VICTORIA - The Liberals should be spooked by dueling poll results that revealed a destructive urban-regional split and some major political problems.
Ipsos-Reid and the Mustel Group came up with some varying results in the polls released this week. But both found a continuing slide in Liberal support outside the Lower Mainland. Some 30 Liberal MLAs from the rest of B.C. could be at risk, an obvious concern for the party.
But it's also a concern for the province. Last month's federal election left many British Columbians glumly convinced that they're doomed to be perpetual political outsiders. The poll results point toward a potential election result that would create a similar sense of alienation for British Columbians outside Vancouver and its sprawl.
Ipsos Reid found the Liberals had the support of 43 per cent of decided voters in the Lower Mainland, with the NDP at 33 per cent. In the rest of the province, the New Democrats were at 46 per cent, comfortably ahead of the Liberals' 28 per cent. (Mustel identifies a similar regional divide.)
But the seats are in the Lower Mainland, and the poll suggests the possibility of an urban-dominated Liberal government, with a scattering of representatives from the rest of B.C.
That result would just add to the sense of alienation and abandonment already felt by many in resource communities. Ipsos-Reid asked people if they believed the province has improved, or grown worse under the Liberals. Lower Mainland residents were evenly divided. In the rest of the province almost half the population thought things had got worse since the election; only 24 per cent saw improvement.
The Liberals are counting on an improving economy to lift its standing in the polls over the next 10 months. (And on voters growing increasingly wary as they consider the prospect of the NDP actually forming a government.)
But the economy has been strengthening for some time. And neither poll showed any improvement in the Liberals' standing, with Ipsos-Reid reporting the Liberal support unchanged at 37 per cent and Mustel a seven-point drop to 33 per cent.
Voters are even recognizing the strengthening economy. A June Ipsos-Reid poll found 58 per cent of British Columbians believed the economy was in good shape, the highest rate recorded in seven years.
But it's not the critical factor when it comes to assessing politicians' performance. This week's poll found that across the province 42 per cent of British Columbians think the province is in worse shape now than when the Liberals took over; only 30 per cent think things have improved.
Liberals who think an improving economy will solve their problems are running a big risk.
So if it's not the economy, what are people worried about?
More bad news for the Liberals. The Mustel Group tracks the public's view of the most important issue facing British Columbians. Before the 2001 election, health care, government and the economy were all given equal weight by respondents.
But the Mustel poll this week found health care is the overwhelmingly dominant issue. And with Prime Minister Paul Martin saying health care is his new priority, and the premiers pushing for more money, more and more attention paid to the health care system and its current weaknesses in the months ahead.
It's not a good issue for the Liberals. StatsCan surveyed Canadians in 2003 on their satisfaction with the health care services they had received in the last 12 months. British Columbians were the least satisfied in Canada. While satisfaction had risen in most provinces since 2001, it was down sharply in B.C.
Patients aren't likely to see any quick improvement to make them change their minds. The five regional health authorities got their budgets from the province this week, with an average 1.6-per-cent funding increase. (Fraser Health, with the fastest growing population, received a 3.3-per-cent boost). Even with improved spending effectiveness health authorities will struggle to deal with the demands of a growing, aging population.
It will be a challenging year for them - and for the Liberals.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Ombudsman, gay porn legal battle both deserve our money
VICTORIA - It would have been a heck of a federal election campaign issue, I bet.
How would the parties react to news that tax dollars are being spent to help a Vancouver gay and lesbian book store wage a legal battle to bring banned gay porn into Canada?
We can only imagine the response.
But I do know that I'd only vote for a candidate who supported the court decision.
There's a power imbalance in our society. People with resources can exercise their rights much more effectively than those who are less well-off. It costs money to go to court, or to challenge a municipal government decision. Rights are limited by your ability to pay the cost of defending them.
Theat's the reality the BC Supreme Court recognized, and attempted to address, when it ruled that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs in its latest censorship battle with Canada Customs. The federal agency has seized and banned two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage. The store wants to challenge the seizure in court, its only avenue of appeal.
But Little Sisters has no money for a 12-week trial. And until now, that would have ended the issue.
No more, and that's a good thing. Last year the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a B.C. ruling that found governments should pay the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest rights. The issues were of public importance, the court ruled, and the bands couldn't afford the legal costs. Justice would only be served if their costs were paid by government.
Little Sisters' lawyer Joe Arvay argued that the same principle should apply in the store's case. The issue - Canada Custom's book banning practices - affects the freedoms of all Canadians. Important questions about arbitrary censorship have been raised. And the store has no money.
And Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed, noting Canada Customs has barred some 65,000 books, movies and other articles in the last five years. The government should pay for the store's legal costs, she ruled, within strict limits.
Rights don't really exist if there is no practical way to enforce them. The right to appeal a decision to court means nothing if it is only available for those with $150,000 to spend. In many - even most - public interest cases, one side has a huge financial advantage and a strong economic incentive to fight the case; the other has little money and no prospects of a windfall from a legal victory.
The court decision simply levels the playing field in cases of broad public interest. It should be applauded.
Which leads, sadly, to the cuts to the cuts to B.C.'s Office of the Ombudsman, which are a step backward in the same way the court decision is a step forward.
The Ombudsman's office is another attempt to level the playing field in the pursuit of justice, generally on an individual scale. Not everyone has the skills or the resources to tackle government when they believe they are wronged. Certainly few have the ability to fight a particularly intractable or unreasonable institution.
The Ombudsman is their advocate. But the Liberals have cut the Ombudsman's budget by 35 per cent and the number of investigators has been cut in half. Cases involving municipal governments and professional associations had made up about 10 per cent of the complaints handled by the Ombudsman. Those people will no longer be helped, according to the Ombudsman's latest annual report. People challenging decisions or actions by schools or health authorities will now likely face long waits.
It seems a backward step. Some people can take on City Hall or a hospital alone - or with their lawyer - and resolve issues.
But others need help tin the interests of justice.
And as the Little Sister ruling suggests, providing that help is a reasonable role for the state.
