's ready to make their lives better when he gets the chance.
It's a tough sell.
Footnote: Sorry Heartlands, you're out of the picture. This budget offered little to indicate an awareness of the problems of the province's regions. A small amount for pine beetle and fire harvest, some money for offshore oil work, but much more for the Olympics and no time commitment on forest tenure reform.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Ottawa scandals stink, and smell's on Martin too
Ottawa scandals stink, and smell's on Martin too
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The federal government stole from you, just as surely as some petty criminal who breaks a window and takes your TV.
And Prime Minister Paul Martin's claim that he couldn't have known anything about all this is impossible to take seriously.
The scandal revealed by Auditor General Sheila Fraser was stunning, even if details have been trickling out for several years. The federal government shovelled out $250 million under a phony program aimed at promoting Canadian unity.
A huge amount of money -- perhaps $100 million -- went to Liberal friends and insiders, who were paid millions for doing no work, according to Fraser.
The RCMP, Canada Post, Via Rail, senior politicians and bureaucrats were all part of the rip-off. The scam continued over four years between 1997 and 2001, with every rule in the book broken, according to Fraser.
"Rules for selecting communications agencies, managing contracts and measuring and reporting results were broken or ignored," Fraser found.
"These violations were neither detected, prevented nor reported for over four years because of the almost total collapse of oversight mechanisms and essential controls."
Martin reacted with shock and horror. He fired former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, linked to the scandal, from his post as ambassador to Denmark and announced a judicial inquiry.
And then he started to offer his defense. Martin claimed this was all the result of a conspiracy by rogue criminal bureaucrats who set out -- for reasons unknown -- to shovel millions out the door so cleverly that no one knew what was happening.
But Martin was the finance minister. He was vice-chair of Treasury Board, the powerful cabinet committee that approves all government spending.
He was a political force, and a Liberal main man in Quebec, where most of the money was flowing. He had a network of operatives across the country.
Far be it from me to challenge Martin's claim to ignorance. But if he didn't know what was going on, he should have.
This wasn't some incredibly complicated computer fraud, or "a very sophisticated cover-up," as Martin described it. It was people crudely ripping off the taxpayers, faking invoices or sending out cheques for millions of dollars with no approvals at all.
Liberal-friendly companies were paid millions in commissions for tasks such as cashing a cheque and forwarding the money on to some organization.
And remember, this is the man who claims a keen business mind and sharp eye for waste. That doesn't reconcile well with his apparent blindness to the scam while he was the man running the government's finances.
Even $250 million isn't a large amount given the size of the federal budget. (Though Martin was also at the table as the gun registry cost climbed over $1 billion.)
But it's not small change, either. And it's the kind of expense that should send off alarm bells for any competent manager or director, in government or the private sector.
I'm not alone in my doubts. A poll taken in Quebec last week found 75 per cent of those surveyed believe Martin knew of irregularities in the sponsorship program. Only 13 per cent believed him when he says he was in the dark.
The record indicates Martin has hardly been a champion of openness and honesty. He voted against reforming the Access to Information Act to improve accountability; he voted against an independent ethics counsellor; he voted against an independent inquiry into the Human Resources Development scandal.
The question isn't just what Martin did or didn't know. It's what he could be reasonably expected to know, or ask about, as an experienced senior cabinet minister with a vast political network and a strong party base.
Until those questions are answered, it's offensive to think that the Liberals would go ahead with plans for a spring election. The public needs the facts before they vote on who will run the country for the next five years.
Footnote: The best political news for the Liberals is that the opposition remains in its own state of disarray. The new Conservative party is tied up in a clunky leadership campaign, and the New Democrats are still struggling to make a national impact. The scandal has handed both parties a golden opportunity.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The federal government stole from you, just as surely as some petty criminal who breaks a window and takes your TV.
And Prime Minister Paul Martin's claim that he couldn't have known anything about all this is impossible to take seriously.
The scandal revealed by Auditor General Sheila Fraser was stunning, even if details have been trickling out for several years. The federal government shovelled out $250 million under a phony program aimed at promoting Canadian unity.
A huge amount of money -- perhaps $100 million -- went to Liberal friends and insiders, who were paid millions for doing no work, according to Fraser.
