VICTORIA - I'm guessing Conservative leader Stephen Harper is badly out of step with most Canadians on defence spending - just as he was when he wanted to join the war on Iraq.
Harper wants to increase military spending by 10 per cent immediately, an extra $1.2 billion a year.
Over time a Conservative government would increase military spending by $8 billion a year, he says, a 67-per-cent jump. We'd hire more soldiers, pushing the ranks from the current 52,000 to 80,000, and sink money into new equipment.
Canadians should ensure that the military has the resources to do the work that we ask them to do. That has not always been true, and it's wrong to send people off on potentially dangerous missions with outdated equipment.
But Canada spends $12 billion a year on its armed forces - about $400 per capita. And despite the efforts of a strong defence lobby, most polls show that Canadians think the spending priority should be health care or other programs to improve our quality of life.
It's easy to pluck statistics from the air to prove that Canada spends too little, or too much, on the military. Most comparable countries spend a significantly larger share of their GDP on their military. And Liberal governments did sharply reduce military spending through the '90s to elminate the deficit.
But Canada still ranks 16th on a list of 160 countries around the world in defence spending. We're 11th out of 19 in spending among NATO countries. The number of troops puts us in the top third of European and North American countries.
For an alleged fiscal conservative, Mr. Harper's posiiton is surprising.
Because surely before we introduce massive military spending increase, we need to decide what we want our military to do.
The current mission includes three tasks - protecting Canada, defending North America in co-operation with the U.S. and contributing to peace and international security.
Protecting Canada - and North America - against who, exactly? There's no evidence of any conventional military threats (and despite the fears, there's also little evidence of any real terrorist threats).
And there is even less evidence that the best way to deal with the threats of the new century is by increasing the number of conventional troops, or spending billions on arms programs - like the Navy's $10-billion frigates - that appear firmly aimed at the issues of the past.
It's laudable that the military has a goal of contributing to peace and international security.
But what is the best way of accomplishing that goal? Today we have fewer than 4,000 troops overseas - 2,200 in Afghanistan, 200 in the Mideast, 500 in Haiti, 655 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's difficult, dangerous work. It is also a small component of what Canada's military does, and one that could be handled within the current budget. (Or certainly without a 67-per-cent increase.)
And perhaps an extra $8 billion a year could be used much more effectively to build peace and security. Supporting health care in struggling countries, or providing assistance in developing an economic infrastructure and effective market economy might be much more effective. (Accepting the reality that sometimes people with guns are the only thing standing between chaos and security.)
It all seems very risky political ground for Mr. Harper, who is the only leader proposing major military spending increases.
For he is also the only leader who - based on his statements at the time - would have sent Canadian troops to join the war on Iraq. Mr. Harper placed a priority on standing with the U.S., even without UN support for an invasion, and believed the claims of imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction.
If he had been prime minister, Canadian troops would now be in Iraq. Some would already have died.
In a campign where the parties have much in common, that's a defining difference.
And it is likely one that many Canadians will remember as they assess the parties' position on the role - and cost - of the military.
- From the Vancouver Sun, June 5
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Thursday, June 03, 2004
The Ramsey horror: inquiry needed into whole affair
VICTORIA - There's no way former judge David Ramsey's jail sentence for sexually assaulting and beating girls and young women girls should end this case.
Ramsey's actions were inhuman. He preyed on young aboriginal sex trade workers and then sat in judgment on them in his Prince George courtroom.
One girl was 12 when Ramsey picked her up and paid her for sex. Three months later, he sat on the bench as the girl was brought before him to face minor charges.
And weeks after that hearing - when he had learned of her age, her past sexual abuse, her hard life, her vulnerability - Ramsey recognized her and picked her up again. That time, he paid for rough sex that ended when she fled.
"Go ahead, tell someone," Ramsey told the child. "No one will believe you - once a whore, always a whore."
He was very nearly right. The abuse started in 1992. The RCMP heard rumours of a bad judge in 1999 - although it's hard to see how the information wouldn't have been floating around in a town of 80,000 much earlier.
But even with the specific and persistent rumours, it took three years for the police to identify the judge and lay charges. The officer in charge said they just had rumours to work with, and other cases to investigate.
In fact the case didn't really move forward until another of the victims, appearing before Ramsey in a hearing that would decide whether she could have custody of her child, collapsed outside court and agreed to testify against him.
Attorney General Geoff Plant said the government will review Ramsey's decisions. That's appropriate. Ramsey made decisions affecting these young women. He sentenced other people for sexually abusing young girls, and for pimping - and then went out and preyed on other women.
But it is not nearly enough.
First Nations want a full inquiry, and they are absolutely right.
The RCMP need to explain exactly what they heard, when and what they did about it. The public needs to know how this could continue for at least eight years. Where were the social agencies who worked with the girls? Why were children able to sell themselves on the streets of a small city? Are there more victims? (Native health workers have said they have heard from another 16 girls with similar stories.)
And how did the fact that the girls were aboriginal and sex trade workers affect the handling of this case?
It's not an isolated incident.
Similar concerns have been expressed about the Vancouver missing women's case, including complaints that police were given warnings that should have raised alarms much earlier.
But sex trade workers don't count as much as the rest of us. No reasonable person could believe that if 50 women from Vancouver's suburbs had gone missing over the same period much more would have been done by police. (And much more attention would have been paid by the media.).
It's tempting to call for a much broader inquiry. First Nations' leaders have complained of a two-tier standard of justice which treats crimes against aboriginals less seriously. Sex trade workers - and remember, prostitution is not illegal - have raised similar concerns.
But looking at those broad issues through a formal inquiry would likely be long, costly and inconclusive.
Instead, et's get answers to how this happened in Prince George, through a public inquiry with the power to call witnesses and compel them to testify. Let's give everyone in the community a chance to come forward and tell what they know.
Ramsey counted on the powerlessness of his victims, which is in turn a product of our willingness to pretend they just don't exist as people, as someone's lost children.
If there is no inquiry, we are saying that he was right. We don't care.
Ramsey's actions were inhuman. He preyed on young aboriginal sex trade workers and then sat in judgment on them in his Prince George courtroom.
One girl was 12 when Ramsey picked her up and paid her for sex. Three months later, he sat on the bench as the girl was brought before him to face minor charges.
And weeks after that hearing - when he had learned of her age, her past sexual abuse, her hard life, her vulnerability - Ramsey recognized her and picked her up again. That time, he paid for rough sex that ended when she fled.
"Go ahead, tell someone," Ramsey told the child. "No one will believe you - once a whore, always a whore."
He was very nearly right. The abuse started in 1992. The RCMP heard rumours of a bad judge in 1999 - although it's hard to see how the information wouldn't have been floating around in a town of 80,000 much earlier.
But even with the specific and persistent rumours, it took three years for the police to identify the judge and lay charges. The officer in charge said they just had rumours to work with, and other cases to investigate.
In fact the case didn't really move forward until another of the victims, appearing before Ramsey in a hearing that would decide whether she could have custody of her child, collapsed outside court and agreed to testify against him.
Attorney General Geoff Plant said the government will review Ramsey's decisions. That's appropriate. Ramsey made decisions affecting these young women. He sentenced other people for sexually abusing young girls, and for pimping - and then went out and preyed on other women.
But it is not nearly enough.
First Nations want a full inquiry, and they are absolutely right.
The RCMP need to explain exactly what they heard, when and what they did about it. The public needs to know how this could continue for at least eight years. Where were the social agencies who worked with the girls? Why were children able to sell themselves on the streets of a small city? Are there more victims? (Native health workers have said they have heard from another 16 girls with similar stories.)
And how did the fact that the girls were aboriginal and sex trade workers affect the handling of this case?
It's not an isolated incident.
Similar concerns have been expressed about the Vancouver missing women's case, including complaints that police were given warnings that should have raised alarms much earlier.
But sex trade workers don't count as much as the rest of us. No reasonable person could believe that if 50 women from Vancouver's suburbs had gone missing over the same period much more would have been done by police. (And much more attention would have been paid by the media.).
It's tempting to call for a much broader inquiry. First Nations' leaders have complained of a two-tier standard of justice which treats crimes against aboriginals less seriously. Sex trade workers - and remember, prostitution is not illegal - have raised similar concerns.
But looking at those broad issues through a formal inquiry would likely be long, costly and inconclusive.
Instead, et's get answers to how this happened in Prince George, through a public inquiry with the power to call witnesses and compel them to testify. Let's give everyone in the community a chance to come forward and tell what they know.
Ramsey counted on the powerlessness of his victims, which is in turn a product of our willingness to pretend they just don't exist as people, as someone's lost children.
If there is no inquiry, we are saying that he was right. We don't care.
What's wrong with B.C's economy - maybe it's you
Whatever you do, my partner says to me, don’t call us lazy. Okay. British Columbians are not lazy. We just don’t work as hard at our jobs as other people, that’s all. We come up a bit short in the drive department, you might say. We care about quality of life, not crass success. We lead balanced lives, not like those workaholics in Toronto. Which is all very nice. But if you really want to know why B.C. under-performed for two decades, then put down this magazine and go look in the mirror.
- A look at the kind of people who end up in B.C., and why we doom the province to be an economic also-ran.
Pick up this month's BC Business magazine for the complete article.
- A look at the kind of people who end up in B.C., and why we doom the province to be an economic also-ran.
Pick up this month's BC Business magazine for the complete article.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
BCMA wait-list campaign a sure winner with public
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals full marks for avoiding a pre-election battle with the BC Nurses Union.
But don't bet any money on them being quite so successful with the doctors.
The deal with the nurses works for both sides. The union and government have agreed on no changes to wages and benefits. If they can't reach agreement on other issues, the old contract will roll over for another two years.
It's not going to be so easy with the BC Medical Association, which has already launched its PR campaign.
The doctors' agreement expired March 31. A conciliation panel will recommend a settlement. If government says no, doctors are free to launch job action.
From the outside, a deal looks possible. Doctors say they'll accept no fee increases for the first two years of a deal. But while the amount a doctor is paid for fixing a hip wouldn't go up, they do want more money budgeted so the same doctor could fix more hips (and make more money).
It's a pretty good pitch, because it puts doctors and the public on the same side. More new hips means shorter waiting lists.
So far, the government isn't buying. Health Minister Colin Hansen says the doctors are the highest paid in Canada and their funding went up 21-per-cent over three years in the last deal. They should do more surgeries without extra pay. The budget stays frozen.
It's going to be a tough line to hold. Money is available - from Ottawa, and from health sector wage cuts. And the public is likely to accept the idea that someone doing more work should get more money.
The BCMA is certainly off to a fast start in trying for that support. The doctors have been running newspaper ads noting that waiting times for surgery have increased under the Liberals. They commissioned a poll by Ipsos-Reid that confirmed that people feel they are waiting too long and are worried. (It also revealed the Liberals' fatal weakness in this dispute, as we'll see.)
The poll found 91 per cent of British Columbians are concerned about the waiting time for surgery, with 66 per cent "very concerned." Only 40 per cent say they're very concerned about health care costs, the priority the Liberals will be forced to defend.
The BCMA has also launched a campaign for wait list guarantees. Doctors note that the median wait for knee replacement has increased from 21 weeks to 30 weeks since the election; for cardiac surgery the median wait has climbed from 13 to 18 weeks. The wait is longer for almost every procedure.
The BCMA says government should establish a maximum wait time for each procedure. If the system can't deliver, the government commits to paying for an operation outside the province or coming up with some other solution to honour the guarantee
Saskatchewan has already started such a program, and other countries have made them work. Patients at least know where they stand (or lie in pain) and we can have an honest public debate about how long we are prepared to make people wait in the name of cost control.
It's going to be tough for the government to explain why that kind of commitment can't be made in B.C. - especially when 88 per cent of those polled supported the idea.
In fact, it will be tough for the government period. This dispute will come down to a question of who the public supports, doctors or politicians. And doctors almost always win.
The poll asked who should be believed when making pronouncements on how to manage health care. Almost 90 per cent of respondents found their family doctor believable; 77 per cent believed the BCMA. But only 44 per cent found Health Minister Colin Hansen believable. Only 37 per cent said they would believe Gordon Campbell.
If this turns into a battle for public support, the government has already lost.
Footnote:The poll highlighted Campbell's credibility problem. It found 38 per cent of those surveyed found him "not at all believable" as a source of information on managing health care. Hansen fared much better - only 21 per cent found him to be completely lacking in credibility.
But don't bet any money on them being quite so successful with the doctors.
The deal with the nurses works for both sides. The union and government have agreed on no changes to wages and benefits. If they can't reach agreement on other issues, the old contract will roll over for another two years.
It's not going to be so easy with the BC Medical Association, which has already launched its PR campaign.
The doctors' agreement expired March 31. A conciliation panel will recommend a settlement. If government says no, doctors are free to launch job action.
From the outside, a deal looks possible. Doctors say they'll accept no fee increases for the first two years of a deal. But while the amount a doctor is paid for fixing a hip wouldn't go up, they do want more money budgeted so the same doctor could fix more hips (and make more money).
It's a pretty good pitch, because it puts doctors and the public on the same side. More new hips means shorter waiting lists.
So far, the government isn't buying. Health Minister Colin Hansen says the doctors are the highest paid in Canada and their funding went up 21-per-cent over three years in the last deal. They should do more surgeries without extra pay. The budget stays frozen.
It's going to be a tough line to hold. Money is available - from Ottawa, and from health sector wage cuts. And the public is likely to accept the idea that someone doing more work should get more money.
The BCMA is certainly off to a fast start in trying for that support. The doctors have been running newspaper ads noting that waiting times for surgery have increased under the Liberals. They commissioned a poll by Ipsos-Reid that confirmed that people feel they are waiting too long and are worried. (It also revealed the Liberals' fatal weakness in this dispute, as we'll see.)