Footnote: The Ombudsman's report includes examples of cases tackled during the year, from helping an elderly woman get needed home care to ensuring that an adopted child from outside the province was immediately eligible for MSP benefits to helping a small bsuiness cut through red tape. It's a useful role.
How would the parties react to news that tax dollars are being spent to help a Vancouver gay and lesbian book store wage a legal battle to bring banned gay porn into Canada?
We can only imagine the response.
But I do know that I'd only vote for a candidate who supported the court decision.
There's a power imbalance in our society. People with resources can exercise their rights much more effectively than those who are less well-off. It costs money to go to court, or to challenge a municipal government decision. Rights are limited by your ability to pay the cost of defending them.
Theat's the reality the BC Supreme Court recognized, and attempted to address, when it ruled that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs in its latest censorship battle with Canada Customs. The federal agency has seized and banned two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage. The store wants to challenge the seizure in court, its only avenue of appeal.
But Little Sisters has no money for a 12-week trial. And until now, that would have ended the issue.
No more, and that's a good thing. Last year the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a B.C. ruling that found governments should pay the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest rights. The issues were of public importance, the court ruled, and the bands couldn't afford the legal costs. Justice would only be served if their costs were paid by government.
Little Sisters' lawyer Joe Arvay argued that the same principle should apply in the store's case. The issue - Canada Custom's book banning practices - affects the freedoms of all Canadians. Important questions about arbitrary censorship have been raised. And the store has no money.
And Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed, noting Canada Customs has barred some 65,000 books, movies and other articles in the last five years. The government should pay for the store's legal costs, she ruled, within strict limits.
Rights don't really exist if there is no practical way to enforce them. The right to appeal a decision to court means nothing if it is only available for those with $150,000 to spend. In many - even most - public interest cases, one side has a huge financial advantage and a strong economic incentive to fight the case; the other has little money and no prospects of a windfall from a legal victory.
The court decision simply levels the playing field in cases of broad public interest. It should be applauded.
Which leads, sadly, to the cuts to the cuts to B.C.'s Office of the Ombudsman, which are a step backward in the same way the court decision is a step forward.
The Ombudsman's office is another attempt to level the playing field in the pursuit of justice, generally on an individual scale. Not everyone has the skills or the resources to tackle government when they believe they are wronged. Certainly few have the ability to fight a particularly intractable or unreasonable institution.
The Ombudsman is their advocate. But the Liberals have cut the Ombudsman's budget by 35 per cent and the number of investigators has been cut in half. Cases involving municipal governments and professional associations had made up about 10 per cent of the complaints handled by the Ombudsman. Those people will no longer be helped, according to the Ombudsman's latest annual report. People challenging decisions or actions by schools or health authorities will now likely face long waits.
It seems a backward step. Some people can take on City Hall or a hospital alone - or with their lawyer - and resolve issues.
But others need help tin the interests of justice.
And as the Little Sister ruling suggests, providing that help is a reasonable role for the state.
Footnote: The Ombudsman's report includes examples of cases tackled during the year, from helping an elderly woman get needed home care to ensuring that an adopted child from outside the province was immediately eligible for MSP benefits to helping a small bsuiness cut through red tape. It's a useful role.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Caged boys case highlight family justice issues
VICTORIA - The facts are clear enough - if you slap someone around, you'll be in less trouble in court if you hit someone in your family.
A new report looked at how courts in four provinces - not including B.C. - dealt with crimes of violence. The review included comparing the treatment of people guilty of crimes against family members with other offenders.
And on the whole it found the courts were much more lenient when the violence was within the family.
Only 28 per cent of people convicted of a violent sexual assault against a spouse went to jail; the number rose to 36 per cent if the attack was outside the family.
Only 15 per cent of family members convicted of physically abusing children go to jail, compared with the 23 per cent of strangers who commit the same offence.
Across the board you're about 50 per cent more likely to go to jail if you behave violently to an acquaintance or stranger than if you attack a family member.
It's alarming, especially coming in the same week as a court decision that shocked Canadians.
An Ontario couple who had caged their two children for much of the time over a 13-year period pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and failure to provide the necessities of life. The boys had been adopted by their aunt and her husband. Their life was a nightmare of physical and psychological abuse starting when the youngest was two and lasting until they were in their late teens.
The abuse was "near torture" over 13 years, Judge Donald Halikowski found. The boys were beaten, threatened and locked in crib-size pens. They were denied water, becoming so thirsty they drank their own urine.
Yet the parents received nine-month jail sentences.
The judge found the boys were difficult, the parents felt bad now and they had “good intentions underscoring their punishments.” Thus the light sentence.
Expect an appeal. Paul Jenkinson of the BC Association of Social Workers spoke for many critics. "This sentence provides no general deterrence to parents who choose to abuse and humiliate their children and provides no hope for abused children seeking justice.”
One case could be an aberration. But the study, by the Centre for Justice Statistics, looked at 47,000 cases. And it found the courts consistently treat offenders who abuse someone in their family more lightly.
It's a finding that is even more critical because in Canada violent crimes are largely done by the people who are supposed to love us. Of the 47,000 violent offenses studied, 35 per cent involved an assault on a spouse. Another eight per cent involved assaults by family members on each other, or children. And 32 per cent involved friends or acquaintances.
That suggests a couple of things.
First, that the family is not the safe place that we all like to think. And second, that the courts' approach of lighter sentences might not reflect the importance of deterring such a major crime problem.
I'm slow to second guess or criticize the courts. My direct experience - as a reporter, not a defendant or crime victim - has been that within the limits set by resources and laws the courts function surprisingly well.
And it's not hard to understand the desire of a judge to find a way to keep a family on the edge of disaster together, and the reasons for imposinge probation, not a jail term.
But the Ontario case, and the study, suggest that their approach to family crime doesn't reflect how widespread, or serious, the problem is.
There's no quick fix, and instant solutions like new law with mandatory sentences would do far more harm than good.
But the study provides important information for the courts to consider in sentencing. And it's a reminder to us all that the family is a dangerous place for far too many people.