The RCMP, Canada Post, Via Rail, senior politicians and bureaucrats were all part of the rip-off. The scam continued over four years between 1997 and 2001, with every rule in the book broken, according to Fraser.
"Rules for selecting communications agencies, managing contracts and measuring and reporting results were broken or ignored," Fraser found.
"These violations were neither detected, prevented nor reported for over four years because of the almost total collapse of oversight mechanisms and essential controls."
Martin reacted with shock and horror. He fired former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, linked to the scandal, from his post as ambassador to Denmark and announced a judicial inquiry.
And then he started to offer his defense. Martin claimed this was all the result of a conspiracy by rogue criminal bureaucrats who set out -- for reasons unknown -- to shovel millions out the door so cleverly that no one knew what was happening.
But Martin was the finance minister. He was vice-chair of Treasury Board, the powerful cabinet committee that approves all government spending.
He was a political force, and a Liberal main man in Quebec, where most of the money was flowing. He had a network of operatives across the country.
Far be it from me to challenge Martin's claim to ignorance. But if he didn't know what was going on, he should have.
This wasn't some incredibly complicated computer fraud, or "a very sophisticated cover-up," as Martin described it. It was people crudely ripping off the taxpayers, faking invoices or sending out cheques for millions of dollars with no approvals at all.
Liberal-friendly companies were paid millions in commissions for tasks such as cashing a cheque and forwarding the money on to some organization.
And remember, this is the man who claims a keen business mind and sharp eye for waste. That doesn't reconcile well with his apparent blindness to the scam while he was the man running the government's finances.
Even $250 million isn't a large amount given the size of the federal budget. (Though Martin was also at the table as the gun registry cost climbed over $1 billion.)
But it's not small change, either. And it's the kind of expense that should send off alarm bells for any competent manager or director, in government or the private sector.
I'm not alone in my doubts. A poll taken in Quebec last week found 75 per cent of those surveyed believe Martin knew of irregularities in the sponsorship program. Only 13 per cent believed him when he says he was in the dark.
The record indicates Martin has hardly been a champion of openness and honesty. He voted against reforming the Access to Information Act to improve accountability; he voted against an independent ethics counsellor; he voted against an independent inquiry into the Human Resources Development scandal.
The question isn't just what Martin did or didn't know. It's what he could be reasonably expected to know, or ask about, as an experienced senior cabinet minister with a vast political network and a strong party base.
Until those questions are answered, it's offensive to think that the Liberals would go ahead with plans for a spring election. The public needs the facts before they vote on who will run the country for the next five years.
Footnote: The best political news for the Liberals is that the opposition remains in its own state of disarray. The new Conservative party is tied up in a clunky leadership campaign, and the New Democrats are still struggling to make a national impact. The scandal has handed both parties a golden opportunity.
Fish farm probe, forest deal new worries for Liberals
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Mark March 26 on your calendar as the next potentially bad day for the Liberal government, and remember that you heard about the Lannan Forest here first.
Not, of course, if you live in spectacular central Vancouver Island, where you've followed the saga of the sale of a lovely plot of forest, owned by the government, to a Courtenay golf course developer.
It's a long, tangled story. But on March 26 we find out how well the government's willingness to sell Crown land without any public notice or bidding serves the taxpayer.
Land and Water BC was ready last year to sell the Lannan Forest to Crown Isle Golf and Resort Community, the neighbouring development. The land wasn't advertised; no one else knew it was available; bids weren't sought. The government and the developer agreed on a price, which has so far remained secret. (The minister responsible then was Stan Hagen, also the MLA for the area.)
But the sale didn't play well in the Comox Valley. The Lannan Forest was lovely, criss-crossed with well-used hiking trails. Residents weren't ready to see it become private property.
They couldn't block the sale. But the deal was conditional on the land being annexed into the city of Courtenay. The council said OK, but community groups launched a petition drive that drew more than enough signatures to force a referendum. The annexation was off.
And that's when the government decided - belatedly - on a competitive bidding process.
That closed in February. Crown Isle won, offering $1.1 million. A group of local residents, along with the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, offered $621,000 to save the land for the community.