The poll found 91 per cent of British Columbians are concerned about the waiting time for surgery, with 66 per cent "very concerned." Only 40 per cent say they're very concerned about health care costs, the priority the Liberals will be forced to defend.
The BCMA has also launched a campaign for wait list guarantees. Doctors note that the median wait for knee replacement has increased from 21 weeks to 30 weeks since the election; for cardiac surgery the median wait has climbed from 13 to 18 weeks. The wait is longer for almost every procedure.
The BCMA says government should establish a maximum wait time for each procedure. If the system can't deliver, the government commits to paying for an operation outside the province or coming up with some other solution to honour the guarantee
Saskatchewan has already started such a program, and other countries have made them work. Patients at least know where they stand (or lie in pain) and we can have an honest public debate about how long we are prepared to make people wait in the name of cost control.
It's going to be tough for the government to explain why that kind of commitment can't be made in B.C. - especially when 88 per cent of those polled supported the idea.
In fact, it will be tough for the government period. This dispute will come down to a question of who the public supports, doctors or politicians. And doctors almost always win.
The poll asked who should be believed when making pronouncements on how to manage health care. Almost 90 per cent of respondents found their family doctor believable; 77 per cent believed the BCMA. But only 44 per cent found Health Minister Colin Hansen believable. Only 37 per cent said they would believe Gordon Campbell.
If this turns into a battle for public support, the government has already lost.
Footnote:The poll highlighted Campbell's credibility problem. It found 38 per cent of those surveyed found him "not at all believable" as a source of information on managing health care. Hansen fared much better - only 21 per cent found him to be completely lacking in credibility.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Cabinet follies; James risky business; and the Liberals go green
VICTORIA - Random notes from the somewhat quieter halls of power.
The Liberals need to either abandon the great open cabinet meeting experiment, or decide to do it right.
This week's televised meeting was useful enough, an extended public service announcement warning about that only you can prevent forest fires and drought. A succession of cabinet minister stressed the serious risk of both this year, even greater than during last year's disastrous summer. They made good points about the need to be careful in the woods, and use less water.
But it sure wasn't - I hope - a cabinet meeting. The ministers read long speeches. Environment Minister Bill Barisoff had some 700 bottles of water lugged in to show how much water an average British Columbians uses each day. No decisions were actually made. If that's how cabinet meetings work, we're in trouble.
The Liberals promised a monthly open, televised meeting to show how government works.
It was a good idea, even accepting that there would be stage management. No one should expect spirited public battles (although it would do a great deal to reassure voters if they did see cabinet ministers challenging each other and asking hard questions).
But the reality has been show-and-tell sessions, with this week's the most obvious example. It's time for the government to start doing it right, or abandon the idea.
The biggest winner out of the meetings so far has been Pro Show, the company that provided stage management - sound systems, lights, slide shows - for the Liberals' election campaign. The company was also hired to stage the open cabinet meetings, a contract worth about $25,000 a pop. There was a competition this year for the contract, but it was tilted heavily to ensure the Liberals' campaign technical team got the job.
NDP leader Carole James hit the campaign trail with federal leader Jack Layton this week, a risky decision.
Provincial and federal politics mix badly in B.C. (Just ask federal Environment Minister David Anderson, who has been slagging the Campbell Liberals in order to establish the difference.)
James is running to form a government, which means she needs policies that will attract broad support. Layton is running to win a couple of dozen seats at best, which means he needs to appeal to a much tinier group and motivate them to get out and vote.
The risk for James is that her endorsement of Layton's policies - like an inheritance tax, which most economists agree is a bad way to raise money - will move her to the margins in B.C.
It's a risk the Liberals hope to exploit, with one press release already accusing James of guilt by association on the inheritance tax idea.
Bad news for fading federal Liberal star candidate Dave Haggard, the IWA head, as the campaign unfolds. Haggard and the IWA have been helping the provincial Liberals privatize health care jobs by signing favorable contracts with the new private companies taking over the work, and forcing employees to accept them - and agree to pay IWA dues - before they are hired.
The Labor Relations Board has just ruled the union certifications are bogus, because employees had no right to decide if they wanted a union, or which one, and no chance to vote on the contracts (which slashed wages and benefits).
The Liberals were getting grudging credit from enviros this week for killing a plan for an open-pit coal mine close to the U.S. border in the Fernie area. Mines Minister Richard Neufeld made the announcement last week, finishing off a project that would have provided 1,500 direct and indirect jobs.
U.S. opposition was a big factor. Montana environmental groups were gearing up for a fight, and state politicians had even got U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa.
But MLA Bill Bennett had also raised concerns from people in his riding that the mine would be risky in an environmentally sensitive area that's needed for grizzly habitat.
Footnote: Best line at the open cabinet meeting came from Gordon Campbell. When Finance Minister Gary Collins asked how much rain would be needed to ease the drought, Campbell jumped in to say probably 40 days and 40 nights, a wry reference to the series of Biblical type plagues and catastrophes that have beset the Liberals.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
The Liberals need to either abandon the great open cabinet meeting experiment, or decide to do it right.
This week's televised meeting was useful enough, an extended public service announcement warning about that only you can prevent forest fires and drought. A succession of cabinet minister stressed the serious risk of both this year, even greater than during last year's disastrous summer. They made good points about the need to be careful in the woods, and use less water.
But it sure wasn't - I hope - a cabinet meeting. The ministers read long speeches. Environment Minister Bill Barisoff had some 700 bottles of water lugged in to show how much water an average British Columbians uses each day. No decisions were actually made. If that's how cabinet meetings work, we're in trouble.
The Liberals promised a monthly open, televised meeting to show how government works.
It was a good idea, even accepting that there would be stage management. No one should expect spirited public battles (although it would do a great deal to reassure voters if they did see cabinet ministers challenging each other and asking hard questions).
But the reality has been show-and-tell sessions, with this week's the most obvious example. It's time for the government to start doing it right, or abandon the idea.
The biggest winner out of the meetings so far has been Pro Show, the company that provided stage management - sound systems, lights, slide shows - for the Liberals' election campaign. The company was also hired to stage the open cabinet meetings, a contract worth about $25,000 a pop. There was a competition this year for the contract, but it was tilted heavily to ensure the Liberals' campaign technical team got the job.
NDP leader Carole James hit the campaign trail with federal leader Jack Layton this week, a risky decision.
Provincial and federal politics mix badly in B.C. (Just ask federal Environment Minister David Anderson, who has been slagging the Campbell Liberals in order to establish the difference.)
James is running to form a government, which means she needs policies that will attract broad support. Layton is running to win a couple of dozen seats at best, which means he needs to appeal to a much tinier group and motivate them to get out and vote.
The risk for James is that her endorsement of Layton's policies - like an inheritance tax, which most economists agree is a bad way to raise money - will move her to the margins in B.C.
It's a risk the Liberals hope to exploit, with one press release already accusing James of guilt by association on the inheritance tax idea.
Bad news for fading federal Liberal star candidate Dave Haggard, the IWA head, as the campaign unfolds. Haggard and the IWA have been helping the provincial Liberals privatize health care jobs by signing favorable contracts with the new private companies taking over the work, and forcing employees to accept them - and agree to pay IWA dues - before they are hired.
The Labor Relations Board has just ruled the union certifications are bogus, because employees had no right to decide if they wanted a union, or which one, and no chance to vote on the contracts (which slashed wages and benefits).
The Liberals were getting grudging credit from enviros this week for killing a plan for an open-pit coal mine close to the U.S. border in the Fernie area. Mines Minister Richard Neufeld made the announcement last week, finishing off a project that would have provided 1,500 direct and indirect jobs.
U.S. opposition was a big factor. Montana environmental groups were gearing up for a fight, and state politicians had even got U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa.
But MLA Bill Bennett had also raised concerns from people in his riding that the mine would be risky in an environmentally sensitive area that's needed for grizzly habitat.
Footnote: Best line at the open cabinet meeting came from Gordon Campbell. When Finance Minister Gary Collins asked how much rain would be needed to ease the drought, Campbell jumped in to say probably 40 days and 40 nights, a wry reference to the series of Biblical type plagues and catastrophes that have beset the Liberals.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Friday, May 28, 2004
Politicians' decisions - and ours - do bring death
VICTORIA - Paul Martin rolled into Victoria this week, planning to talk about health care but ending up defending himself from Jack Layton's charge that he'd caused 100 people to die in Toronto.
A low blow, Martin called it, and the kind of politics that discourages young voters.
And inaccurate, he added.
The accuracy takes some sorting out. Layton, the NDP leader, said Martin had cut social housing spending when he was finance minister in order to balance the budget. In the aftermath, more people were forced on to the streets and 100 more people died in Toronto.
Martin says the Liberal government spent lots of money on housing. It was the Mulroney government that made cuts, the Liberals added.
The bottom line is that it's tough to prove or disprove Layton's charge. Since it's such a serious - and specific - accusation, that makes it reckless.
But the notion that somehow we shouldn't raise such issues, or use such language, is wrong.
There are real consequences to many political decisions, and we need to be able to acknowledge them.
When governments decide against spending enough money to bring down surgical wait lists, some people will die while they are waiting. Even if urgent cases are dealt with quickly, it's a statistical certainty that misjudgments will be made or unexpected complications will strike. People will die because of the decision not to pay for needed surgery.
That's why government is important, and difficult. In some ministries - health, children and families, human resources - many choices involve life and death decisions, with no easy answers.
Take child protection. Place a priority on keeping children with their families and you will likely have greater overall success than if you take children into government care at the first sign of problems. But some children will suffer, even die, as a result. The choice is difficult because some of the children taken into government care will also suffer and die - their death rate is much higher than the norm.
These are all tough choices. Fund a first-rate counselling team for every high school in the province and you'll save lives, keeping at least some youths from drug abuse or suicide. Triple the number of addiction treatment beds and fewer people will die of drug overdoses and health problems related to a dangerous life. Upgrade military equipment and you'll avoid deadly accidents.
The challenge for government is to reflect our views about how far we're prepared to go and how much we're prepared to spend in saving lives, and where the most effective efforts can be made.
It's unrealistic to argue there should be no limit to our efforts. People don't want to hand all their money over to government so that every possible measure to save lives can be taken.
But it's dangerous to claim that even a discussion of the reality - as Martin suggests - is somehow off limits.
Of course if we're going to impose this kind of disciplined honesty on politicians, we need to hold ourselves up to the same kind of scrutiny. You could go out to a movie this weekend with the family and drop $50, or you could send a cheque for the same amount to one of a number of effective charities and aid organizations - and save lives. Your individual choice is no different than the politicians' choice on your behalf.
It's a favorite rhetorical question - "How many more must die before. . . ."
But we'd have a better public debate, and better public policy, if we made more of an effort to answer the question in some specific way.
It shouldn't be off limits to suggest that politicians' decisions carry consequences, and those consequences include death.
It's simply an acknowledgment of reality. And an election campaign based on reality will produce much better results than one based on a fantasy world where everything is possible, and no decision carries negative consequences.
A low blow, Martin called it, and the kind of politics that discourages young voters.
And inaccurate, he added.
The accuracy takes some sorting out. Layton, the NDP leader, said Martin had cut social housing spending when he was finance minister in order to balance the budget. In the aftermath, more people were forced on to the streets and 100 more people died in Toronto.
Martin says the Liberal government spent lots of money on housing. It was the Mulroney government that made cuts, the Liberals added.
The bottom line is that it's tough to prove or disprove Layton's charge. Since it's such a serious - and specific - accusation, that makes it reckless.
But the notion that somehow we shouldn't raise such issues, or use such language, is wrong.
There are real consequences to many political decisions, and we need to be able to acknowledge them.
When governments decide against spending enough money to bring down surgical wait lists, some people will die while they are waiting. Even if urgent cases are dealt with quickly, it's a statistical certainty that misjudgments will be made or unexpected complications will strike. People will die because of the decision not to pay for needed surgery.
That's why government is important, and difficult. In some ministries - health, children and families, human resources - many choices involve life and death decisions, with no easy answers.
Take child protection. Place a priority on keeping children with their families and you will likely have greater overall success than if you take children into government care at the first sign of problems. But some children will suffer, even die, as a result. The choice is difficult because some of the children taken into government care will also suffer and die - their death rate is much higher than the norm.
These are all tough choices. Fund a first-rate counselling team for every high school in the province and you'll save lives, keeping at least some youths from drug abuse or suicide. Triple the number of addiction treatment beds and fewer people will die of drug overdoses and health problems related to a dangerous life. Upgrade military equipment and you'll avoid deadly accidents.
The challenge for government is to reflect our views about how far we're prepared to go and how much we're prepared to spend in saving lives, and where the most effective efforts can be made.
It's unrealistic to argue there should be no limit to our efforts. People don't want to hand all their money over to government so that every possible measure to save lives can be taken.
But it's dangerous to claim that even a discussion of the reality - as Martin suggests - is somehow off limits.
Of course if we're going to impose this kind of disciplined honesty on politicians, we need to hold ourselves up to the same kind of scrutiny. You could go out to a movie this weekend with the family and drop $50, or you could send a cheque for the same amount to one of a number of effective charities and aid organizations - and save lives. Your individual choice is no different than the politicians' choice on your behalf.
It's a favorite rhetorical question - "How many more must die before. . . ."
But we'd have a better public debate, and better public policy, if we made more of an effort to answer the question in some specific way.
It shouldn't be off limits to suggest that politicians' decisions carry consequences, and those consequences include death.