Footnote: We warn our children about dangerous strangers. But of the 47,000 violent offences reviewed, 43 per cent involved an attack on a family member; 32 per cent violence against a friend or acquaintance. In 92 per cent of the spousal violence cases men were the offenders; men were also responsible for 84 per cent of the assaults against children and youths.
A new report looked at how courts in four provinces - not including B.C. - dealt with crimes of violence. The review included comparing the treatment of people guilty of crimes against family members with other offenders.
And on the whole it found the courts were much more lenient when the violence was within the family.
Only 28 per cent of people convicted of a violent sexual assault against a spouse went to jail; the number rose to 36 per cent if the attack was outside the family.
Only 15 per cent of family members convicted of physically abusing children go to jail, compared with the 23 per cent of strangers who commit the same offence.
Across the board you're about 50 per cent more likely to go to jail if you behave violently to an acquaintance or stranger than if you attack a family member.
It's alarming, especially coming in the same week as a court decision that shocked Canadians.
An Ontario couple who had caged their two children for much of the time over a 13-year period pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and failure to provide the necessities of life. The boys had been adopted by their aunt and her husband. Their life was a nightmare of physical and psychological abuse starting when the youngest was two and lasting until they were in their late teens.
The abuse was "near torture" over 13 years, Judge Donald Halikowski found. The boys were beaten, threatened and locked in crib-size pens. They were denied water, becoming so thirsty they drank their own urine.
Yet the parents received nine-month jail sentences.
The judge found the boys were difficult, the parents felt bad now and they had “good intentions underscoring their punishments.” Thus the light sentence.
Expect an appeal. Paul Jenkinson of the BC Association of Social Workers spoke for many critics. "This sentence provides no general deterrence to parents who choose to abuse and humiliate their children and provides no hope for abused children seeking justice.”
One case could be an aberration. But the study, by the Centre for Justice Statistics, looked at 47,000 cases. And it found the courts consistently treat offenders who abuse someone in their family more lightly.
It's a finding that is even more critical because in Canada violent crimes are largely done by the people who are supposed to love us. Of the 47,000 violent offenses studied, 35 per cent involved an assault on a spouse. Another eight per cent involved assaults by family members on each other, or children. And 32 per cent involved friends or acquaintances.
That suggests a couple of things.
First, that the family is not the safe place that we all like to think. And second, that the courts' approach of lighter sentences might not reflect the importance of deterring such a major crime problem.
I'm slow to second guess or criticize the courts. My direct experience - as a reporter, not a defendant or crime victim - has been that within the limits set by resources and laws the courts function surprisingly well.
And it's not hard to understand the desire of a judge to find a way to keep a family on the edge of disaster together, and the reasons for imposinge probation, not a jail term.
But the Ontario case, and the study, suggest that their approach to family crime doesn't reflect how widespread, or serious, the problem is.
There's no quick fix, and instant solutions like new law with mandatory sentences would do far more harm than good.
But the study provides important information for the courts to consider in sentencing. And it's a reminder to us all that the family is a dangerous place for far too many people.
Footnote: We warn our children about dangerous strangers. But of the 47,000 violent offences reviewed, 43 per cent involved an attack on a family member; 32 per cent violence against a friend or acquaintance. In 92 per cent of the spousal violence cases men were the offenders; men were also responsible for 84 per cent of the assaults against children and youths.
Monday, July 05, 2004
CN the winner in BC Rail deal
VICTORIA - More questions about the BC Rail deal, as new information emerges just as the federal Competition Bureau approves the sale.
The government has always acknowledged that it might have to give back about $255 million of the $1-billion purchase price to CN Rail. Now it has revealed that the potential refunds come to $629 million, while adding confidently that it doesn't expect to have to hand any money back.
CN isn't just paying isn't for the railway. The company is also buying past tax losses, which it hopes to use to reduce its own tax bill.
But Revenue Canada gets the last word on whether thats legit. So CN negotiated a provision that will force the province to refund the money if the taxman says no.
That's all the government ever mentioned in terms of strings attached to the deal, until now.
But the just released final report on last year's finances bumped that potential refund on tax issues up to $367 million (plus interest). And the documents disclosed for the first time that CN negotiated clauses that could see the province return another $262 million.
That's $629 million in indemnities, as the accountants call them, that could be knocked off the $1-billion sale price.
Routine, the government says, and that's broadly true. Most major transactions provide for adjustments, or dispute resolution. CN may decide that some of the rail cars included in the sale are junk, for example, and want some money back. The government's willingness to offer refund protection may reflect its confidence that the assets being sold are as described.
But CN certainly negotiated well. Any buyer emerging from a deal with more than 60 per cent of its payment subject to refund has done a great job.
And the government has - again - cast a cloud over the deal by keeping the numbers from the public until now.
The newly revealed $262-million indemnity shouldn't be a huge worry. It's almost certain that CN will attempt to negotiate some sort of refund, but it's is hard to see what real surprises could lurk within the sales agreement.
But the jump in the potential refund over tax issues, from $255 million to $367 million, is important.
That means that CN is getting the business and all its assets for $633 million, not the $750 million the government claimed.
And that makes it look a very good deal for CN. BC Rail made a $66-million profit last year and is being sold without any debt. CN can make a 10-per-cent return on its investment without batting an eye. Once it begins cutting staff - about 400 jobs are expected to go - and working to increase traffic, the return soars.
This has been a bungled sale by the Liberals.
First, Gordon Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail. His claim that because the tracks and the ground under them weren't part of the deal the promise hasn't been broken is ludicrous. CN owns the business and the equipment. It's sold. Read the financial press, which talks only of the "deal to buy BC Rail."
Then the government's unnecessary attempt to impose secrecy have meant details of the deal have trickled out, each more damaging because of the way they emerged.
The odd thing is that the sale - though maybe not the price - is entirely defensible.
There arlots of good reasons government shouldn't be in the railway business.
And CN appears to have a genuine enthusiasm for the new business opportunities. CEO Hunter Harrison wasn't just being polite when he talked about the potential of rail service from B.C.'s northwest to Chicago. China's economy is growing rapidly; shipping to Prince Rupert saves a day; and CN believes that creates a great opportunity.