And most taxpayers will likely think that's OK. The area isn't starved for parkland, and if the land can be sold that may be more useful for people living in the rest of the province. It's a local issue, and the people who live there will decide how much they miss the forest.
What I want to know is how much Crown Isle would have paid for the property under the deal negotiated quietly before the public got involved.
Competitive bidding got us $1.1 million for our land. If the negotiated price was less than that - and published reports have suggested $300,000 to $400,000 - then we would have lost a lot of money.
Land and Water BC plans to sell $65 million worth of our land this year. A spokesman said about five per cent of sales have been through direct contact, like the first Crown Isle deal. The perception of unfairness led the Crown corporation to change its policy and virtually eliminate the direct sales, he said.
The new Lannan Forest deal closes March 26, which is when the government should release the transaction details.
We should expect the details of the original deal at the same time. Beyond potential embarrassment, there's no commercial reason to keep secret what is effectively the preliminary bid of the ultimate buyer.
Meanwhile, Land and Water BC faces some other problems.
Auditor General Wayne Strelioff has just decided to review a government decision forgiving $2.3 million in back rent and penalties levied on aquaculture companies that moved outside their tenures without approval. Land and Water BC cancelled the debts and returned some payments in 2001, months after the Liberals were elected.
Sierra Legal Defence Fund uncovered the deal through a freedom of information request.
Premier Gordon Campbell says the penalties were cancelled because the NDP government had allowed a big backlog of tenure applications. It's not that convincing, given the companies' own slowness in filing even basic reports a the same time.
Strelioff is going back through the paper trail, to find out why the companies got the money back and if the rules were followed.
Neither the fish farm fine review nor the Lannan Forest disclosures are likely to bring good news for the government.
Footnote: The week's most bizarre news was the revelation that the government is investigating allegations a senior health ministry bureaucrat choked a staffer in a workplace dispute. Charges have been filed; the health deputy minister is investigating; and the government has yet another problem to explain.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Mark March 26 on your calendar as the next potentially bad day for the Liberal government, and remember that you heard about the Lannan Forest here first.
Not, of course, if you live in spectacular central Vancouver Island, where you've followed the saga of the sale of a lovely plot of forest, owned by the government, to a Courtenay golf course developer.
It's a long, tangled story. But on March 26 we find out how well the government's willingness to sell Crown land without any public notice or bidding serves the taxpayer.
Land and Water BC was ready last year to sell the Lannan Forest to Crown Isle Golf and Resort Community, the neighbouring development. The land wasn't advertised; no one else knew it was available; bids weren't sought. The government and the developer agreed on a price, which has so far remained secret. (The minister responsible then was Stan Hagen, also the MLA for the area.)
But the sale didn't play well in the Comox Valley. The Lannan Forest was lovely, criss-crossed with well-used hiking trails. Residents weren't ready to see it become private property.
They couldn't block the sale. But the deal was conditional on the land being annexed into the city of Courtenay. The council said OK, but community groups launched a petition drive that drew more than enough signatures to force a referendum. The annexation was off.
And that's when the government decided - belatedly - on a competitive bidding process.
That closed in February. Crown Isle won, offering $1.1 million. A group of local residents, along with the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, offered $621,000 to save the land for the community.
And most taxpayers will likely think that's OK. The area isn't starved for parkland, and if the land can be sold that may be more useful for people living in the rest of the province. It's a local issue, and the people who live there will decide how much they miss the forest.
What I want to know is how much Crown Isle would have paid for the property under the deal negotiated quietly before the public got involved.
Competitive bidding got us $1.1 million for our land. If the negotiated price was less than that - and published reports have suggested $300,000 to $400,000 - then we would have lost a lot of money.
Land and Water BC plans to sell $65 million worth of our land this year. A spokesman said about five per cent of sales have been through direct contact, like the first Crown Isle deal. The perception of unfairness led the Crown corporation to change its policy and virtually eliminate the direct sales, he said.
The new Lannan Forest deal closes March 26, which is when the government should release the transaction details.
We should expect the details of the original deal at the same time. Beyond potential embarrassment, there's no commercial reason to keep secret what is effectively the preliminary bid of the ultimate buyer.