It's simply an acknowledgment of reality. And an election campaign based on reality will produce much better results than one based on a fantasy world where everything is possible, and no decision carries negative consequences.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
First Nations learn from enviro campaigns, target Olympics
VICTORIA - So I was driving down to the legislature, radio a little too loud, when the call came. Forest Minister Mike de Jong would be available in 15 minutes to talk about agreements with First Nations.
I'm always glad of an easy story. And once I arrived, I got an email about a First Nations' protest outside the legislature at noon. That meant there should be a hook for the story. So down to de Jong's office I went, along with a fair crush of the media pack.
it was a pre-emptive strike. De Jong announced a forestry deal with the Bonaparte Band that should be worth $1.8 million, the forty-eighth such agreement. The government and First Nations have been working together well, he said.
Not a bad message. But then - and this is a character trait of this government - de Jong went too far.
But what about the Title and Rights Alliance protest, asked a reporter? "It's sad that there are people who seem more content to continue to engage in inflammatory statements than actually getting down to the tough work involved in moving forward," the minister said. "A group has always found it more attractive to yell and scream and shout rather than sitting down and negotiating difficult deals." First Nations leaders who didn't sign these deals were betraying their people, de Jong suggested.
It seemed, even at the time, to be foolishly provocative. Why pick a needless fight if things are going so well with most First Nations?
But I bought it. First Nations' politics are complicated (like all politics). And there are some leaders - Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, for example -who can be counted on to be usually irate.
Then noon came around, and I made it out a little late through the front door of the legislature. I was trapped in a crowd of people in red t-shirts on the steps of the legislature, but climbed over a small wall and made it down to the bottom of the steps, where the TV guys were clustered around the speakers.
And there was Phillip. But beside him, among other leaders, was Ed John of the First Nations Summit. Up on the steps was the chief of the Bonaparte Band - the people de Jong had pointed to evidence that everything was working. Judging by the way he was drumming, the chief was not as convinced.
It's a singular achievement, to bring together B.C.'s often divided First Nations. And de Jong's comments looked both provocative and wrong.
The Liberals had appeared to be making good progress with First Nations. Four treaty agreements in principle, several hundred deals offering economic benefits, generally a stable relationship.
But the protest, part of a caravan to Victoria organized by the fledgling Title and Rights Alliance, indicated that could all be unraveling. The First Nations claimed the governments have been refusing to negotiate, presenting take-it-or-leave-it proposals.
The governments should be, as the young people say, freaked.
United First Nations will be a huge problem in the next year for the Liberals.
Especially united First Nations that are prepared to take lessons from the various enviro groups that have figured out how to steer B.C. policy The alliance is taking advice from veteran environmental campaigners who have experience in cranking up the pressure on a wide range of fronts.
Speakers talked about showing up at forest company annual meetings to raise concern about harvesting on land that's part of treaty talks. They threatened consumer boycotts and international campaigns.
And they pointed to the Olympics as a rare opportunity to take their case to the world (and put a considerable squeeze on the federal and provincial governments). The enviros have shown that it's easy to get Americans and Europeans all riled up about issues they don't really understand with the right symbols. The protest could be highly effective.
The governments need to find a way to head off this protest, or risk serious damage.
Footnote The alliance is getting technical support from the Dogwood Initiative's WIll Horter, a long-time forestry campaigner formerly of Forest Futures and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, and advice from other veterans of environmental campaigns. It's a support group with a track record of effectiveness in getting issues before the public.
I'm always glad of an easy story. And once I arrived, I got an email about a First Nations' protest outside the legislature at noon. That meant there should be a hook for the story. So down to de Jong's office I went, along with a fair crush of the media pack.
it was a pre-emptive strike. De Jong announced a forestry deal with the Bonaparte Band that should be worth $1.8 million, the forty-eighth such agreement. The government and First Nations have been working together well, he said.
Not a bad message. But then - and this is a character trait of this government - de Jong went too far.
But what about the Title and Rights Alliance protest, asked a reporter? "It's sad that there are people who seem more content to continue to engage in inflammatory statements than actually getting down to the tough work involved in moving forward," the minister said. "A group has always found it more attractive to yell and scream and shout rather than sitting down and negotiating difficult deals." First Nations leaders who didn't sign these deals were betraying their people, de Jong suggested.
It seemed, even at the time, to be foolishly provocative. Why pick a needless fight if things are going so well with most First Nations?
But I bought it. First Nations' politics are complicated (like all politics). And there are some leaders - Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, for example -who can be counted on to be usually irate.
Then noon came around, and I made it out a little late through the front door of the legislature. I was trapped in a crowd of people in red t-shirts on the steps of the legislature, but climbed over a small wall and made it down to the bottom of the steps, where the TV guys were clustered around the speakers.
And there was Phillip. But beside him, among other leaders, was Ed John of the First Nations Summit. Up on the steps was the chief of the Bonaparte Band - the people de Jong had pointed to evidence that everything was working. Judging by the way he was drumming, the chief was not as convinced.
It's a singular achievement, to bring together B.C.'s often divided First Nations. And de Jong's comments looked both provocative and wrong.
The Liberals had appeared to be making good progress with First Nations. Four treaty agreements in principle, several hundred deals offering economic benefits, generally a stable relationship.
But the protest, part of a caravan to Victoria organized by the fledgling Title and Rights Alliance, indicated that could all be unraveling. The First Nations claimed the governments have been refusing to negotiate, presenting take-it-or-leave-it proposals.
The governments should be, as the young people say, freaked.
United First Nations will be a huge problem in the next year for the Liberals.
Especially united First Nations that are prepared to take lessons from the various enviro groups that have figured out how to steer B.C. policy The alliance is taking advice from veteran environmental campaigners who have experience in cranking up the pressure on a wide range of fronts.
Speakers talked about showing up at forest company annual meetings to raise concern about harvesting on land that's part of treaty talks. They threatened consumer boycotts and international campaigns.
And they pointed to the Olympics as a rare opportunity to take their case to the world (and put a considerable squeeze on the federal and provincial governments). The enviros have shown that it's easy to get Americans and Europeans all riled up about issues they don't really understand with the right symbols. The protest could be highly effective.
The governments need to find a way to head off this protest, or risk serious damage.
Footnote The alliance is getting technical support from the Dogwood Initiative's WIll Horter, a long-time forestry campaigner formerly of Forest Futures and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, and advice from other veterans of environmental campaigns. It's a support group with a track record of effectiveness in getting issues before the public.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Sorry, but you need to pay attention to this election
VICTORIA - OK, so you never really wanted to start the summer with a federal election.
Especially a summer election with such a difficult set of choices spread before you. Except for the hard-core partisans, the people who treat politics like some sort of game, there's a broad sense that we're left with an uninspiring set of options. Paul Martin has dithered about when the election would be held, and what's it about. Stephen Harper and the new Conservatives - sounds a bit like a British New Wave band - spook many voters, who wonder if Canadian soldiers would be mired in Iraq today if Harper had been prime minister. And Jack Layton and the New Democrats remain out-of-focus.
But it's your job to figure out who would best represent you and cast a vote June 28. And despite the challenges, it's pathetically lame to decide to ignore the whole thing and let other people decide what kind of country you're going to live in. (Certainly, the choices may be limited; that doesn't change the reality that this is your best opportunity.)
It's especially important because this time your vote may matter on a national scale. We're used to everything being decided on the basis of the big chunk of seats in Ontario and Quebec. But this time the polls indicate the outcome of the election is in doubt, and a minority government - at least - is a real possibility
That means B.C.'s 36 seats could decide the kind of government Canada will have for the next several years (or several months, I suppose, if we get a particularly unworkable minority government).
And within B.C., the race is extremely close. The most recent Ipsos-Reid voter survey found Liberal support at 33 per cent, the Conservatives at 31 per cent and the New Democratic Party at 27 per cent.
That's a big swing from the actual B.C. vote in the 2000 election, which was 49 per cent Alliance, seven per cent Conservative, 28 per cent Liberal and 11 per cent New Democrat. That translated into 27 seats for the Alliance-Conservatives, five for the Liberals and two for the NDP.
This time, about half the seats in the province are too close to call today. and those seats could decide what the next government of Canada will look like.
So it's up to you.
It's a big challenge. A remarkable amount of rubbish will be spoken by the candidates over the next five weeks, covered with great seriousness and even commented on by people like me.
Your best hope is to pick a couple of issues you think are most important - perhaps a rational plan for health care, or integrity in government, or a voice for the West and B.C. in Ottawa. That doesn't mean you'll be blind to the rest of the issues; but it will give you a fighting chance of coming up with an informed vote on the subjects that are most important to you.
If that doesn't lead you to a decision on which party to support, you can also look closely at your local candidates and see if that tips the balance. On many issues the three main parties offer little to differentiate themselves. Your vote could come down to which person would do the best job of taking your views to Ottawa.
These are discouraging days for a voter, who have to penetrate the carefully crafted party statements that say as little as possible and then try and judge whether the leaders actually have any intent of doing what they say. (Martin was big on fixing the democratic deficit, for example, but then walked all over democracy to appoint his hand-picked candidates in B.C. ridings.)
But it still matters. It's still your job to sort through the information and make the best choice for your community, and your country.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
Footnote: Your vote also has a cash value this time around. New political funding rules means parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote each year in funding. Even if your candidate is destined to be a hopeless also-ran, the simple act of voting will give the party extra cash to make an impact over the next four years.
Especially a summer election with such a difficult set of choices spread before you. Except for the hard-core partisans, the people who treat politics like some sort of game, there's a broad sense that we're left with an uninspiring set of options. Paul Martin has dithered about when the election would be held, and what's it about. Stephen Harper and the new Conservatives - sounds a bit like a British New Wave band - spook many voters, who wonder if Canadian soldiers would be mired in Iraq today if Harper had been prime minister. And Jack Layton and the New Democrats remain out-of-focus.
But it's your job to figure out who would best represent you and cast a vote June 28. And despite the challenges, it's pathetically lame to decide to ignore the whole thing and let other people decide what kind of country you're going to live in. (Certainly, the choices may be limited; that doesn't change the reality that this is your best opportunity.)
It's especially important because this time your vote may matter on a national scale. We're used to everything being decided on the basis of the big chunk of seats in Ontario and Quebec. But this time the polls indicate the outcome of the election is in doubt, and a minority government - at least - is a real possibility
That means B.C.'s 36 seats could decide the kind of government Canada will have for the next several years (or several months, I suppose, if we get a particularly unworkable minority government).
And within B.C., the race is extremely close. The most recent Ipsos-Reid voter survey found Liberal support at 33 per cent, the Conservatives at 31 per cent and the New Democratic Party at 27 per cent.
That's a big swing from the actual B.C. vote in the 2000 election, which was 49 per cent Alliance, seven per cent Conservative, 28 per cent Liberal and 11 per cent New Democrat. That translated into 27 seats for the Alliance-Conservatives, five for the Liberals and two for the NDP.
This time, about half the seats in the province are too close to call today. and those seats could decide what the next government of Canada will look like.
So it's up to you.
It's a big challenge. A remarkable amount of rubbish will be spoken by the candidates over the next five weeks, covered with great seriousness and even commented on by people like me.
Your best hope is to pick a couple of issues you think are most important - perhaps a rational plan for health care, or integrity in government, or a voice for the West and B.C. in Ottawa. That doesn't mean you'll be blind to the rest of the issues; but it will give you a fighting chance of coming up with an informed vote on the subjects that are most important to you.
If that doesn't lead you to a decision on which party to support, you can also look closely at your local candidates and see if that tips the balance. On many issues the three main parties offer little to differentiate themselves. Your vote could come down to which person would do the best job of taking your views to Ottawa.
These are discouraging days for a voter, who have to penetrate the carefully crafted party statements that say as little as possible and then try and judge whether the leaders actually have any intent of doing what they say. (Martin was big on fixing the democratic deficit, for example, but then walked all over democracy to appoint his hand-picked candidates in B.C. ridings.)
But it still matters. It's still your job to sort through the information and make the best choice for your community, and your country.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
Footnote: Your vote also has a cash value this time around. New political funding rules means parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote each year in funding. Even if your candidate is destined to be a hopeless also-ran, the simple act of voting will give the party extra cash to make an impact over the next four years.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Liberals' arrogance could cost them next vote
VICTORIA - If the Liberals take such pride in a business-like approach, how come they haven't learned one of the most basic business lessons?
The Ipsos-Reid poll this week didn't just show the NDP ahead. It found that more than one-third of the people who voted Liberal in 2001 have quit supporting the party.
The Liberals seemed genuinely unperturbed. It's normal for support for a governing party between elections, they said — forgetting that in B.C. it's also normal for the governing party to be defeated when the election comes round. People just haven't recognized that things are better, they say. And anyway, once voters take a harder look at the New Democrats and Carole James they will come back to the Liberals. (Which suggests a campaign slogan along the lines of 'Vote Liberal - The Lesser of Two Evils.')
What's missing is any acknowledgment that the one-third of supporters who have repudiated the party may have some real concerns that need to be addressed. Maybe those 340,000 people have something important to say.
I used to run newspapers. And if one-third of our regular readers had quit buying, I'd have wanted to know why. And how to win them back.
British Columbians are both the customers and shareholders of government. But there's no acknowledgment from the Liberals that their dissatisfaction matters, that anything needs to change, or that mistakes have been made. No one apologizes for broken promises, or acknowledges that many people have not seen the promised improvements in their lives.
Premier Gordon Campbell speaks of a rising optimism, of people beginning to see real benefits.
But one-third of the people who voted Liberal disagree. And even if they're expert in nothing else, you have to concede that they likely know more about their own lives than government.
Their perception is reinforced by the recent BC Progress Board report. The board is an extremely useful Liberal creation that uses objective indicators to rate B.C.'s performance in a number of areas against other provinces.