The details of the deal are supposed to be released once the papers are signed later this month. The questions are going to be around for a lot longer.
Footnote: One advantage of selling BC Rail is removing temptation from governments. Trasportation Minister Kevin Falcon makes much of BC Rail's past losses; but they were overwhelmingly produced by Socred governments that considered the railway an economic development tool.
The government has always acknowledged that it might have to give back about $255 million of the $1-billion purchase price to CN Rail. Now it has revealed that the potential refunds come to $629 million, while adding confidently that it doesn't expect to have to hand any money back.
CN isn't just paying isn't for the railway. The company is also buying past tax losses, which it hopes to use to reduce its own tax bill.
But Revenue Canada gets the last word on whether thats legit. So CN negotiated a provision that will force the province to refund the money if the taxman says no.
That's all the government ever mentioned in terms of strings attached to the deal, until now.
But the just released final report on last year's finances bumped that potential refund on tax issues up to $367 million (plus interest). And the documents disclosed for the first time that CN negotiated clauses that could see the province return another $262 million.
That's $629 million in indemnities, as the accountants call them, that could be knocked off the $1-billion sale price.
Routine, the government says, and that's broadly true. Most major transactions provide for adjustments, or dispute resolution. CN may decide that some of the rail cars included in the sale are junk, for example, and want some money back. The government's willingness to offer refund protection may reflect its confidence that the assets being sold are as described.
But CN certainly negotiated well. Any buyer emerging from a deal with more than 60 per cent of its payment subject to refund has done a great job.
And the government has - again - cast a cloud over the deal by keeping the numbers from the public until now.
The newly revealed $262-million indemnity shouldn't be a huge worry. It's almost certain that CN will attempt to negotiate some sort of refund, but it's is hard to see what real surprises could lurk within the sales agreement.
But the jump in the potential refund over tax issues, from $255 million to $367 million, is important.
That means that CN is getting the business and all its assets for $633 million, not the $750 million the government claimed.
And that makes it look a very good deal for CN. BC Rail made a $66-million profit last year and is being sold without any debt. CN can make a 10-per-cent return on its investment without batting an eye. Once it begins cutting staff - about 400 jobs are expected to go - and working to increase traffic, the return soars.
This has been a bungled sale by the Liberals.
First, Gordon Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail. His claim that because the tracks and the ground under them weren't part of the deal the promise hasn't been broken is ludicrous. CN owns the business and the equipment. It's sold. Read the financial press, which talks only of the "deal to buy BC Rail."
Then the government's unnecessary attempt to impose secrecy have meant details of the deal have trickled out, each more damaging because of the way they emerged.
The odd thing is that the sale - though maybe not the price - is entirely defensible.
There arlots of good reasons government shouldn't be in the railway business.
And CN appears to have a genuine enthusiasm for the new business opportunities. CEO Hunter Harrison wasn't just being polite when he talked about the potential of rail service from B.C.'s northwest to Chicago. China's economy is growing rapidly; shipping to Prince Rupert saves a day; and CN believes that creates a great opportunity.
The details of the deal are supposed to be released once the papers are signed later this month. The questions are going to be around for a lot longer.
Footnote: One advantage of selling BC Rail is removing temptation from governments. Trasportation Minister Kevin Falcon makes much of BC Rail's past losses; but they were overwhelmingly produced by Socred governments that considered the railway an economic development tool.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Liberals get to the 'exciting part' - spending
VICTORIA - So it's on to the "exciting part," says Finance Minister Gary Collins, when the government can stop talking about cuts and start talking about spending.
Mr. Collins unveiled this week the financial report on the past fiscal year, and along with it offered a preview of the Liberals' election platform.
The tough part is over, they will say. The budget is balanced. Now, how shall we spend the surpluses?
Not a bad campaign theme. The current plan calls for a $275-million surplus in next February's budget.
But the cautious Mr. Collins has beat his targets by an average of $800 million a year so far, and the economy is strengthening. The pre-election budget can likely handle $500 million in new spending without putting the surplus at any risk.
But the campaign strategy's success depends on several factors.
One is how voters decide to judge the past three years.
The overhaul of government finances is significant. If government revenues had kept up with inflation over the past three years, they would be about $25.4 billion. Instead -- thanks to Liberal government tax cuts and changes in the economy -- they're about $2 billion lower.
Income tax revenues are down 23 per cent from a status quo projection, corporate tax revenues 30 per cent -- about $1.8 billion in total. MSP and sales tax revenues are higher by about $600 million, but that still leaves considerably more money in taxpayers' pockets.
The campaign debate will focus on what role the tax cuts played in the improved economy, and who benefitted.
The Liberals won't be helped by the budget revelation that the total provincial tax bite is increasing this year for low and middle-income earners, while high-income earners -- a single person earning $80,000, a family with an income of $90,000 -- will pay less.
But their arguments that the tax changes worked will get a boost from an improving economy and increasing business and consumer confidence over the next 10 months.
Voters' judgments on the spending changes are tougher to assess. Spending under the Liberals has risen about 12 per cent over their first three years, outpacing inflation.
Even removing one-time factors, like pension adjustments and last year's natural disasters, the increase is about 10.5 per cent.
Much of the increase has been in health spending, up 19 per cent. Remove that from the equation, and overall spending is up only about five per cent over three years, and down in many areas.
Welfare has taken the biggest hit, a 26-per-cent reduction, with labour and environment ministries also taking significant cuts.
How will voters react to the four-year freeze on funding to universities and colleges, which has forced large tuition increases and limited access?
Will they care that the attorney-general's ministry has cut spending by 14 per cent, largely by closing courthouses and spending what critics say is too little money for treaty negotiations?
One major potential problem for the Liberals is that the cuts are still under way. About a dozen ministries are cutting spending this year.
If the results are visible, and important to enough people, that will undermine the message of new opportunity.
Still, it's a compelling campaign theme that the Liberals will roll out in September when pre-budget consultations start around the province.