Meanwhile, Land and Water BC faces some other problems.
Auditor General Wayne Strelioff has just decided to review a government decision forgiving $2.3 million in back rent and penalties levied on aquaculture companies that moved outside their tenures without approval. Land and Water BC cancelled the debts and returned some payments in 2001, months after the Liberals were elected.
Sierra Legal Defence Fund uncovered the deal through a freedom of information request.
Premier Gordon Campbell says the penalties were cancelled because the NDP government had allowed a big backlog of tenure applications. It's not that convincing, given the companies' own slowness in filing even basic reports a the same time.
Strelioff is going back through the paper trail, to find out why the companies got the money back and if the rules were followed.
Neither the fish farm fine review nor the Lannan Forest disclosures are likely to bring good news for the government.
Footnote: The week's most bizarre news was the revelation that the government is investigating allegations a senior health ministry bureaucrat choked a staffer in a workplace dispute. Charges have been filed; the health deputy minister is investigating; and the government has yet another problem to explain.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Not the Throne Speech Campbell expected
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It had to be kind of a bummer for Gordon Campbell to have to sit through the Throne Speech this week.
Not that Lt.-Gov. Iona Campagnolo mumbled or anything.
But after almost three years in power, Campbell likely expected things to be going much better. If the Liberals' plans had worked - and if they hadn't been hit with a lot of bad breaks - the economy would be humming now, government would be remade and the province's revenues would be growing enough to allow more spending on services.
It hasn't worked. So a government that faces an election campaign in 14 months finds itself doing a lot of talking about sacrifice - hardly a popular re-election plank - and how great things will be by 2010.
I'm oversimplifying, of course, but criticizing me for that would be like attacking the speech for vague optimism. Throne Speeches offer such a tremendously upbeat look at the world that if you could bottle the essence no one would ever bother with Prozac again. (Where else but a Throne Speech would you read about "the incredibly successful Action Schools program," apparently a better form of PE.)
There are some intriguing ideas. Campbell is going to host a series of roundtables "engaging B.C.'s families in a discussion about their hopes and aspirations." The idea is that participants will be chosen at random to sit down and talk with the premier about where the province should be going. It could be fascinating. (And it certainly can't hurt.)
The government plans a better effort on literacy, and pledges to create 25,000 more post secondary school places by 2010, the idea being that any high school grad with a 75-per-cent average will find a space. But the speech doesn't indicate whether the future grads will be able to afford tuition, given recent increases.
Last year's speech was big on the Heartlands. This year, two things leaped out.
First, the claim that only now "The New Era has begun." The election was apparently a false start, and the Liberals would like you to begin assessing them now.
And second, the appearance of the "Spirit of 2010," a ghostly spectre that's supposed to be leading us to the light.
A Spirit of 2010 tourism strategy is to be introduced later this year.
And Campbell will host the "Spirit of 2010 Business Summit" this spring, pulling businesses, investors and community leaders together to discuss Olympic development strategies and what needs to happen to cash in.
Both those things are great. The Olympics are a big opportunity, and it will take a lot of work to make sure the benefits spread beyond Vancouver and Whistler.
But it's tough to evoke a faint image of the province six years - and two elections from now - as a rallying point. I'm not sure if it's fair to expect fundamental change on a tighter schedule, but I don't make the rules.
Most of the rest of the Throne Speech was routine. The forest policy changes will finally get done; the land use plans for Lillooet and the Central Coast will finally be approved; the government will work harder at encouraging mining; funding for forest campsites is restored. Great, but this is what's expected from government. It's their job.
The Spirit of 2010 was one ghost. Another was the disillusionment lurking in the background, the people who wonder about tax cuts made with too little information, a children and families ministry in chaos and falling incomes. And a third was the knowledge that in a week Finance Minister Gary Collins is going to bring in a budget with deep cuts to most ministries.(Three ministries will cut more than 20 per cent of their spending. Another five must cut more than 10 per cent.)
It will be a testing year for Campbell and the Liberals. The most significant test comes on Tuesday, when they must demonstrate a sound plan to produce the first balanced budget since they were elected.