While there are encouraging signs, progress is slow. B.C.'s economic growth in 2003 was fourth strongest in Canada, up from eighth in 2002. We moved up one place to sixth in employment. Both are positive changes, but not likely to produce the kind of sweeping optimism Mr. Campbell hopes for in the runup to next May's election.
The most critical measurement of Liberal effectiveness is likely business investment. The tax cuts and deregulation efforts were all intended to produce badly needed investment, creating jobs and a stronger, more diversified economy. Again, there are signs of progress. Per capita business investment increased 5.9 per cent last year, the third strongest growth among the provinces. But that wasn't enough to move B.C. out of its sixth place standing.
And the province slid backwards, relative to other provinces, in both productivity and research and development spending.
There are lots of legitimate explanations for the slow progress, from the many external factors buffeting B.C. to the simple reality that economies are difficult to change. And there are some hopeful signs, like the RBC Economic forecast this week that the province would have the best growth in Canada in 2005, at 3.5 per cent.
But the statistics make the Liberals' claim that people across the province are seeing significant change in their lives look delusional. The employment rate, according to the Progress Board, is pretty much the same as it has been for the past decade. That's the reality that people see, despite Liberal news releases touting monthly job growth.
The Liberals are refusing to acknowledge that, just as they are refusing to accept that the huge number of people who no longer support the government may have legitimate reasons. They are unable to admit error, apologize for mistakes, or learn from missteps.
And as a result they raise the spectre of a government defeating itself by refusing to listen to and respect the views of the electorate.
The Ipsos-Reid poll this week didn't just show the NDP ahead. It found that more than one-third of the people who voted Liberal in 2001 have quit supporting the party.
The Liberals seemed genuinely unperturbed. It's normal for support for a governing party between elections, they said — forgetting that in B.C. it's also normal for the governing party to be defeated when the election comes round. People just haven't recognized that things are better, they say. And anyway, once voters take a harder look at the New Democrats and Carole James they will come back to the Liberals. (Which suggests a campaign slogan along the lines of 'Vote Liberal - The Lesser of Two Evils.')
What's missing is any acknowledgment that the one-third of supporters who have repudiated the party may have some real concerns that need to be addressed. Maybe those 340,000 people have something important to say.
I used to run newspapers. And if one-third of our regular readers had quit buying, I'd have wanted to know why. And how to win them back.
British Columbians are both the customers and shareholders of government. But there's no acknowledgment from the Liberals that their dissatisfaction matters, that anything needs to change, or that mistakes have been made. No one apologizes for broken promises, or acknowledges that many people have not seen the promised improvements in their lives.
Premier Gordon Campbell speaks of a rising optimism, of people beginning to see real benefits.
But one-third of the people who voted Liberal disagree. And even if they're expert in nothing else, you have to concede that they likely know more about their own lives than government.
Their perception is reinforced by the recent BC Progress Board report. The board is an extremely useful Liberal creation that uses objective indicators to rate B.C.'s performance in a number of areas against other provinces.
While there are encouraging signs, progress is slow. B.C.'s economic growth in 2003 was fourth strongest in Canada, up from eighth in 2002. We moved up one place to sixth in employment. Both are positive changes, but not likely to produce the kind of sweeping optimism Mr. Campbell hopes for in the runup to next May's election.
The most critical measurement of Liberal effectiveness is likely business investment. The tax cuts and deregulation efforts were all intended to produce badly needed investment, creating jobs and a stronger, more diversified economy. Again, there are signs of progress. Per capita business investment increased 5.9 per cent last year, the third strongest growth among the provinces. But that wasn't enough to move B.C. out of its sixth place standing.
And the province slid backwards, relative to other provinces, in both productivity and research and development spending.
There are lots of legitimate explanations for the slow progress, from the many external factors buffeting B.C. to the simple reality that economies are difficult to change. And there are some hopeful signs, like the RBC Economic forecast this week that the province would have the best growth in Canada in 2005, at 3.5 per cent.
But the statistics make the Liberals' claim that people across the province are seeing significant change in their lives look delusional. The employment rate, according to the Progress Board, is pretty much the same as it has been for the past decade. That's the reality that people see, despite Liberal news releases touting monthly job growth.
The Liberals are refusing to acknowledge that, just as they are refusing to accept that the huge number of people who no longer support the government may have legitimate reasons. They are unable to admit error, apologize for mistakes, or learn from missteps.
And as a result they raise the spectre of a government defeating itself by refusing to listen to and respect the views of the electorate.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Liberals ignoring message in falling poll standings
VICTORIA - The Liberals seem genuinely - and bafflingly - at ease in the face of the latest poll that shows they could lose the election next May.
And their reaction helps explain why voters are deserting the party.
The Ipsos-Reid poll is the first to show that the New Democrats have taken a clear lead over the Liberals. They have the support of 44 per cent of decided voters; Liberal support has fallen to 37 per cent.
The news is even bleaker across what the Liberals used to call the Heartland. Carole James and the New Democrats are at 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland, while the Liberals have fallen to 33 per cent. Unless those numbers change 20 to 25 Liberal MLAs outside the Lower Mainland will be gone after the election.
So what do the Liberals say?
First, they point out that governments traditionally lose popularity during their term. "Part of a normal cycle," said Economic Development John Les, a comment echoed by other ministers.
That's only partly true. A year before the last election the NDP was down to 16-per-cent support; they barely climbed to 22 per cent in the actual vote. And it ignores the reality that for B.C., that "normal cycle" ends in the defeat of the government after one term.
Second, they say that voters will return to them when the NDP has to come up with some specific policies and people remember just how bad the previous government was.
That may be. It's hard to believe that the voters could go from detesting the New Democrats to welcoming them back in just four years. (The emergence of many members of that bumbling government as potential NDP candidates is great news for the Liberals.)
But it's risky to base your election optimism on the idea that people will eventually decide they have to vote for you because they have no other choice. That kind of support can easily be lost.
And finally the Liberals say the public has got it wrong. We just haven't noticed yet how much better things are today than they were three years ago, and once we do Liberal support will surge.
That last response illustrates one reason the Liberals are doing so badly in the polls.
About 1.6 million people voted in the last election; about 930,000 of them voted Liberal, a huge show of support.
But based on the latest poll, more than one-third of those people have decided they no longer support the party.
Implicit in all the Liberal responses is that those people have got it wrong. They don't understand what the government is doing. They haven't recognized how much better their lives are.
It's a response that reinforces the impression that the government doesn't care what the public thinks, that is distant and arrogant and rigid. It adds to the perception that this is a government that is so certain that it is right that it no longer listens to people with a different view.
The fact is that some 340,000 people who supported the Liberals three years ago have decided the government has failed them.
None of the Liberals who responded to the poll suggested that it might be useful to figure out why these people have decided the government is doing a bad job. None of the MLAs or cabinet ministers suggested that maybe the government needs to listen to these people, and learn why they think the government has lost its way. None of them suggested that these people might have good reasons for withdrawing their support.
That doesn't mean government by poll; principles remain important.
I used to manage newspapers. And if one-third of the customers quit reading the newspaper, I'd want to find out why. And I would figure that we were doing something wrong, and better fix it.
The Liberals should want to know why the people they serve are giving them failing grades.
Footnote: The Green Party is down to 11 per cent support, from a high of 20 per cent. That's good news for the NDP. The Unity Party stood at five per cent provincially and eight per cent ourside the Lower Mainland. That in turn is bad news for the Liberals, who could lose support to Unity.
And their reaction helps explain why voters are deserting the party.
The Ipsos-Reid poll is the first to show that the New Democrats have taken a clear lead over the Liberals. They have the support of 44 per cent of decided voters; Liberal support has fallen to 37 per cent.
The news is even bleaker across what the Liberals used to call the Heartland. Carole James and the New Democrats are at 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland, while the Liberals have fallen to 33 per cent. Unless those numbers change 20 to 25 Liberal MLAs outside the Lower Mainland will be gone after the election.
So what do the Liberals say?
First, they point out that governments traditionally lose popularity during their term. "Part of a normal cycle," said Economic Development John Les, a comment echoed by other ministers.
That's only partly true. A year before the last election the NDP was down to 16-per-cent support; they barely climbed to 22 per cent in the actual vote. And it ignores the reality that for B.C., that "normal cycle" ends in the defeat of the government after one term.
Second, they say that voters will return to them when the NDP has to come up with some specific policies and people remember just how bad the previous government was.
That may be. It's hard to believe that the voters could go from detesting the New Democrats to welcoming them back in just four years. (The emergence of many members of that bumbling government as potential NDP candidates is great news for the Liberals.)
But it's risky to base your election optimism on the idea that people will eventually decide they have to vote for you because they have no other choice. That kind of support can easily be lost.
And finally the Liberals say the public has got it wrong. We just haven't noticed yet how much better things are today than they were three years ago, and once we do Liberal support will surge.
That last response illustrates one reason the Liberals are doing so badly in the polls.
About 1.6 million people voted in the last election; about 930,000 of them voted Liberal, a huge show of support.
But based on the latest poll, more than one-third of those people have decided they no longer support the party.
Implicit in all the Liberal responses is that those people have got it wrong. They don't understand what the government is doing. They haven't recognized how much better their lives are.
It's a response that reinforces the impression that the government doesn't care what the public thinks, that is distant and arrogant and rigid. It adds to the perception that this is a government that is so certain that it is right that it no longer listens to people with a different view.
The fact is that some 340,000 people who supported the Liberals three years ago have decided the government has failed them.
None of the Liberals who responded to the poll suggested that it might be useful to figure out why these people have decided the government is doing a bad job. None of the MLAs or cabinet ministers suggested that maybe the government needs to listen to these people, and learn why they think the government has lost its way. None of them suggested that these people might have good reasons for withdrawing their support.
That doesn't mean government by poll; principles remain important.
I used to manage newspapers. And if one-third of the customers quit reading the newspaper, I'd want to find out why. And I would figure that we were doing something wrong, and better fix it.
The Liberals should want to know why the people they serve are giving them failing grades.
Footnote: The Green Party is down to 11 per cent support, from a high of 20 per cent. That's good news for the NDP. The Unity Party stood at five per cent provincially and eight per cent ourside the Lower Mainland. That in turn is bad news for the Liberals, who could lose support to Unity.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Anderson's offshore opposition plaguing Campbell
VICTORIA - The BC Liberals may officially be neutral in the coming federal election, but many of them will be rooting for Environment Minister David Anderson to lose his Victoria seat.
Anderson is waging a one-man campaign against offshore oil and gas development in B.C., at least according to Premier Gordon Campbell.
Anderson claims to be open-minded. We just don't know enough to consider lifting the 30-year-old ban on development, he says.
But the provincial Liberals - and a lot of people from all parts of the political spectrum in coastal B.C. - are convinced that Anderson's position is a scam. They believe, with considerable justification, that the career politician is dug in on the issue, and no matter how much information is brought forward he's going to call for more.
Anderson dove into the offshore waters again this week. He sent a memo to all the nominated Liberal candidates advising them that until the "knowledge gaps on the risks involved, the resources at stake, and the economic and social factors that might have a bearing" are filled the ban stays put.
The BC Liberals have been getting increasingly frustrated with Anderson's position. They want the moratorium lifted now, to allow work by 2010.
Partly, they just think he's wrong. The provincial Liberals point to a recent Royal Society of Canada report as the latest in a string of studies that have concluded that with proper controls the moratorium could be safely lifted. And the Liberals note that around the world - from the deep waters off Newfoundland to the shallow banks around Scandinavia - development has gone ahead successfully.
The Liberals are also convinced that no amount of information would change Anderson's mind or remove his obstructionism.
It's a reasonable conclusion, based on his statements and actions. If Anderson is concerned about the "knowledge gaps," it is well within his ability to address them. Instead of sniping at the province, he could commission the studies he believes are needed to determine if offshore development is possible.
The comments from BC Liberals like Energy Minister Richard Neufeld are getting increasingly cranky about Anderson.
Campbell says he's getting much more positive comments from other federal Liberals, including Prime Minister Paul Martin.
But there's no sign of their briefing notes to Liberal candidates offering an alternative to Anderson's negative comments on the possibility of offshore oil and gas development any time soon. They haven't rebuffed Anderson's attempts to downplay the significance of the federal panel now holding hearings on the issue. He's the one speaking for the federal government, and he's saying no.
Offshore oil and gas development is going to be an emotional, controversial issue. And federally and provincially, it involves lots of political risks.
But the evidence, based on independent studies on the B.C. issues and the industry's global track record, increasingly indicates that safe development, under appropriate regulations, is possible.
The potential is enormous. The reserves are estimated at 9.8 billion barrels of oil, a resource worth some $110 billion. That's 10 times the size of the Hibernia field that has brought an offshore boom to the East Coast.
Coastal communities need the help. The coastal forest industry continues to struggle, the fishery has been through a decade of decline and even tourism has failed to recover. Offshore oil is seen as one of the last best hopes for a number of desperate communities.
Campbell is going to get that message again next week, when he heads to the northwest for a joint cabinet meeting with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in Prince Rupert. The premier's agenda will include some fundraisers and other activities in the region. He's going to hear a lot about the region's economic crisis.
Offshore energy isn't the only answer. And even with federal co-operation, the 2010 timeline is probably unrealistic.
But it does offer huge potential benefits. And as long as Anderson is speaking for Ottawa, any chance of progress seems remote.
Footnote: Opposing any offshore development makes sense politically for the federal Liberals. They have no realistic chance of winning seats in B.C.'s regions, but hope for success in Vancouver and Victoria. But the economic problems - and sense of alienation - in the rest of B.C. will be worsened if they have to live with policies shaped to please people who live in the big cities.