For three years, those consultations have always been governed by one hard rule -- no recommendations that involved increased spending.
Now, as Mr. Collins has made clear, it's time to dream big dreams. (Still the cautious finance minister, however, he quickly amended that to "or medium dreams.")
The Liberals plan to talk -- belatedly -- about the reasons for going through the past three years of record deficits and spending restraint.
"Now is the point where we get to dream as a province," Mr. Collins said, musing about more money for K-to-12 education, or early childhood development.
All in all, that's not a bad starting point for an election campaign.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Mr. Collins unveiled this week the financial report on the past fiscal year, and along with it offered a preview of the Liberals' election platform.
The tough part is over, they will say. The budget is balanced. Now, how shall we spend the surpluses?
Not a bad campaign theme. The current plan calls for a $275-million surplus in next February's budget.
But the cautious Mr. Collins has beat his targets by an average of $800 million a year so far, and the economy is strengthening. The pre-election budget can likely handle $500 million in new spending without putting the surplus at any risk.
But the campaign strategy's success depends on several factors.
One is how voters decide to judge the past three years.
The overhaul of government finances is significant. If government revenues had kept up with inflation over the past three years, they would be about $25.4 billion. Instead -- thanks to Liberal government tax cuts and changes in the economy -- they're about $2 billion lower.
Income tax revenues are down 23 per cent from a status quo projection, corporate tax revenues 30 per cent -- about $1.8 billion in total. MSP and sales tax revenues are higher by about $600 million, but that still leaves considerably more money in taxpayers' pockets.
The campaign debate will focus on what role the tax cuts played in the improved economy, and who benefitted.
The Liberals won't be helped by the budget revelation that the total provincial tax bite is increasing this year for low and middle-income earners, while high-income earners -- a single person earning $80,000, a family with an income of $90,000 -- will pay less.
But their arguments that the tax changes worked will get a boost from an improving economy and increasing business and consumer confidence over the next 10 months.
Voters' judgments on the spending changes are tougher to assess. Spending under the Liberals has risen about 12 per cent over their first three years, outpacing inflation.
Even removing one-time factors, like pension adjustments and last year's natural disasters, the increase is about 10.5 per cent.
Much of the increase has been in health spending, up 19 per cent. Remove that from the equation, and overall spending is up only about five per cent over three years, and down in many areas.
Welfare has taken the biggest hit, a 26-per-cent reduction, with labour and environment ministries also taking significant cuts.
How will voters react to the four-year freeze on funding to universities and colleges, which has forced large tuition increases and limited access?
Will they care that the attorney-general's ministry has cut spending by 14 per cent, largely by closing courthouses and spending what critics say is too little money for treaty negotiations?
One major potential problem for the Liberals is that the cuts are still under way. About a dozen ministries are cutting spending this year.
If the results are visible, and important to enough people, that will undermine the message of new opportunity.
Still, it's a compelling campaign theme that the Liberals will roll out in September when pre-budget consultations start around the province.
For three years, those consultations have always been governed by one hard rule -- no recommendations that involved increased spending.
Now, as Mr. Collins has made clear, it's time to dream big dreams. (Still the cautious finance minister, however, he quickly amended that to "or medium dreams.")
The Liberals plan to talk -- belatedly -- about the reasons for going through the past three years of record deficits and spending restraint.
"Now is the point where we get to dream as a province," Mr. Collins said, musing about more money for K-to-12 education, or early childhood development.
All in all, that's not a bad starting point for an election campaign.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Liberals' election campaign plan based on more spending
VICTORIA - Gary Collins gave a good sneak preview of the Liberals' campaign strategy when he unveiled the latest look at the province's finances.
No more talk about balanced budgets, and not much talk about tax cuts. That's yesterday's news.
"We get to stop talking about balancing the budget," Collins said. The deficit for last year was $1.3 billion, better than the Liberals had expected, and their plan to balance the budget this year is on track.
"Now is the exciting part," Collins said. "Now is the point where we get to dream as a province." The next step after balanced budgets is surpluses, and that means there is money to spend.
The campaign will start in earnest in September, with a new focus on ways of spending money. (I know, September may seem early to start the campaign for a May election. But fixed election dates - a good idea - do allow all the parties to map out a much longer campaign strategy.)
The kick-off will be the formal pre-budget consultation. Each year a legislative committee tours the province to collect ideas on what should be in the budget. But since the election, ideas or suggestions that involved spending money were off limits.
Not this time. Collins said the committee will be able to gather ideas on projects or initiatives that involve more spending. It's even time to dust off rejected proposals from the last three years and put them on the table. "All of those things now, you can look at them fresh," he said.
It's an important shift. The Liberals have done a poor job of communicating any sort of vision to support their spending cuts. That's left the appearance that their actions are ideological, and that the measures are being taken without concern for the average citizen. Their challenge is to convince people that the sacrifices made sense, and had a purpose beyond decreasing the tax hit on the affluent.
They've left it late. The New Democrats have pulled ahead in the polls, Gordon Campbell's personal approval rating is running around 30 per cent and their government has a reputation for a lack of interest in the peoples' lives at best, and meanness at worst. Those perceptions are difficult to change.
But not impossible, and the Liberals do have considerable good news to deliver.
The economy - even in regions that have been struggling - is showing signs of broad improvement.
The budget calls for a small $100-million surplus this year. But the Liberals are conservative budgeters - they've beat their targets by an average $800 million a year. That means there will be money for some positive announcements this fall.
And there will be a much bigger pot of money to work with in the pre-election budget coming next February, especially if the federal Liberals come up with health care cash. Collins is already talking about more money for schools and early childhood education.
There are other choices for the surplus. The government could use the money to reduce debt, and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is already lobbying for more tax cuts instead of more spending.
But the obvious choice is spending increases. B.C.'s taxes, says Collins, are competitive and the debt burden has always been manageable. (And tax cuts are of little political advantage; followers of the taxpayers' federation are going to vote Liberal with or without cuts. The challenge is to win over people considering voting NDP.)