Footnote: Look for a quick rush of legislation from the Liberals, especially in the economic area. They need to grab the agenda or the NDP will be able to focus attention on the government's many problems.
LIberals right to abandon welfare time limits
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals credit for dropping their ill-conceived plan to start arbitrarily chopping people off welfare.
The government changed the law to bar people from collecting welfare for more than two years in any five-year period, with the first people to be cut off April 1.
They've been secretive about the impact, refusing to release their estimate of how many people and families would lose benefits.
Now, with six weeks to go until the first people are cut off , new Human Resources Minister Stan Hagen has released the estimates. In the first year 172 will be cut off welfare under the time limit rule; another 167 couples or families with children may have their welfare rates cut by $100 to $300 a month. (The sins of the father being quite literally visited on the children.)
But wait, you say, didn't I read that thousands of people would be cut off?
Indeed you did, and those estimates were probably accurate at the time.
The Liberals' plan started out with exemptions for a half-dozen categories of people who were considered unable to find work. Since then, the list of exempted groups has been steadily growing. By the time Hagen revealed the estimated impact, the exemptions had grown to 25.
Most critically, anyone who had an employment plan and was following it and looking for work wouldn't be cut off under the two-year rule, Hagen said. Since rules already allowed the government to cut off people who weren't looking for work, the reality is that noting has actually changed.
It's welcome about-face from the initial plan. (Although it means the government went through a great deal of time and money, created widespread fear and set communities into panic, all for a change that will save less than $300,000.)
Why the big change in plans?
Two factors are likely at play.
First, some Liberals started with the genuine belief that many welfare recipients are happy freeloaders choosing the dole over work. Time in government introduced them to the real world.
Welfare means a terrible life of struggle and suffering. People want to work to escape that life. But in a competitive job market, many simply can't find work. A person with the kind of problems that led them to welfare is often not the first choice of an employer.
We can do much more to help people on welfare find work, and even to push them forward. But the Liberal review should help help kill the myth of the welfare bum.
Out of 115,000 welfare recipients in the province, the government thinks about 350 people aren't making a good enough effort to find a job. (The Liberals had the same concerns about disability payments, and spent $3.5 million on a massive review that found 98 per cent of recipients were receiving appropriate benefits.)
And second, the government simply listened to those on the front lines who warned that cutting benefits to people who can't find work would just create crime, homelessness and problems. For that, they deserve credit.
The retreat creates some new problems though.
The Liberals' plans called for a major reduction in the number of people on welfare. The budget for people on temporary assistance was chopped by 35 per cent, from $699 million to $451 million this year. The plan calls for an even larger reduction in the budget due next week, part of the push for a balanced provincial budget.
But those savings would only have realized if a great many people had been pushed off welfare because of the time limit. And that is now apparently not going to happen.
The Liberals deserve credit for abandoning a bad idea. We're governed best by people who are willing to acknowledge mistakes, change course and move on. The process was inefficient, even destructive. But in the end, the government did the right thing.
Footnote: Credit should also go to the NDP government, and the Liberals, for successful efforts to help people make the transition from welfare. Increased emphasis on training and career support has proved effective in reducing the welfare rolls steadily since the mid-90s. Any investment in helping people escape welfare will be quickly repaid.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It had to be kind of a bummer for Gordon Campbell to have to sit through the Throne Speech this week.
Not that Lt.-Gov. Iona Campagnolo mumbled or anything.
But after almost three years in power, Campbell likely expected things to be going much better. If the Liberals' plans had worked - and if they hadn't been hit with a lot of bad breaks - the economy would be humming now, government would be remade and the province's revenues would be growing enough to allow more spending on services.
It hasn't worked. So a government that faces an election campaign in 14 months finds itself doing a lot of talking about sacrifice - hardly a popular re-election plank - and how great things will be by 2010.
I'm oversimplifying, of course, but criticizing me for that would be like attacking the speech for vague optimism. Throne Speeches offer such a tremendously upbeat look at the world that if you could bottle the essence no one would ever bother with Prozac again. (Where else but a Throne Speech would you read about "the incredibly successful Action Schools program," apparently a better form of PE.)