Anderson is waging a one-man campaign against offshore oil and gas development in B.C., at least according to Premier Gordon Campbell.
Anderson claims to be open-minded. We just don't know enough to consider lifting the 30-year-old ban on development, he says.
But the provincial Liberals - and a lot of people from all parts of the political spectrum in coastal B.C. - are convinced that Anderson's position is a scam. They believe, with considerable justification, that the career politician is dug in on the issue, and no matter how much information is brought forward he's going to call for more.
Anderson dove into the offshore waters again this week. He sent a memo to all the nominated Liberal candidates advising them that until the "knowledge gaps on the risks involved, the resources at stake, and the economic and social factors that might have a bearing" are filled the ban stays put.
The BC Liberals have been getting increasingly frustrated with Anderson's position. They want the moratorium lifted now, to allow work by 2010.
Partly, they just think he's wrong. The provincial Liberals point to a recent Royal Society of Canada report as the latest in a string of studies that have concluded that with proper controls the moratorium could be safely lifted. And the Liberals note that around the world - from the deep waters off Newfoundland to the shallow banks around Scandinavia - development has gone ahead successfully.
The Liberals are also convinced that no amount of information would change Anderson's mind or remove his obstructionism.
It's a reasonable conclusion, based on his statements and actions. If Anderson is concerned about the "knowledge gaps," it is well within his ability to address them. Instead of sniping at the province, he could commission the studies he believes are needed to determine if offshore development is possible.
The comments from BC Liberals like Energy Minister Richard Neufeld are getting increasingly cranky about Anderson.
Campbell says he's getting much more positive comments from other federal Liberals, including Prime Minister Paul Martin.
But there's no sign of their briefing notes to Liberal candidates offering an alternative to Anderson's negative comments on the possibility of offshore oil and gas development any time soon. They haven't rebuffed Anderson's attempts to downplay the significance of the federal panel now holding hearings on the issue. He's the one speaking for the federal government, and he's saying no.
Offshore oil and gas development is going to be an emotional, controversial issue. And federally and provincially, it involves lots of political risks.
But the evidence, based on independent studies on the B.C. issues and the industry's global track record, increasingly indicates that safe development, under appropriate regulations, is possible.
The potential is enormous. The reserves are estimated at 9.8 billion barrels of oil, a resource worth some $110 billion. That's 10 times the size of the Hibernia field that has brought an offshore boom to the East Coast.
Coastal communities need the help. The coastal forest industry continues to struggle, the fishery has been through a decade of decline and even tourism has failed to recover. Offshore oil is seen as one of the last best hopes for a number of desperate communities.
Campbell is going to get that message again next week, when he heads to the northwest for a joint cabinet meeting with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in Prince Rupert. The premier's agenda will include some fundraisers and other activities in the region. He's going to hear a lot about the region's economic crisis.
Offshore energy isn't the only answer. And even with federal co-operation, the 2010 timeline is probably unrealistic.
But it does offer huge potential benefits. And as long as Anderson is speaking for Ottawa, any chance of progress seems remote.
Footnote: Opposing any offshore development makes sense politically for the federal Liberals. They have no realistic chance of winning seats in B.C.'s regions, but hope for success in Vancouver and Victoria. But the economic problems - and sense of alienation - in the rest of B.C. will be worsened if they have to live with policies shaped to please people who live in the big cities.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Liberals have bungled the children and families ministry
VICTORIA - The Walls' audit got the headlines, not surprisingly.
It was a bleak recap of government mismanagement. The audit confirmed that failed Prince George car dealer Doug Walls - a long-time advocate for the disabled - pushed his Liberal connections in advancing his personal interests, his vision for the children and families ministry and the career of his pal and ally Chris Haynes.
It worked pretty well. Walls was handed more than $500,000 worth of government contracts, often in violation of the rules. The government improperly wrote off more than $500,000 worth of debts owed by a company with tight ties to Walls. (The total loss to taxpayers when it went broke was more than $2 million.) Haynes got the deputy minister's job. And the ministry committed to the kind of services for the mentally disabled that Walls was pushing.
The audit didn't find any wrongdoing by politicians, although it all still looked bad. Walls is a relative by marriage of Premier Gordon Campbell, a confidante of Advanced Education Minister Shirley Bond and was a wheel in the Liberal party. He traded on all those things, lobbying Campbell and top strategist Martyn Brown on Haynes behalf (a move he said drew a rebuke from Campbell), name-dropping shamelessly and confirming Bond's appointment ot cabinet before it was public.
But it's all no one's fault, according to the Liberals.
Haynes, fired over the affair, leaves with more than $500,000 in severance and deferred vacation pay, despite the auditors' report. Former children's minister Gordon Hogg says he feels vindicated. No one is fired or disciplined. (The severance issue will be a problem for the Liberals. Anyone in private business who was found to have improperly written off a $500,000 debt to a friend would not be collecting a big cash payout.)
But the Walls' audit, ugly as it was, wasn't even the worst news released by the ministry.
Rather cynically, the government chose the same day to release an assessment of their efforts to restructure the ministry.
The "readiness report" revealed that after more than two years and tens of millions of dollars, remarkably little progess has been made.
The ministry unveiled its big plans in January 2002. The government would slash spending on children and families, and save money by moving to 11 new semi-independent authorities. Ten regional authorities - five aboriginal, and five non-aboriginal - would take over children's services. A Community Living Authority with a $600-million budget would provide services to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families.
The transition work was always going great, according to Hogg, ahead of schedule even. A year ago he said the Community Living Authority and the first two regional child protection authorities would be up and running by last fall.
He was wrong. The regional authorities won't be ready until 2006. After the bleak readiness report on the Community Living Authority new minister Christy Clark said the target start date for it is now late 2005, two years later than Hogg promised.
The report reveals that the most basic questions haven't been answered. The ministry doesn't know how services will be delivered. It hasn't developed the organization, systems or management team to make the authority work. It doesn't know how it will cope with transition costs, or even rising demand given its current reduced budget. It hasn't figured out what's going to happen to staff.
It's shocking that so much time and money could have spent so ineffectually without anyone in government noticing - not MLAs, government caucus committees, the premier, cabinet, the top bureaucrats. It's a grimly incompetent performance.
It's also a betrayal. The Liberal promised an end to endless bureaucratic restructuring in the ministry during the campaign. Campbell spoke passionately of the need for more money.
But what they have actually been delivered is arbitrary budget cuts and a botched and mismanaged re-organization.
Footnote: The failure is hardly a surprise. The Liberals were warned repeatedly that the idea of simultaneously restructuring the ministry while cutting the budget by more than 10 per cent was reckless. They chose to ignore the warnings, and apparently also chose to ignore the fumbling in the ministry's restructuring plans. Now the spending cuts are going ahead while the changes that were supposed to make them possible without hurting children and familes are stalled.
It was a bleak recap of government mismanagement. The audit confirmed that failed Prince George car dealer Doug Walls - a long-time advocate for the disabled - pushed his Liberal connections in advancing his personal interests, his vision for the children and families ministry and the career of his pal and ally Chris Haynes.
It worked pretty well. Walls was handed more than $500,000 worth of government contracts, often in violation of the rules. The government improperly wrote off more than $500,000 worth of debts owed by a company with tight ties to Walls. (The total loss to taxpayers when it went broke was more than $2 million.) Haynes got the deputy minister's job. And the ministry committed to the kind of services for the mentally disabled that Walls was pushing.
The audit didn't find any wrongdoing by politicians, although it all still looked bad. Walls is a relative by marriage of Premier Gordon Campbell, a confidante of Advanced Education Minister Shirley Bond and was a wheel in the Liberal party. He traded on all those things, lobbying Campbell and top strategist Martyn Brown on Haynes behalf (a move he said drew a rebuke from Campbell), name-dropping shamelessly and confirming Bond's appointment ot cabinet before it was public.
But it's all no one's fault, according to the Liberals.
Haynes, fired over the affair, leaves with more than $500,000 in severance and deferred vacation pay, despite the auditors' report. Former children's minister Gordon Hogg says he feels vindicated. No one is fired or disciplined. (The severance issue will be a problem for the Liberals. Anyone in private business who was found to have improperly written off a $500,000 debt to a friend would not be collecting a big cash payout.)
But the Walls' audit, ugly as it was, wasn't even the worst news released by the ministry.
Rather cynically, the government chose the same day to release an assessment of their efforts to restructure the ministry.
The "readiness report" revealed that after more than two years and tens of millions of dollars, remarkably little progess has been made.
The ministry unveiled its big plans in January 2002. The government would slash spending on children and families, and save money by moving to 11 new semi-independent authorities. Ten regional authorities - five aboriginal, and five non-aboriginal - would take over children's services. A Community Living Authority with a $600-million budget would provide services to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families.
The transition work was always going great, according to Hogg, ahead of schedule even. A year ago he said the Community Living Authority and the first two regional child protection authorities would be up and running by last fall.
He was wrong. The regional authorities won't be ready until 2006. After the bleak readiness report on the Community Living Authority new minister Christy Clark said the target start date for it is now late 2005, two years later than Hogg promised.
The report reveals that the most basic questions haven't been answered. The ministry doesn't know how services will be delivered. It hasn't developed the organization, systems or management team to make the authority work. It doesn't know how it will cope with transition costs, or even rising demand given its current reduced budget. It hasn't figured out what's going to happen to staff.
It's shocking that so much time and money could have spent so ineffectually without anyone in government noticing - not MLAs, government caucus committees, the premier, cabinet, the top bureaucrats. It's a grimly incompetent performance.
It's also a betrayal. The Liberal promised an end to endless bureaucratic restructuring in the ministry during the campaign. Campbell spoke passionately of the need for more money.
But what they have actually been delivered is arbitrary budget cuts and a botched and mismanaged re-organization.
Footnote: The failure is hardly a surprise. The Liberals were warned repeatedly that the idea of simultaneously restructuring the ministry while cutting the budget by more than 10 per cent was reckless. They chose to ignore the warnings, and apparently also chose to ignore the fumbling in the ministry's restructuring plans. Now the spending cuts are going ahead while the changes that were supposed to make them possible without hurting children and familes are stalled.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Incompetence leads to children and families flop
VICTORIA - The Liberals have made a remarkable mess of their plans for the ministry of children and families.
The Walls' audit got the headlines this week. But at the same time the government released an assessment of their efforts to restructure the ministry. And it is much more damning.
After two years and tens of millions of dollars, stunningly little has been accomplished. The changes that were supposed to make a 12-per-cent cut in ministry spending possible are mired in confusion. The spending cuts are still being made.
It is baffling that so much time and money could have spent without anyone in government noticing that the entire process was like one of those phoney Hollywood stage sets. Former minister Gordon Hogg kept insisting cheerfully that things were great, even ahead of schedule. In reality, as the report released this week confirms, things were a mess.
The government unveiled its big plans for the ministry back in January 2002. Those included deep spending and staff cuts, justified by a shift to 11 new semi-independent authorities that would deliver services. Ten would be regional authorities - five aboriginal, and five non-aboriginal - to take over children's services. A province-wide Community Living Authority would provide services to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families, with a $600-million budget.
The plan was flawed from the start. The government was warned of the risks in launching a massive restructuring while simultaneously slashing the ministry budget.
But Mr. Hogg was always confident. There was a great show of public consultation. Doug Walls was, we now know, pushing his agenda tirelessly. Advisory committees were named. Why, Mr. Hogg said a year ago, things were going so well that the Community Living Authority would be up and running by the fall of 2003, along with the first two regional child protection authorities.
We now know Mr. Hogg was hopelessly wrong. The regional authorities won't be ready until 2006.
And the this week's "readiness report" on the Community Living Authority paints such a bleak picture of the lack of progress that it too will be delayed. Children and Families Christy Clark says the target is now late 2005.
The report reveals that after two years of work, the most basic questions haven't been answered.
The government's fundamentally flawed approach has "resulted in a lack of co-ordination between the planning and operational components, with the result that there has been no opportunity to develop the organization and systems required."
The ministry hasn't figured out how it's going to cope with the significant transition costs. It doesn't have a plan to meet increasing demand within its current budget. It doesn't have a management team to lead the change. It hasn't figured out how to deal with the labour relations issues, which were complicated by last fall's job protection deal with the BCGEU.
And it still hasn't sorted out the basic question of how services will be delivered.
Remember, this is after more than two years and repeated assurances that everything was moving along ahead of schedule.
Mr. Hogg's chances of returning to cabinet should be non-existent.
But how is it that no one in government noticed the mismanagement - not the premier and cabinet, or the senior deputy ministers, or the government caucus committee that's supposed to be a watchdog. Alarms were raised regularly by people outside government, but they were either ignored or mocked by the Liberals.
It's a hugely incompetent performance. Leave aside the merits of the proposed shift to new authorities, which is widely - though not universally - supported.
The issue here is the government's ability to develop a plan and execute it. And it failed spectacularly.
It is also a huge betrayal. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the ministry needed more money to do its work. The Liberals' New Era campaign promised a halt to endless to bureaucratic restructuring.
What they've delivered is $185 million in spending cuts and an endless, grossly mismanaged restructuring effort.
B.C.'s most vulnerable children and adults deserve better.
The Walls' audit got the headlines this week. But at the same time the government released an assessment of their efforts to restructure the ministry. And it is much more damning.
After two years and tens of millions of dollars, stunningly little has been accomplished. The changes that were supposed to make a 12-per-cent cut in ministry spending possible are mired in confusion. The spending cuts are still being made.