Collins also waxed enthusiastic about the Green Party's performance in the federal election. "I think they're here to stay, and I think they're going to grow," he said.
He hopes so, anyway. A stronger Green Party is great news for the BC Liberals, who stand to benefit if anti-government votes are split between the Greens and NDP.
The summer should be a quiet time. But the Liberal campaign strategy is in place, and ready to go starting in September.
Footnote: What's the NDP to do? The most important challenge is for Carole James to convince voters that the New Democrats can do a better job of managing the surplus than the Liberals, and won't plunge the province back into deficits or blow the money on bad ideas and big raises for public sector unions.
No more talk about balanced budgets, and not much talk about tax cuts. That's yesterday's news.
"We get to stop talking about balancing the budget," Collins said. The deficit for last year was $1.3 billion, better than the Liberals had expected, and their plan to balance the budget this year is on track.
"Now is the exciting part," Collins said. "Now is the point where we get to dream as a province." The next step after balanced budgets is surpluses, and that means there is money to spend.
The campaign will start in earnest in September, with a new focus on ways of spending money. (I know, September may seem early to start the campaign for a May election. But fixed election dates - a good idea - do allow all the parties to map out a much longer campaign strategy.)
The kick-off will be the formal pre-budget consultation. Each year a legislative committee tours the province to collect ideas on what should be in the budget. But since the election, ideas or suggestions that involved spending money were off limits.
Not this time. Collins said the committee will be able to gather ideas on projects or initiatives that involve more spending. It's even time to dust off rejected proposals from the last three years and put them on the table. "All of those things now, you can look at them fresh," he said.
It's an important shift. The Liberals have done a poor job of communicating any sort of vision to support their spending cuts. That's left the appearance that their actions are ideological, and that the measures are being taken without concern for the average citizen. Their challenge is to convince people that the sacrifices made sense, and had a purpose beyond decreasing the tax hit on the affluent.
They've left it late. The New Democrats have pulled ahead in the polls, Gordon Campbell's personal approval rating is running around 30 per cent and their government has a reputation for a lack of interest in the peoples' lives at best, and meanness at worst. Those perceptions are difficult to change.
But not impossible, and the Liberals do have considerable good news to deliver.
The economy - even in regions that have been struggling - is showing signs of broad improvement.
The budget calls for a small $100-million surplus this year. But the Liberals are conservative budgeters - they've beat their targets by an average $800 million a year. That means there will be money for some positive announcements this fall.
And there will be a much bigger pot of money to work with in the pre-election budget coming next February, especially if the federal Liberals come up with health care cash. Collins is already talking about more money for schools and early childhood education.
There are other choices for the surplus. The government could use the money to reduce debt, and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is already lobbying for more tax cuts instead of more spending.
But the obvious choice is spending increases. B.C.'s taxes, says Collins, are competitive and the debt burden has always been manageable. (And tax cuts are of little political advantage; followers of the taxpayers' federation are going to vote Liberal with or without cuts. The challenge is to win over people considering voting NDP.)
Collins also waxed enthusiastic about the Green Party's performance in the federal election. "I think they're here to stay, and I think they're going to grow," he said.
He hopes so, anyway. A stronger Green Party is great news for the BC Liberals, who stand to benefit if anti-government votes are split between the Greens and NDP.
The summer should be a quiet time. But the Liberal campaign strategy is in place, and ready to go starting in September.
Footnote: What's the NDP to do? The most important challenge is for Carole James to convince voters that the New Democrats can do a better job of managing the surplus than the Liberals, and won't plunge the province back into deficits or blow the money on bad ideas and big raises for public sector unions.
Monday, June 28, 2004
B.C. fares badly in the federal election
VICTORIA -That was a discouraging election.
We didn't matter here in B.C. - again.
We established that Canada effectively has a one-party system.
And while minority governments have their advantages, it's hard to see that this one will benefit B.C., or tackle any hard issues.
It's more disappointing because it looked like we would count this time. That maybe a handful of voters out here could determine Canada's future.
But then before the first results were in from B.C., the Liberals had won their minority government.
It's not just petty regional pride at stake. Parties in power pay the most attention to the regions that will have the greatest impact on their chances of re-election. B.C.'s lack of importance has been demonstrated once again.
A bigger issue, not least for Conservative leader Stephen Harper, is that the election raised real doubts about the fundamental basis for his party.
I crunched the numbers after the 2000 election. Even if the Conservative and Alliance votes had been pooled in every riding, the Liberals still would have won a comfortable majority.
The lesson seemed pretty clear. It's not enough to unite the right. You've also got to attract support from the middle.
And if there was ever at time for that to happen, surely this was it. The polls showed voters were appalled at the sponsorship scandals and Liberal infighting. But instead of increasing its share of the popular vote, the new Conservative party went backwards, perhaps most dramatically in B.C. where the combined Alliance-Conservative vote in B.C. fell from 57 per cent to 36 per cent.
Which raises some very basic questions about why the Conservatives exist, and how they need to change if they wish to be anything more than a perpetual opposition.
There's nothing inherently wrong with minority governments.
But this particular government could be a problem for B.C. A Liberal-NDP minority is the worst outcome for the BC Liberals. (Between David Anderson and Jack Layton the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development is now more firmly in place than Layton's hair.)
It's not just the likely policy swing to the left as a result of the federal coalition. The federal New Democrats - including a much bigger B.C. contingent - know that British Columbians will be voting next May. They are not going to be enthusiastic supporters of any federal measures that make Gordon Campbell's government look good.
And given the federal Liberals' likely focus on Ontario, B.C. issues like softwood lumber will have a hard time grabbing much attention from Ottawa. (How many times did you hear the issue raised during the campaign?)
It's not all gloomy. Minority governments do have to pay attention to voters. The party in power usually has some control over when the next vote comes. But they also know that at any time the opposition parties could force an election. They have to be ready. And on some issues - like urban infrastruture - a minority government could have benefits for B.C.
But the downside of the uncertainty is that we are launched intio a perpetual election campaign. Martin will likely want to wait until the sponsorship scandal has faded before the next election. But we could be heading to the polls next spring - when we also have a provincial election.