There are some intriguing ideas. Campbell is going to host a series of roundtables "engaging B.C.'s families in a discussion about their hopes and aspirations." The idea is that participants will be chosen at random to sit down and talk with the premier about where the province should be going. It could be fascinating. (And it certainly can't hurt.)
The government plans a better effort on literacy, and pledges to create 25,000 more post secondary school places by 2010, the idea being that any high school grad with a 75-per-cent average will find a space. But the speech doesn't indicate whether the future grads will be able to afford tuition, given recent increases.
Last year's speech was big on the Heartlands. This year, two things leaped out.
First, the claim that only now "The New Era has begun." The election was apparently a false start, and the Liberals would like you to begin assessing them now.
And second, the appearance of the "Spirit of 2010," a ghostly spectre that's supposed to be leading us to the light.
A Spirit of 2010 tourism strategy is to be introduced later this year.
And Campbell will host the "Spirit of 2010 Business Summit" this spring, pulling businesses, investors and community leaders together to discuss Olympic development strategies and what needs to happen to cash in.
Both those things are great. The Olympics are a big opportunity, and it will take a lot of work to make sure the benefits spread beyond Vancouver and Whistler.
But it's tough to evoke a faint image of the province six years - and two elections from now - as a rallying point. I'm not sure if it's fair to expect fundamental change on a tighter schedule, but I don't make the rules.
Most of the rest of the Throne Speech was routine. The forest policy changes will finally get done; the land use plans for Lillooet and the Central Coast will finally be approved; the government will work harder at encouraging mining; funding for forest campsites is restored. Great, but this is what's expected from government. It's their job.
The Spirit of 2010 was one ghost. Another was the disillusionment lurking in the background, the people who wonder about tax cuts made with too little information, a children and families ministry in chaos and falling incomes. And a third was the knowledge that in a week Finance Minister Gary Collins is going to bring in a budget with deep cuts to most ministries.(Three ministries will cut more than 20 per cent of their spending. Another five must cut more than 10 per cent.)
It will be a testing year for Campbell and the Liberals. The most significant test comes on Tuesday, when they must demonstrate a sound plan to produce the first balanced budget since they were elected.
Footnote: Look for a quick rush of legislation from the Liberals, especially in the economic area. They need to grab the agenda or the NDP will be able to focus attention on the government's many problems.
LIberals right to abandon welfare time limits
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals credit for dropping their ill-conceived plan to start arbitrarily chopping people off welfare.
The government changed the law to bar people from collecting welfare for more than two years in any five-year period, with the first people to be cut off April 1.
They've been secretive about the impact, refusing to release their estimate of how many people and families would lose benefits.
Now, with six weeks to go until the first people are cut off , new Human Resources Minister Stan Hagen has released the estimates. In the first year 172 will be cut off welfare under the time limit rule; another 167 couples or families with children may have their welfare rates cut by $100 to $300 a month. (The sins of the father being quite literally visited on the children.)
But wait, you say, didn't I read that thousands of people would be cut off?
Indeed you did, and those estimates were probably accurate at the time.
The Liberals' plan started out with exemptions for a half-dozen categories of people who were considered unable to find work. Since then, the list of exempted groups has been steadily growing. By the time Hagen revealed the estimated impact, the exemptions had grown to 25.
Most critically, anyone who had an employment plan and was following it and looking for work wouldn't be cut off under the two-year rule, Hagen said. Since rules already allowed the government to cut off people who weren't looking for work, the reality is that noting has actually changed.
It's welcome about-face from the initial plan. (Although it means the government went through a great deal of time and money, created widespread fear and set communities into panic, all for a change that will save less than $300,000.)
Why the big change in plans?
Two factors are likely at play.
First, some Liberals started with the genuine belief that many welfare recipients are happy freeloaders choosing the dole over work. Time in government introduced them to the real world.
Welfare means a terrible life of struggle and suffering. People want to work to escape that life. But in a competitive job market, many simply can't find work. A person with the kind of problems that led them to welfare is often not the first choice of an employer.
We can do much more to help people on welfare find work, and even to push them forward. But the Liberal review should help help kill the myth of the welfare bum.