It is baffling that so much time and money could have spent without anyone in government noticing that the entire process was like one of those phoney Hollywood stage sets. Former minister Gordon Hogg kept insisting cheerfully that things were great, even ahead of schedule. In reality, as the report released this week confirms, things were a mess.
The government unveiled its big plans for the ministry back in January 2002. Those included deep spending and staff cuts, justified by a shift to 11 new semi-independent authorities that would deliver services. Ten would be regional authorities - five aboriginal, and five non-aboriginal - to take over children's services. A province-wide Community Living Authority would provide services to mentally disabled British Columbians and their families, with a $600-million budget.
The plan was flawed from the start. The government was warned of the risks in launching a massive restructuring while simultaneously slashing the ministry budget.
But Mr. Hogg was always confident. There was a great show of public consultation. Doug Walls was, we now know, pushing his agenda tirelessly. Advisory committees were named. Why, Mr. Hogg said a year ago, things were going so well that the Community Living Authority would be up and running by the fall of 2003, along with the first two regional child protection authorities.
We now know Mr. Hogg was hopelessly wrong. The regional authorities won't be ready until 2006.
And the this week's "readiness report" on the Community Living Authority paints such a bleak picture of the lack of progress that it too will be delayed. Children and Families Christy Clark says the target is now late 2005.
The report reveals that after two years of work, the most basic questions haven't been answered.
The government's fundamentally flawed approach has "resulted in a lack of co-ordination between the planning and operational components, with the result that there has been no opportunity to develop the organization and systems required."
The ministry hasn't figured out how it's going to cope with the significant transition costs. It doesn't have a plan to meet increasing demand within its current budget. It doesn't have a management team to lead the change. It hasn't figured out how to deal with the labour relations issues, which were complicated by last fall's job protection deal with the BCGEU.
And it still hasn't sorted out the basic question of how services will be delivered.
Remember, this is after more than two years and repeated assurances that everything was moving along ahead of schedule.
Mr. Hogg's chances of returning to cabinet should be non-existent.
But how is it that no one in government noticed the mismanagement - not the premier and cabinet, or the senior deputy ministers, or the government caucus committee that's supposed to be a watchdog. Alarms were raised regularly by people outside government, but they were either ignored or mocked by the Liberals.
It's a hugely incompetent performance. Leave aside the merits of the proposed shift to new authorities, which is widely - though not universally - supported.
The issue here is the government's ability to develop a plan and execute it. And it failed spectacularly.
It is also a huge betrayal. In opposition, Gordon Campbell said the ministry needed more money to do its work. The Liberals' New Era campaign promised a halt to endless to bureaucratic restructuring.
What they've delivered is $185 million in spending cuts and an endless, grossly mismanaged restructuring effort.
B.C.'s most vulnerable children and adults deserve better.
Comments feature added
Like what you read? Think it's remarkably wrong? Or just have your own comments?
I've added a comment feature to the website. Just clink on 'Comments' at the end of any entry to share what you think with other readers.
Three rules. Be polite. Don't comment on the motives of other people, just their actions. (You can't possibly know what their motives are, and they don't matter anyway.) And keep entries fairly brief.
I've added a comment feature to the website. Just clink on 'Comments' at the end of any entry to share what you think with other readers.
Three rules. Be polite. Don't comment on the motives of other people, just their actions. (You can't possibly know what their motives are, and they don't matter anyway.) And keep entries fairly brief.
Friday, May 14, 2004
One year to election, and LIberals face a real challenge
VICTORIA - Start counting down - one year from today (Monday) you'll be heading off to elect the next provincial government.
Three years ago most people would have expected it to be an easy Liberal re-election victory. Not so lopsided as 2001, certainly, but still another big majority.
No more. Based on the latest polls the Liberals will face a tough battle and some 30 of the party's 75 MLAs will be out of a job. An NDP victory is no longer out of the question, a stunning turnaround given the party's dismal performance in government and overwhelming rejection three years ago.
The Liberals aren't panicked. They're confident that as the election comes closer voters will look more closely at the NDP and their record.
That's the first big factor to watch as the next year unfolds. NDP leader Carole James has been relatively untested in terms of what her party would do in government.
The former NDP government was widely and accurately seen as incompetent and wasteful, and a particularly poor manager of public sector wage costs. James has to prove that she - and the leading NDP candidates - would do better.
It will mean walking a political tightrope. James has said repeatedly that she "can't turn back the clock" and undo LIberal decisions. But she will have to provide specifics to win trust and votes. Would an NDP government restore the 15-per-cent wage rollback for Hospital Employees' Union members, for example? And if it did, where would the extra $250 million a year come from? One answer will anger public sector union members; the other will anger many other voters.
The Liberals face their own challenges.
With only a year to go, Premier Gordon Campbell points to a long list of New Era campaign promises that have been delivered.
But voters - as the polls indicate - have major doubts, linked to failures in key areas.
Health care is not better under the Liberals than it was under the NDP. The economy has not improved in the way the Liberals promised. Universities and colleges are harder to get into, and cost more. The promised improvements in the children and families ministry have been botched. The tax cut did not deliver the promised returns to government, and this year taxes actually increased for lower and middle-income British Columbians, while going down for the more affluent.
Partly, the Liberals need luck, especially on the economy. (And that should worry them, given that the only luck they have had so far has been bad - think of SARS, softwood, 911, fires, floods.)
Analysts have been upgrading their economic growth estimates for this year, a change that would mean more jobs and better pay.
More importantly, a stronger economy would allow the Liberals to bring in a credible pre-election budget next February that included spending increases for health and education. They could then claim that the sacrifices were begininning to py off.
The Liberals also need to find a way through difficult negotiations with teachers, nurses and doctors in coming months, especially critical after their mishandling of the HEU strike.
And they have to find a way to deal with the Campbell problem. B.C. premiers always trail their party in popularity. But Campbell's approval rating is dismal, with only 29 per cent of British Columbians approving of his performance. (Glen Clark, in his worst days, fell to 19-per-cent approval.)
There are lots of theories about why people believe Campbell is doing a bad job. He's seen as untrustworthy by people who believe he broke critical promises on issues like BC Rail and respecting contracts. And he's blamed for a wide perception that the Liberal government doesn't care about the effects of its policies on ordinary British Columbians.
The Liberal pitch will be based on asking for four more years to complete the job and capture the benefits of the Olympics.
The race is on. And the mere fact that it is a race, and not an easy Liberal walk, is an indication of how many more surprises may lie ahead.
Footnote: For the NDP, a critical issue will be who emerge as candidates. Newcomers may not inspire confidence; veterans of the Clark government will be a reminder of its bleak performance. For the Liberals, a critical issue will be whether the Unity Party is able to capture right-wing votes in close races that would have gone Liberal.
Three years ago most people would have expected it to be an easy Liberal re-election victory. Not so lopsided as 2001, certainly, but still another big majority.
No more. Based on the latest polls the Liberals will face a tough battle and some 30 of the party's 75 MLAs will be out of a job. An NDP victory is no longer out of the question, a stunning turnaround given the party's dismal performance in government and overwhelming rejection three years ago.
The Liberals aren't panicked. They're confident that as the election comes closer voters will look more closely at the NDP and their record.
That's the first big factor to watch as the next year unfolds. NDP leader Carole James has been relatively untested in terms of what her party would do in government.
The former NDP government was widely and accurately seen as incompetent and wasteful, and a particularly poor manager of public sector wage costs. James has to prove that she - and the leading NDP candidates - would do better.
It will mean walking a political tightrope. James has said repeatedly that she "can't turn back the clock" and undo LIberal decisions. But she will have to provide specifics to win trust and votes. Would an NDP government restore the 15-per-cent wage rollback for Hospital Employees' Union members, for example? And if it did, where would the extra $250 million a year come from? One answer will anger public sector union members; the other will anger many other voters.
The Liberals face their own challenges.
With only a year to go, Premier Gordon Campbell points to a long list of New Era campaign promises that have been delivered.
But voters - as the polls indicate - have major doubts, linked to failures in key areas.
Health care is not better under the Liberals than it was under the NDP. The economy has not improved in the way the Liberals promised. Universities and colleges are harder to get into, and cost more. The promised improvements in the children and families ministry have been botched. The tax cut did not deliver the promised returns to government, and this year taxes actually increased for lower and middle-income British Columbians, while going down for the more affluent.
Partly, the Liberals need luck, especially on the economy. (And that should worry them, given that the only luck they have had so far has been bad - think of SARS, softwood, 911, fires, floods.)
Analysts have been upgrading their economic growth estimates for this year, a change that would mean more jobs and better pay.
More importantly, a stronger economy would allow the Liberals to bring in a credible pre-election budget next February that included spending increases for health and education. They could then claim that the sacrifices were begininning to py off.
The Liberals also need to find a way through difficult negotiations with teachers, nurses and doctors in coming months, especially critical after their mishandling of the HEU strike.
And they have to find a way to deal with the Campbell problem. B.C. premiers always trail their party in popularity. But Campbell's approval rating is dismal, with only 29 per cent of British Columbians approving of his performance. (Glen Clark, in his worst days, fell to 19-per-cent approval.)
There are lots of theories about why people believe Campbell is doing a bad job. He's seen as untrustworthy by people who believe he broke critical promises on issues like BC Rail and respecting contracts. And he's blamed for a wide perception that the Liberal government doesn't care about the effects of its policies on ordinary British Columbians.
The Liberal pitch will be based on asking for four more years to complete the job and capture the benefits of the Olympics.
The race is on. And the mere fact that it is a race, and not an easy Liberal walk, is an indication of how many more surprises may lie ahead.
Footnote: For the NDP, a critical issue will be who emerge as candidates. Newcomers may not inspire confidence; veterans of the Clark government will be a reminder of its bleak performance. For the Liberals, a critical issue will be whether the Unity Party is able to capture right-wing votes in close races that would have gone Liberal.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Tougher laws against street people not the answer
VICTORIA - I learned to to look carefully out the bus windows in Mexico City whenever we hit an intersection. A red light might mean a human pyramid - a man on the bottom, a kid about 10 who clambered up to stand on his shoulders and then a five-year-old, often in some ragtag costume, who scrambled up to stand on the very top, madly blowing a whistle. A silent ta-daa, everybody leaps down to the hot pavement and then dashes to collect money from drivers before the light changes.
It was weirder outside the main business district. There it was often just sickly looking men who took big swigs from plastic bottles and then breathed fire across the street, hoping drivers would toss them a few coins. (They were sickly looking because they used a mix of diesel and water to make the flames.)
Which leads, in a circular way, to MLA Lorne Mayencourt's bills that aim to put an end to squeegee people and aggressive panhandlers, and make it easier for property owners to bar people they don't like.
Mayencourt probably reflects the views of many people in his downtown Vancouver community. Many of them find panhandlers not just a nuisance, but threatening. Others wish they would all just go away.
And I can see that.
But it also gets a little uglier. Mayencourt did a reasonable job of explaining why he had introduced the bills in a scrum outside the chamber. But then he went a little father: "We're telling them that the streets belong to the people who pay for them."
So you low-income single mom, these aren't your streets. A citizen's rights are linked to the amount of taxes he pays.
You can make a good case for setting limits on peoples' actions, at least ones that affect others. If confrontational panhandlers make people feel unsafe, then there's a case for stopping them.
It's tricky ground. It's unrealistic to say people should simply ignore the approaches of panhandlers. If someone feels menaced, if their ability to make use of the streets is reduced, then something should be done.
But it's a short step from that argument to sweeping away anyone who makes people feel uncomfortable. And that 's wrong and dangerous. All people have a right to use the streets and public places.
The other problems with Mayencourt's bill are purely practical. It's hard to see how they are going to make any real difference.
Mayencourt cited the example of a woman whose car window was smashed by a squeegee person as an example of the need for a new law. But assault, smashing windows, threatening people, even jaywalking are all already offences. If law enforcement is the answer, the tools are already there.
It's not. Police have better things to do than arrest panhandlers, or issue tickets that they can't pay because they have no money.
There are no simple answers. One response is to look at why people are on the streets. If cuts to support programs for at-risk youth or a lack of treatment options for the addicted or mentally ill are a factor - and they likely are - then that needs to be part of the solution. If people are camped out in storefronts because there are no other safe places, then why not provide them?
At the risk of being simplistic, part of the answer lies within us. If we see these people as threatening aliens and respond in that way, we set the stage for deeper division. If we nod and say hello - even without giving money - we bring our community together. (And if we make personal contributions to the many effective agencies working with them, we do even more.)
We tend to like simple solutions: more law and order, or more social spending.
But ultimately this is about people and how they get along. And that is never simple.
Footnote: Mayencourt's bill isn't going anywhere. The big guys in government aren't keen, and only one private member's bill has passed in more than 20 years. That was MLA Steve Orcherton's bill extending patient's right to alternative health care. The Liberal repealed it shortly after the election. But it's still healthy to see a backbencher at least getting an idea on the agenda.
It was weirder outside the main business district. There it was often just sickly looking men who took big swigs from plastic bottles and then breathed fire across the street, hoping drivers would toss them a few coins. (They were sickly looking because they used a mix of diesel and water to make the flames.)
Which leads, in a circular way, to MLA Lorne Mayencourt's bills that aim to put an end to squeegee people and aggressive panhandlers, and make it easier for property owners to bar people they don't like.
Mayencourt probably reflects the views of many people in his downtown Vancouver community. Many of them find panhandlers not just a nuisance, but threatening. Others wish they would all just go away.
And I can see that.
But it also gets a little uglier. Mayencourt did a reasonable job of explaining why he had introduced the bills in a scrum outside the chamber. But then he went a little father: "We're telling them that the streets belong to the people who pay for them."
So you low-income single mom, these aren't your streets. A citizen's rights are linked to the amount of taxes he pays.