Overall, the federal results are likely alarming for the BC Liberals. The federal New Democrats took their share of the B.C. vote from 11 per cent to 27 per cent in this election, largely at the expense of the Conservatives. They emerged as a significant home for protest votes, a role Reform and Alliance had taken over through the '90s. It's an ominous development for the Campbell Liberals, who attacked Layton and his party during the campaign with no apparent impact.
The people have spoken. I just wish we had mattered a little more.
Footnote: A big win for the Green Party. New election finance rules replace big donations with public funding based on th number of votes each party gets. The Greens are in line for more than $1 million a year, a huge amount for the cash-strapped party. Expect a lot of it to be spent in B.C. - a benefit for the provincial Greens and a headache for the NDP.
We didn't matter here in B.C. - again.
We established that Canada effectively has a one-party system.
And while minority governments have their advantages, it's hard to see that this one will benefit B.C., or tackle any hard issues.
It's more disappointing because it looked like we would count this time. That maybe a handful of voters out here could determine Canada's future.
But then before the first results were in from B.C., the Liberals had won their minority government.
It's not just petty regional pride at stake. Parties in power pay the most attention to the regions that will have the greatest impact on their chances of re-election. B.C.'s lack of importance has been demonstrated once again.
A bigger issue, not least for Conservative leader Stephen Harper, is that the election raised real doubts about the fundamental basis for his party.
I crunched the numbers after the 2000 election. Even if the Conservative and Alliance votes had been pooled in every riding, the Liberals still would have won a comfortable majority.
The lesson seemed pretty clear. It's not enough to unite the right. You've also got to attract support from the middle.
And if there was ever at time for that to happen, surely this was it. The polls showed voters were appalled at the sponsorship scandals and Liberal infighting. But instead of increasing its share of the popular vote, the new Conservative party went backwards, perhaps most dramatically in B.C. where the combined Alliance-Conservative vote in B.C. fell from 57 per cent to 36 per cent.
Which raises some very basic questions about why the Conservatives exist, and how they need to change if they wish to be anything more than a perpetual opposition.
There's nothing inherently wrong with minority governments.
But this particular government could be a problem for B.C. A Liberal-NDP minority is the worst outcome for the BC Liberals. (Between David Anderson and Jack Layton the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development is now more firmly in place than Layton's hair.)
It's not just the likely policy swing to the left as a result of the federal coalition. The federal New Democrats - including a much bigger B.C. contingent - know that British Columbians will be voting next May. They are not going to be enthusiastic supporters of any federal measures that make Gordon Campbell's government look good.
And given the federal Liberals' likely focus on Ontario, B.C. issues like softwood lumber will have a hard time grabbing much attention from Ottawa. (How many times did you hear the issue raised during the campaign?)
It's not all gloomy. Minority governments do have to pay attention to voters. The party in power usually has some control over when the next vote comes. But they also know that at any time the opposition parties could force an election. They have to be ready. And on some issues - like urban infrastruture - a minority government could have benefits for B.C.
But the downside of the uncertainty is that we are launched intio a perpetual election campaign. Martin will likely want to wait until the sponsorship scandal has faded before the next election. But we could be heading to the polls next spring - when we also have a provincial election.
Overall, the federal results are likely alarming for the BC Liberals. The federal New Democrats took their share of the B.C. vote from 11 per cent to 27 per cent in this election, largely at the expense of the Conservatives. They emerged as a significant home for protest votes, a role Reform and Alliance had taken over through the '90s. It's an ominous development for the Campbell Liberals, who attacked Layton and his party during the campaign with no apparent impact.
The people have spoken. I just wish we had mattered a little more.
Footnote: A big win for the Green Party. New election finance rules replace big donations with public funding based on th number of votes each party gets. The Greens are in line for more than $1 million a year, a huge amount for the cash-strapped party. Expect a lot of it to be spent in B.C. - a benefit for the provincial Greens and a headache for the NDP.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Why it's good that you're backing fight against gay porn ban
VICTORIA - You're going to be picking up the legal costs for a Vancouver book store's fight to bring banned gay porn into Canada.
And, on balance, you should be pleased.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled this week that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs for the latest round in its battle with Canada Customs. The store wants to challenge the seizure of two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage by Canada Customs.
But the trial would take 12 weeks, and the store has no money. In the past that would have been the end of the matter. The book ban would stand, untested.
But the rules changed last year, That's when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ground-breaking B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that government should pick up the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest issues.
The Supreme Court - in an six-three decision - said the First Nations couldn't afford the hugely expensive litigation; they had a reasonable chance of success; and the title rights' issue was of broad importance. Justice demanded that they have their day - or months - in court, and that couldn't happen without public funding.
It was a huge leap beyond any previous ruling on costs, opening the door for other similar funding bids.
And Joe Arvay, acting for Little Sisters, was the first to seize the opportunity.
Little Sisters has no money to pay for the long trial, he said. And the case raises broad issues of public importance that should be heard, Arvay added. Canada Customs' power to ban books has significant implications for Canadians' basic rights to information. When the state has the power to decide what citizens can and can't read, there has to be a right to external review to ensure decisions aren't arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful.
The only recourse isa court challenge to the government's decision. And without funding, that right is an illusion.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed. "There is a strong public interest at stake, and that is ensuring that government does not interfere with the rights of citizens." (Canada Customs have barred some 65,000 books and other items over the past five years.)
It's a decision that should be applauded.
The courts have always offered a way of addressing issues of public interest, with that role increasing since the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But common law practise on costs hasn't reflected either the increasing importance of these cases or the rising costs of pursuing them.
University of Victoria law professor Chris Toleffson is co-author of a paper on the issue to be published in the Canadian Bar Review. He notes that the nature of public interest cases means that one side often has limited resources and no prospect of any material benefit even if they do win. And they face a huge risk if they lose, and are ordered to pay costs.
The result is that unless some provisions around costs are made by the courts, then cases involving the public interest - but not financial self-interest - will not be heard. The courts will be for those who can afford them.