Out of 115,000 welfare recipients in the province, the government thinks about 350 people aren't making a good enough effort to find a job. (The Liberals had the same concerns about disability payments, and spent $3.5 million on a massive review that found 98 per cent of recipients were receiving appropriate benefits.)
And second, the government simply listened to those on the front lines who warned that cutting benefits to people who can't find work would just create crime, homelessness and problems. For that, they deserve credit.
The retreat creates some new problems though.
The Liberals' plans called for a major reduction in the number of people on welfare. The budget for people on temporary assistance was chopped by 35 per cent, from $699 million to $451 million this year. The plan calls for an even larger reduction in the budget due next week, part of the push for a balanced provincial budget.
But those savings would only have realized if a great many people had been pushed off welfare because of the time limit. And that is now apparently not going to happen.
The Liberals deserve credit for abandoning a bad idea. We're governed best by people who are willing to acknowledge mistakes, change course and move on. The process was inefficient, even destructive. But in the end, the government did the right thing.
Footnote: Credit should also go to the NDP government, and the Liberals, for successful efforts to help people make the transition from welfare. Increased emphasis on training and career support has proved effective in reducing the welfare rolls steadily since the mid-90s. Any investment in helping people escape welfare will be quickly repaid.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Forget Janet Jackson's breast, worry about Jerry Springer
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I tried to avoid writing about Janet Jackson's right breast, I really did.
I mean, how big a deal is it when a pop star flashes a breast for a few seconds, especially in the middle of the Superbowl, an event celebrating excess in every form, from the size of the players and the violence of their crashes to the outrageousness of the TV commercials and the ludicrousness of the half-time spectacle?
It was a real big deal, apparently.
I watched much of the game, even the half-time show, but was puttering around at the same time. Driven to inattention by Justin Timberlake, the ex-boy bandster, I missed the flash seen round the world. (Although as a man of the world I have seen breasts, both right and left, before.)
And then everyone went nuts. Timberlake and Jackson started talking about wardrobe malfunction, as if NASA had been involved. Jackson's name became the most searched Internet topic of all time, showing that a lot of people missed the flash and wanted to see one of her breasts. CBS and MTV started running for cover. Cameron Diaz, Timberlake's current steady, was supposedly peeved.
The American government acted the wackiest. FCC chair Michael Powell - the chief broadcast regulator - promised a quick investigation into the half-time show for violating indecency rules. "I personally was offended by the entire production, and I think that most of the complaints we have received are much broader than just the final incident," he said. A team of experts will be digging into the whole affair to find out just how far the rot has spread, he said.
I don't think people should flash during a football game, even the players. After all, the scantily clad cheerleaders don't deserve competition.
But anyone who thinks Janet Jackson's right breast is the big outrage on TV either hasn't been paying attention or is crazier than a loon.
I'd rather any children of my acquaintance sit through 100 Superbowl hide-and-go-peep shows than watch one day of Jerry Springer and his assorted companions on afternoon TV. (Shows that have drawn not a single investigation from Powell and the other guardians.)
Janet Jackson taught the kids at home that pop stars wear strange clothes, and are willing to shed bits of them for the sake of a career boost. Hardly shocking, or damaging.
But every afternoon Springer and company teach them that people are cruel, stupid, abusive, dishonest, mistrustful and violent. Worse, the shows teach them that a really good time can be had by dragging the most wrecked people on a stage and shrieking abuse at them. (Moms who are angry because their daughters dress like sluts, dads who get paternity test results on stage, people who regularly rip off their own clothes, or someone else's, are restrained by a beefy security guard and left to alternately sob hysterically and swear wildly while the audience boos.)
The daily damage to any sense of human dignity - at a time when kids are watching TV - is astonishing.
Likewise, I'd sit a class of kids down in front of Jackson's finale several dozen times before I'd let them watch pro wrestling, which celebrates an ultra-violence and sex fantasyland out of A Clockwork Orange. I'm not a prude, and am fiercely anti-censorship, but I'm astonished parents haven't boycotted WWE and its ilk into late-night time slots. Implants for the women, steroids for the men and a steady routine of sexism and merciless beatings - aimed at kids.