You can make a good case for setting limits on peoples' actions, at least ones that affect others. If confrontational panhandlers make people feel unsafe, then there's a case for stopping them.
It's tricky ground. It's unrealistic to say people should simply ignore the approaches of panhandlers. If someone feels menaced, if their ability to make use of the streets is reduced, then something should be done.
But it's a short step from that argument to sweeping away anyone who makes people feel uncomfortable. And that 's wrong and dangerous. All people have a right to use the streets and public places.
The other problems with Mayencourt's bill are purely practical. It's hard to see how they are going to make any real difference.
Mayencourt cited the example of a woman whose car window was smashed by a squeegee person as an example of the need for a new law. But assault, smashing windows, threatening people, even jaywalking are all already offences. If law enforcement is the answer, the tools are already there.
It's not. Police have better things to do than arrest panhandlers, or issue tickets that they can't pay because they have no money.
There are no simple answers. One response is to look at why people are on the streets. If cuts to support programs for at-risk youth or a lack of treatment options for the addicted or mentally ill are a factor - and they likely are - then that needs to be part of the solution. If people are camped out in storefronts because there are no other safe places, then why not provide them?
At the risk of being simplistic, part of the answer lies within us. If we see these people as threatening aliens and respond in that way, we set the stage for deeper division. If we nod and say hello - even without giving money - we bring our community together. (And if we make personal contributions to the many effective agencies working with them, we do even more.)
We tend to like simple solutions: more law and order, or more social spending.
But ultimately this is about people and how they get along. And that is never simple.
Footnote: Mayencourt's bill isn't going anywhere. The big guys in government aren't keen, and only one private member's bill has passed in more than 20 years. That was MLA Steve Orcherton's bill extending patient's right to alternative health care. The Liberal repealed it shortly after the election. But it's still healthy to see a backbencher at least getting an idea on the agenda.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Penner shows health care better if you can pay
VICTORIA - Queue-jumping MLA Barry Penner deserves our thanks.
The Abbotsford Liberal pushed the issue of two-tier health care out in the open, by taking the dramatic step of paying for surgery at a private clinic to avoid health care wait lists.
Let me be clear. If was in Penner's situation, I would do the same thing. He's had a bad back for a couple of years, and injured it while exercising in mid-April. His doctor put him on a wait list for surgery to repair a damaged disc. It was elective, but it was pressing enough that the operation was scheduled within a couple of weeks.
Then the Hospital Employees' Union strike began, and the procedure wasn't urgent enough to be done under essential services.
Penner says his doctor disagreed. He was in pain, and worried - even scared, I'd say - about long-term damage. So he went to a private clinic and paid for the surgery.
I'd do the same, even knowing that the surgery was probably illegal. (And I, like Penner, would express regret about it.)
But that's not the way health care is supposed to work in Canada. The Canada Health Act requires equal access to care. Canadians have taken it as a principle that income shouldn't determine who gets needed treatment and who has to wait.
Governments have been working hard to ignore the reality that private treatment has already created a two-tier system.
Which is fine if you have money.
But what if you can't come up with the cash? (Penner won't say how much his operation cost, because the clinic swears clients to secrecy, a nice surreptitious touch.)
Then you wait. You risk the permanent damage Penner was worried about. If you don't have the same benefits as MLAs, you lose income. You suffer.
That is today's reality - a world in which there is one standard of health care for people with money, and another for those without. So far government's have decided to pretend it's not happening. Health Minister Colin Hansen introduced a bill last year that would have targeted the abuses. The Liberals passed it. But then Premier Gordon Campbell, under pressure from private clinics, said the law wouldn't go into effect.
The government is still trying to avoid the issue. Hansen struggled to explain why Penner's surgery - and thousands more like it - aren't a violation of the Canada Health Act's ban on paying to jump the queue for medically necessary procedures.
Penner didn't jump the queue, Hansen said, he just stepped out of it.
Anyway there's no clear definition of medically necessary, Hansen added, although surely Penner's surgery would qualify under anyone's definition.
And he noted correctly that Penner would have got his surgery in the public system if not for the strike.
But this isn't about the strike. Waiting lists have climbed steadily since the election, and private operations for people who don't want to wait are done every day.
At its base the issue isn't complex. Waiting lists are climbing because governments won't pay for the treatments people need. There are enough operating rooms, nurses and in most cases doctors. Governments don't believe treating people in a timely way is a spending priority. (Every year since 1997 about 2,600 British Columbians have been told they need hip replacements and put on a waiting list. But in every year but one 2,300 replacements have been performed. So waiting lists grow until it now takes an average four months to get an operation. A one-time $25-million investment would clear the backlog.)
Penner deserves our thanks. He has provided a high-profile demonstration that two-tier care exists.
Now all Canadians need to decide if we are ready to accept a health care system which lets people with money get speedy treatment, while others wait, and often, suffer.
Footnote: Hansen also noted that queue-jumping has already been sanctioned by the federal government in some cases. The WCB can pay for private treatment for claimants, and RCMP members and federal prisoners also are allowed to go private. When injuries and illness cost governments money, they find ways around the queue. In opposition, the Liberals opposed the practise; they have now changed their minds.
The Abbotsford Liberal pushed the issue of two-tier health care out in the open, by taking the dramatic step of paying for surgery at a private clinic to avoid health care wait lists.
Let me be clear. If was in Penner's situation, I would do the same thing. He's had a bad back for a couple of years, and injured it while exercising in mid-April. His doctor put him on a wait list for surgery to repair a damaged disc. It was elective, but it was pressing enough that the operation was scheduled within a couple of weeks.
Then the Hospital Employees' Union strike began, and the procedure wasn't urgent enough to be done under essential services.
Penner says his doctor disagreed. He was in pain, and worried - even scared, I'd say - about long-term damage. So he went to a private clinic and paid for the surgery.
I'd do the same, even knowing that the surgery was probably illegal. (And I, like Penner, would express regret about it.)
But that's not the way health care is supposed to work in Canada. The Canada Health Act requires equal access to care. Canadians have taken it as a principle that income shouldn't determine who gets needed treatment and who has to wait.
Governments have been working hard to ignore the reality that private treatment has already created a two-tier system.
Which is fine if you have money.
But what if you can't come up with the cash? (Penner won't say how much his operation cost, because the clinic swears clients to secrecy, a nice surreptitious touch.)
Then you wait. You risk the permanent damage Penner was worried about. If you don't have the same benefits as MLAs, you lose income. You suffer.
That is today's reality - a world in which there is one standard of health care for people with money, and another for those without. So far government's have decided to pretend it's not happening. Health Minister Colin Hansen introduced a bill last year that would have targeted the abuses. The Liberals passed it. But then Premier Gordon Campbell, under pressure from private clinics, said the law wouldn't go into effect.
The government is still trying to avoid the issue. Hansen struggled to explain why Penner's surgery - and thousands more like it - aren't a violation of the Canada Health Act's ban on paying to jump the queue for medically necessary procedures.
Penner didn't jump the queue, Hansen said, he just stepped out of it.
Anyway there's no clear definition of medically necessary, Hansen added, although surely Penner's surgery would qualify under anyone's definition.
And he noted correctly that Penner would have got his surgery in the public system if not for the strike.
But this isn't about the strike. Waiting lists have climbed steadily since the election, and private operations for people who don't want to wait are done every day.
At its base the issue isn't complex. Waiting lists are climbing because governments won't pay for the treatments people need. There are enough operating rooms, nurses and in most cases doctors. Governments don't believe treating people in a timely way is a spending priority. (Every year since 1997 about 2,600 British Columbians have been told they need hip replacements and put on a waiting list. But in every year but one 2,300 replacements have been performed. So waiting lists grow until it now takes an average four months to get an operation. A one-time $25-million investment would clear the backlog.)
Penner deserves our thanks. He has provided a high-profile demonstration that two-tier care exists.
Now all Canadians need to decide if we are ready to accept a health care system which lets people with money get speedy treatment, while others wait, and often, suffer.
Footnote: Hansen also noted that queue-jumping has already been sanctioned by the federal government in some cases. The WCB can pay for private treatment for claimants, and RCMP members and federal prisoners also are allowed to go private. When injuries and illness cost governments money, they find ways around the queue. In opposition, the Liberals opposed the practise; they have now changed their minds.
IWA the Liberals' partner in health sector wage cuts
VICTORIA - Back in 1994 it would have been hard to predict that Dave Haggard and the IWA would become the Liberals' allies in privatizing health sector jobs and cutting employees' wages.
The Liberals could have shifted the work to private companies without the IWA's help. But it would have been a heck of a lot harder and slower without the union.
What a difference a decade makes. Back in 1994 Haggard and the IWA were waging war on MacMillan Bloedel over work done by construction companies using members of "rat unions." The unions were employer-controlled and negotiated inferior contracts, said Haggard. The IWA threatened boycotts and the dispute led to violent clashes in Port Alberni.
Flash forward. The Liberals want health authorities to be able fire Hospital Employees Union members and contract with private companies to do the work. The goal is to save money, largely by hiring new employees at much lower wages and with fewer benefits.
The Liberals could clear the way for the changes. They used legislation to remove job protection in health care workers ' contracts and eliminate successor rights.
But that still left a risk. The private companies bidding on the contracts knew they could probably fill the jobs with new workers who would work for much lower wages.
But they couldn't be guaranteed that those wages would stay low. The HEU would almost certainly try and organize the workplaces. The employees might decide to form their own association, or hook up with some other large union. Even if they didn't, the threat would always be there, creating uncertainty for the companies.
And that's where Haggard and the IWA came in. Before a single employee was hired, the IWA sat down with the three companies bidding for most of the work and signed a contract that provided low wages and few benefits.
When hiring started, job applicants were told they had to sign an IWA membership card before they would be interviewed. The companies and the IWA co-operated to force them into the union, and subject them to a contract they never had a chance to see, let alone vote on.
It was a good deal for the companies, which got an insurance policy against employees deciding to form a union and advance their own issues.
The government got lower bids for the work, since the companies didn't have to worry about their labour costs going up.
The IWA picked up a lot of dues revenue, without having to go through the hassle of convincing the workers that they actually wanted to hand part of their wages.
The employees didn't do quite so well. There's lots of talk about the efficiencies of private companies, and there are some benefits. But the real savings simply come from paying people less. Contracting out laundry services meant wages for an employee went from $34,000 under the HEU to $21,000 under the IWA contract, with benefits taking a similar cut.
The employees, in short, got what looks very much like the kind of contract Haggard used to rail against.
The employees could decertify, of course, but that's slow and difficult.
And in any case the government effectively took that option away, passing legislation last year to strip these employees of the successor rights enjoyed by employees at every other private business in the province. A health sector company facing a union or contract it doesn't like can fire the employees and walk away. A new operator then takes over, free to sign a more accommodating contract with a friendly union like the IWA. (This isn't theoretical; it has already happened.)
It's a sorry role for the IWA, one that has embarrassed many members and drawn sanctions from the Canadian Labour Congress.
And it's surprising that the union's members have stood by and watched as the IWA played a part in reducing not just wages, but the basic rights of workers.
Footnote: Haggard has been anointed as a federal Liberal candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam, spared the trouble of a nomination battle thanks to Paul Martin's intervention. It's a reminder of how out of touch Martin is with B.C. To beat Conservative incumbent Paul Forseth, Haggard needs to capture votes from the NDP. Given the IWA's health role, that's not going to happen.
The Liberals could have shifted the work to private companies without the IWA's help. But it would have been a heck of a lot harder and slower without the union.
What a difference a decade makes. Back in 1994 Haggard and the IWA were waging war on MacMillan Bloedel over work done by construction companies using members of "rat unions." The unions were employer-controlled and negotiated inferior contracts, said Haggard. The IWA threatened boycotts and the dispute led to violent clashes in Port Alberni.
Flash forward. The Liberals want health authorities to be able fire Hospital Employees Union members and contract with private companies to do the work. The goal is to save money, largely by hiring new employees at much lower wages and with fewer benefits.
The Liberals could clear the way for the changes. They used legislation to remove job protection in health care workers ' contracts and eliminate successor rights.
But that still left a risk. The private companies bidding on the contracts knew they could probably fill the jobs with new workers who would work for much lower wages.
But they couldn't be guaranteed that those wages would stay low. The HEU would almost certainly try and organize the workplaces. The employees might decide to form their own association, or hook up with some other large union. Even if they didn't, the threat would always be there, creating uncertainty for the companies.
And that's where Haggard and the IWA came in. Before a single employee was hired, the IWA sat down with the three companies bidding for most of the work and signed a contract that provided low wages and few benefits.
When hiring started, job applicants were told they had to sign an IWA membership card before they would be interviewed. The companies and the IWA co-operated to force them into the union, and subject them to a contract they never had a chance to see, let alone vote on.
It was a good deal for the companies, which got an insurance policy against employees deciding to form a union and advance their own issues.
The government got lower bids for the work, since the companies didn't have to worry about their labour costs going up.
The IWA picked up a lot of dues revenue, without having to go through the hassle of convincing the workers that they actually wanted to hand part of their wages.
The employees didn't do quite so well. There's lots of talk about the efficiencies of private companies, and there are some benefits. But the real savings simply come from paying people less. Contracting out laundry services meant wages for an employee went from $34,000 under the HEU to $21,000 under the IWA contract, with benefits taking a similar cut.
The employees, in short, got what looks very much like the kind of contract Haggard used to rail against.
The employees could decertify, of course, but that's slow and difficult.
And in any case the government effectively took that option away, passing legislation last year to strip these employees of the successor rights enjoyed by employees at every other private business in the province. A health sector company facing a union or contract it doesn't like can fire the employees and walk away. A new operator then takes over, free to sign a more accommodating contract with a friendly union like the IWA. (This isn't theoretical; it has already happened.)
It's a sorry role for the IWA, one that has embarrassed many members and drawn sanctions from the Canadian Labour Congress.
And it's surprising that the union's members have stood by and watched as the IWA played a part in reducing not just wages, but the basic rights of workers.
Footnote: Haggard has been anointed as a federal Liberal candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam, spared the trouble of a nomination battle thanks to Paul Martin's intervention. It's a reminder of how out of touch Martin is with B.C. To beat Conservative incumbent Paul Forseth, Haggard needs to capture votes from the NDP. Given the IWA's health role, that's not going to happen.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Public sector strikes: there's a better way
VICTORIA - It's time for a new way of resolving public sector labour disputes, especially in the health sector.
Premier Gordon Campbell doesn't seem keen on the idea, making no commitment for action. Labour Minister Graham Bruce says he's explored ideas a little with an informal "blue-ribbon panel" of advisors.
But the way we do things now doesn't work. And there are alternatives.
Most labour negotiations are resolved at the bargaining table. That's partly because union and company can usually agree pretty much on what a reasonable settlement would look like and find their way there, with some posturing along the way.
But negotiations also work because both sides are strongly motivated to avoid the worst case outcome - a strike or a lockout.
It's the labour version of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That theory held that as long as the U.S. and Russia each had enough atomic bombs to reduce each other to rubble, neither would be crazy enough to use them.
The strike/lockout threat is a small-scale version of the same principle. Companies know that a strike could inflict big economic damage, perhaps so great that the business would never recover and owners would lose everything. Employees know that they could be giving up wages for an indefinite period, and that if the company goes broke everything will be lost.
Asa result both sides are extremely motivated to make a deal. Both are aware of the dangers.
The balance actually works pretty well. (And to their credit the Liberals have done nothing to tilt the scale in favour of employers, despite pressure from some business groups.)
But the process breaks down in many public sector negotiations. Both sides know that the right to strike or lockout employees is an illusion. The public will get crabby; the politicians will step in and order a return to work; and a deal will be imposed or brokered in the backrooms.
Under the NDP those deals tended to favour the unions. The Hospital Employee Union's members work a 36-hour week because that's part of the deal former health minister Elizabeth Cull agreed to in 1993 to end a strike.
Under the Liberals, the deals favour the employers. The government moved the union back to a 37.5-hour week in the current dispute. (The change matters. The increase to 37.5 hours means about 1,700 fewer employees will be required; an increase to 40 hours would push the job loss to more than 4,000.)
And meanwhile the public suffers through the disruptions and pendulum swings.
It's time for a better system.
John Fryer has just chaired a federal committee looking at the same issues. Fryer has seen disputes from both sides, as a former BCGEU leader and a senior B.C. government bureaucrat.
The committee proposed an independent public interest disputes commission, with members experienced in employer and union sectors. If a dispute was looming, they would investigate and present a "framework for a settlement in the public interest." The commission would also have the chance to recommend mediation or other ways of resolving the dispute.
Nothing would be binding. But it would be tougher for both sides to cling to unreasonable positions in the face of an independent review. (Ottawa acted on the recommendation.)
There are other options. Both parties could be required to submit their final offers to an arbitrator who would pick one or the other in its entirety. Since trying for too much would mean you get nothing, a reasonable approach and moderation would be encouraged.
B.C. needs a better way of resolving these kinds of disputes. The current system serves both sides badly and makes the public tthe victim of destructive and unnecessary confrontations.
The government should start a search for a better way now, involving labour and employer representatives, and with a pledge to have some system of dispute resolution as part of next years' election platform.
Footnote: The Liberals have one big problem on this issue. Any solution relies on mutual trust that commitments will be honoured. But the Liberals have agreed to arbitration and then reneged when they didn't like the results. They have signed contracts, and then broken them when they proved inconvenient. A solution that imposes discipline on only one side in a dispute is doomed.
Premier Gordon Campbell doesn't seem keen on the idea, making no commitment for action. Labour Minister Graham Bruce says he's explored ideas a little with an informal "blue-ribbon panel" of advisors.
But the way we do things now doesn't work. And there are alternatives.
Most labour negotiations are resolved at the bargaining table. That's partly because union and company can usually agree pretty much on what a reasonable settlement would look like and find their way there, with some posturing along the way.
But negotiations also work because both sides are strongly motivated to avoid the worst case outcome - a strike or a lockout.
It's the labour version of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That theory held that as long as the U.S. and Russia each had enough atomic bombs to reduce each other to rubble, neither would be crazy enough to use them.
The strike/lockout threat is a small-scale version of the same principle. Companies know that a strike could inflict big economic damage, perhaps so great that the business would never recover and owners would lose everything. Employees know that they could be giving up wages for an indefinite period, and that if the company goes broke everything will be lost.
Asa result both sides are extremely motivated to make a deal. Both are aware of the dangers.
The balance actually works pretty well. (And to their credit the Liberals have done nothing to tilt the scale in favour of employers, despite pressure from some business groups.)
But the process breaks down in many public sector negotiations. Both sides know that the right to strike or lockout employees is an illusion. The public will get crabby; the politicians will step in and order a return to work; and a deal will be imposed or brokered in the backrooms.
Under the NDP those deals tended to favour the unions. The Hospital Employee Union's members work a 36-hour week because that's part of the deal former health minister Elizabeth Cull agreed to in 1993 to end a strike.
Under the Liberals, the deals favour the employers. The government moved the union back to a 37.5-hour week in the current dispute. (The change matters. The increase to 37.5 hours means about 1,700 fewer employees will be required; an increase to 40 hours would push the job loss to more than 4,000.)
And meanwhile the public suffers through the disruptions and pendulum swings.
It's time for a better system.
John Fryer has just chaired a federal committee looking at the same issues. Fryer has seen disputes from both sides, as a former BCGEU leader and a senior B.C. government bureaucrat.
The committee proposed an independent public interest disputes commission, with members experienced in employer and union sectors. If a dispute was looming, they would investigate and present a "framework for a settlement in the public interest." The commission would also have the chance to recommend mediation or other ways of resolving the dispute.
Nothing would be binding. But it would be tougher for both sides to cling to unreasonable positions in the face of an independent review. (Ottawa acted on the recommendation.)
There are other options. Both parties could be required to submit their final offers to an arbitrator who would pick one or the other in its entirety. Since trying for too much would mean you get nothing, a reasonable approach and moderation would be encouraged.
B.C. needs a better way of resolving these kinds of disputes. The current system serves both sides badly and makes the public tthe victim of destructive and unnecessary confrontations.
The government should start a search for a better way now, involving labour and employer representatives, and with a pledge to have some system of dispute resolution as part of next years' election platform.
Footnote: The Liberals have one big problem on this issue. Any solution relies on mutual trust that commitments will be honoured. But the Liberals have agreed to arbitration and then reneged when they didn't like the results. They have signed contracts, and then broken them when they proved inconvenient. A solution that imposes discipline on only one side in a dispute is doomed.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Liberals bungled back-to-work bill badly
VICTORIA - The Liberals did an astonishingly bad job of handling the
health care strike.
They bumbled and bullied and made what was inevitably going to be a bad
situation much, much worse.
The government has a good case for wage and benefit cuts, particularly
after overly generous contract awards under the NDP. (A single mom
working two jobs shouldn't pay more in taxes so health union members
only have to work a 36-hour week.).
And since the Hospital Employees' Union could be expected to fight any
concessions, it's tough to imagine any resolution without some
brinksmanship and disruption.
But the Liberals made a complete mess of this.
It's reasonable to seek cost reductions. It's reasonable to use
legislation to end the strike, deciding the health care system is too
fragile to sustain any more cuts.
But the Liberals had weeks to prepare back-to-work legislation that
would be pragmatic and effective.
They also had an obvious model. The government and the HEU leadership
reached an agreement last year that would have seen wage and benefit
cuts in return for a limit on job loss to privatization. The leadership
recommended it, but the deal was voted down by 57 per cent of the members.
That's a narrow defeat. And the LIberals also knew that just under half
the membership voted. That means only 13,000 of some 43,000 members felt
strongly enough opposed to the deal to cast a no vote.
That tells me that a fair back-to-work bill based on the agreement
reached last year would have worked. Employees and unions would grumble,
but they would return to work. And remember, the government had decided
last year that the deal made sense and was affordable.
That's not what the Liberals did. They opted for legislation that was a
one-sided attack on the union.
The legislation ending the strike imposed - as the base - an unpaid
1.5-hour increase in the work week and an 11-per-cent wage cut. The wage
cut was retroactive to April 1, so employees would be paying back money
from pay cheques they had already cashed. How would most of us feel if
the boss said he wanted to roll back our wages, starting last month, and
could we give him $300? (Even though unions always expect employers to
come up with retroactive pay increases.)
There was no privatization job protection, or any other small win for
the union.
The Liberals touted an option that would have let the HEU agree to have
a government-appointed arbitrator come up with combined pay and benefit
cuts that produced similar savings. (All the Liberal MLAs present voted
against an amendment that would have called for an arbitrator acceptable
to both parties.)
Gordon Campbell has been the peek-a-boo premier through all this. He
didn't speak during the 12-hour debate. He skipped the legislature the
next day. His only comments came in a couple of brief, puzzling
appearances on BCTV.
He urged the unions to accept the arbitration option, claiming the
arbitrator could deal with job protection - even though the bill doesn't
mention that option, and Health Minister Colin Hansen said that was
because he doesn't want any cap on contracting out.
And Campbell suggested that if employees would give up a week of
vacation and move to a 40-hour week with no wage increase, then they
would lose only a little in wage rates.
Sounds simple. But those two changes would translate into another 5,100
HEU members losing their jobs. That's hardly a strong selling point.
Now, after huge disruptions and a serious blow to the economy, the
Liberals are doing what they should have done in the first place.
The retroactivity requirement - which was either mean-spirited or dumb -
is gone. Additional job losses to privatization are capped at 600.
The same deal should have formed the basis for the back-to-work
legislation in the first place. And if the government had done that,
this damaging confrontation could have been avoided.
Footnote: How did this happen? One answer is that Liberal MLAs seemed to
have turned off their minds during debate on the back-to-work bill. In
hours of detailed examination, there was exactly one question from a
Liberal backbencher. Not one Liberal asked about retroactivity or any
other element of the deal.
health care strike.
They bumbled and bullied and made what was inevitably going to be a bad
situation much, much worse.
The government has a good case for wage and benefit cuts, particularly
after overly generous contract awards under the NDP. (A single mom
working two jobs shouldn't pay more in taxes so health union members
only have to work a 36-hour week.).
And since the Hospital Employees' Union could be expected to fight any
concessions, it's tough to imagine any resolution without some
brinksmanship and disruption.
But the Liberals made a complete mess of this.
It's reasonable to seek cost reductions. It's reasonable to use
legislation to end the strike, deciding the health care system is too
fragile to sustain any more cuts.
But the Liberals had weeks to prepare back-to-work legislation that
would be pragmatic and effective.
They also had an obvious model. The government and the HEU leadership
reached an agreement last year that would have seen wage and benefit
cuts in return for a limit on job loss to privatization. The leadership
recommended it, but the deal was voted down by 57 per cent of the members.
That's a narrow defeat. And the LIberals also knew that just under half
the membership voted. That means only 13,000 of some 43,000 members felt
strongly enough opposed to the deal to cast a no vote.
That tells me that a fair back-to-work bill based on the agreement
reached last year would have worked. Employees and unions would grumble,
but they would return to work. And remember, the government had decided
last year that the deal made sense and was affordable.
That's not what the Liberals did. They opted for legislation that was a
one-sided attack on the union.
The legislation ending the strike imposed - as the base - an unpaid
1.5-hour increase in the work week and an 11-per-cent wage cut. The wage
cut was retroactive to April 1, so employees would be paying back money
from pay cheques they had already cashed. How would most of us feel if
the boss said he wanted to roll back our wages, starting last month, and
could we give him $300? (Even though unions always expect employers to
come up with retroactive pay increases.)
There was no privatization job protection, or any other small win for
the union.
The Liberals touted an option that would have let the HEU agree to have
a government-appointed arbitrator come up with combined pay and benefit
cuts that produced similar savings. (All the Liberal MLAs present voted
against an amendment that would have called for an arbitrator acceptable
to both parties.)
Gordon Campbell has been the peek-a-boo premier through all this. He
didn't speak during the 12-hour debate. He skipped the legislature the
next day. His only comments came in a couple of brief, puzzling
appearances on BCTV.
He urged the unions to accept the arbitration option, claiming the
arbitrator could deal with job protection - even though the bill doesn't
mention that option, and Health Minister Colin Hansen said that was
because he doesn't want any cap on contracting out.
And Campbell suggested that if employees would give up a week of
vacation and move to a 40-hour week with no wage increase, then they
would lose only a little in wage rates.
Sounds simple. But those two changes would translate into another 5,100
HEU members losing their jobs. That's hardly a strong selling point.
Now, after huge disruptions and a serious blow to the economy, the
Liberals are doing what they should have done in the first place.
The retroactivity requirement - which was either mean-spirited or dumb -
is gone. Additional job losses to privatization are capped at 600.
The same deal should have formed the basis for the back-to-work
legislation in the first place. And if the government had done that,
this damaging confrontation could have been avoided.
Footnote: How did this happen? One answer is that Liberal MLAs seemed to
have turned off their minds during debate on the back-to-work bill. In
hours of detailed examination, there was exactly one question from a
Liberal backbencher. Not one Liberal asked about retroactivity or any
other element of the deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