Jackson flashed one breast, out of some 12 billion out there. Inappropriate for afternoon TV, sure, even in an event so insanely over the top as the SuperBowl, which opened with a tribute to the space shuttle crew that burned up on re-entry last year.
But cause for this kind of global uproar? Not a chance.
Let it go. It's just a breast.
Footnote: Meanwhile in Canada more viewers were worried about a beer commercial that showed - oh, the horror - two women kissing, according to the CRTC. That may be a sleazy way to try to get guys to down more beers, but it doesn't seem like a major crime. Kisses are, when welcomed, a good thing. (I missed that commercial too, proving, that it makes more sense to advertise in your local newspaper.)
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I tried to avoid writing about Janet Jackson's right breast, I really did.
I mean, how big a deal is it when a pop star flashes a breast for a few seconds, especially in the middle of the Superbowl, an event celebrating excess in every form, from the size of the players and the violence of their crashes to the outrageousness of the TV commercials and the ludicrousness of the half-time spectacle?
It was a real big deal, apparently.
I watched much of the game, even the half-time show, but was puttering around at the same time. Driven to inattention by Justin Timberlake, the ex-boy bandster, I missed the flash seen round the world. (Although as a man of the world I have seen breasts, both right and left, before.)
And then everyone went nuts. Timberlake and Jackson started talking about wardrobe malfunction, as if NASA had been involved. Jackson's name became the most searched Internet topic of all time, showing that a lot of people missed the flash and wanted to see one of her breasts. CBS and MTV started running for cover. Cameron Diaz, Timberlake's current steady, was supposedly peeved.
The American government acted the wackiest. FCC chair Michael Powell - the chief broadcast regulator - promised a quick investigation into the half-time show for violating indecency rules. "I personally was offended by the entire production, and I think that most of the complaints we have received are much broader than just the final incident," he said. A team of experts will be digging into the whole affair to find out just how far the rot has spread, he said.
I don't think people should flash during a football game, even the players. After all, the scantily clad cheerleaders don't deserve competition.
But anyone who thinks Janet Jackson's right breast is the big outrage on TV either hasn't been paying attention or is crazier than a loon.
I'd rather any children of my acquaintance sit through 100 Superbowl hide-and-go-peep shows than watch one day of Jerry Springer and his assorted companions on afternoon TV. (Shows that have drawn not a single investigation from Powell and the other guardians.)
Janet Jackson taught the kids at home that pop stars wear strange clothes, and are willing to shed bits of them for the sake of a career boost. Hardly shocking, or damaging.
But every afternoon Springer and company teach them that people are cruel, stupid, abusive, dishonest, mistrustful and violent. Worse, the shows teach them that a really good time can be had by dragging the most wrecked people on a stage and shrieking abuse at them. (Moms who are angry because their daughters dress like sluts, dads who get paternity test results on stage, people who regularly rip off their own clothes, or someone else's, are restrained by a beefy security guard and left to alternately sob hysterically and swear wildly while the audience boos.)
The daily damage to any sense of human dignity - at a time when kids are watching TV - is astonishing.
Likewise, I'd sit a class of kids down in front of Jackson's finale several dozen times before I'd let them watch pro wrestling, which celebrates an ultra-violence and sex fantasyland out of A Clockwork Orange. I'm not a prude, and am fiercely anti-censorship, but I'm astonished parents haven't boycotted WWE and its ilk into late-night time slots. Implants for the women, steroids for the men and a steady routine of sexism and merciless beatings - aimed at kids.
Jackson flashed one breast, out of some 12 billion out there. Inappropriate for afternoon TV, sure, even in an event so insanely over the top as the SuperBowl, which opened with a tribute to the space shuttle crew that burned up on re-entry last year.
But cause for this kind of global uproar? Not a chance.
Let it go. It's just a breast.
Footnote: Meanwhile in Canada more viewers were worried about a beer commercial that showed - oh, the horror - two women kissing, according to the CRTC. That may be a sleazy way to try to get guys to down more beers, but it doesn't seem like a major crime. Kisses are, when welcomed, a good thing. (I missed that commercial too, proving, that it makes more sense to advertise in your local newspaper.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