Critics shouldn't fear a flood of cases. The test for public funding is still tough. Mrs. Justice Bennett said advance costs should only be awarded in "rare and exceptional circumstances."
And she said she wasn't providing a blank cheque, ordering another hearing on the level of costs. (Although they will likely be more than $150,000.)
There are still concerns. It's always risky when neither side in a legal dispute is spending their own money. And it's fair to worry about the constant trend to longer, more costly court cases - why, for example, a 12-week trial is necessary in this case.
But those concerns aside, this ruling is a step forward.
It's recognizes that the courts have an important role in protecting our rights. And it acknowledges that access to justice - especially on issues of broad public importance - shouldn't be reserved for governments and others with big bank accounts.
- From the Vancouver Sun
And, on balance, you should be pleased.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled this week that taxpayers should pay Little Sisters Book Emporium's legal costs for the latest round in its battle with Canada Customs. The store wants to challenge the seizure of two "Meatman" comic books and two books on male bondage by Canada Customs.
But the trial would take 12 weeks, and the store has no money. In the past that would have been the end of the matter. The book ban would stand, untested.
But the rules changed last year, That's when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ground-breaking B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that government should pick up the legal bills for four Interior native bands battling over forest issues.
The Supreme Court - in an six-three decision - said the First Nations couldn't afford the hugely expensive litigation; they had a reasonable chance of success; and the title rights' issue was of broad importance. Justice demanded that they have their day - or months - in court, and that couldn't happen without public funding.
It was a huge leap beyond any previous ruling on costs, opening the door for other similar funding bids.
And Joe Arvay, acting for Little Sisters, was the first to seize the opportunity.
Little Sisters has no money to pay for the long trial, he said. And the case raises broad issues of public importance that should be heard, Arvay added. Canada Customs' power to ban books has significant implications for Canadians' basic rights to information. When the state has the power to decide what citizens can and can't read, there has to be a right to external review to ensure decisions aren't arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful.
The only recourse isa court challenge to the government's decision. And without funding, that right is an illusion.
Justice Elizabeth Bennett agreed. "There is a strong public interest at stake, and that is ensuring that government does not interfere with the rights of citizens." (Canada Customs have barred some 65,000 books and other items over the past five years.)
It's a decision that should be applauded.
The courts have always offered a way of addressing issues of public interest, with that role increasing since the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But common law practise on costs hasn't reflected either the increasing importance of these cases or the rising costs of pursuing them.
University of Victoria law professor Chris Toleffson is co-author of a paper on the issue to be published in the Canadian Bar Review. He notes that the nature of public interest cases means that one side often has limited resources and no prospect of any material benefit even if they do win. And they face a huge risk if they lose, and are ordered to pay costs.
The result is that unless some provisions around costs are made by the courts, then cases involving the public interest - but not financial self-interest - will not be heard. The courts will be for those who can afford them.
Critics shouldn't fear a flood of cases. The test for public funding is still tough. Mrs. Justice Bennett said advance costs should only be awarded in "rare and exceptional circumstances."
And she said she wasn't providing a blank cheque, ordering another hearing on the level of costs. (Although they will likely be more than $150,000.)
There are still concerns. It's always risky when neither side in a legal dispute is spending their own money. And it's fair to worry about the constant trend to longer, more costly court cases - why, for example, a 12-week trial is necessary in this case.
But those concerns aside, this ruling is a step forward.
It's recognizes that the courts have an important role in protecting our rights. And it acknowledges that access to justice - especially on issues of broad public importance - shouldn't be reserved for governments and others with big bank accounts.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Luna campaign a weird waste of money
VICTORIA - I'm getting increasingly peeved at the way the federal government is churning through money on the great Luna relocation project.
Basically, I don't buy any of it. I don't buy that Luna is such a serious threat. I don't buy that there's a way to assess the chances of successfully hooking him up with his pod again. And I don't buy the idea that it it makes sense to spend more than $500,000 on moving one whale.
Luna is an Orca that left its pod and has spent the last three years hanging around Gold River. Note that fact - three years.
Sure, he's been a nuisance to boaters from time to time. Luna is social, and when an 1,800-kg whale decides to nuzzle up to your boat, things can get a little complicated. And the federal department of fisheries and oceans says he's surfaced near landing float planes.
So everybody needs to be careful; there's a whale in the water.
But that's hardly a justification to spend a whack of money on a plan to catch the whale, put him on a truck and drive 300 kilometres down Vancouver Island, put him in another pen for a week and then hopes he reunites with his pod. (And if i doesn't, and becomes a nuisance down here, he'll be caught again and sold to an aquarium.)
For the amount being spent on this exercise, the government could hire a full-time minder for the next decade to keep Luna out of harm's way.
Heck, if I was the town of Gold River I'd be contributing to any plan to keep Luna around. The town is in a beautiful setting, and still struggling to cope with the closure of the Bowater mill that provided most of its jobs. A well-regulated whale-watching business could fuel tourism and help keep Luna out of harm's way.
Instead of an opportunity, the whole exercise is turning into a big PR mess.
People around the world have seen First Nations paddlers leading Luna away from the government officials who want to capture him. He's swimming along side them in the shots, as they scratch his back with their paddles. It's like a Beautiful BC commercial and Free Willie rolled into one, with the DFO stepping into the role of the bad guys.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation want Luna - or Tsuxiit as they call him - to stick around. Chief Mike Maquinna says his people believe Luna carries the spirit of his father, who died around the same time Luna showed up. Maquinna said his father made a deathbed wish for his spirit to inhabit a killer whale.
I don't question others' beliefs. My seriously ill greatgrandmother died happily after a dream in which she met Jesus and was told everything would be fine.
Anyway the whole effort is starting to look ridiculous. The plan to move Luna is plowing through some $500,000 in donations, and being funded heavily by the DFO on top of that. The amount you're paying is mounting every day.
All that to move a whale that's swimming around, as whales were meant to do.
Doesn't this strike you as patently crazy? It would be a huge feat to raise this amount of money to change the lives of 500 little kids in B.C., giving a bunch of preschoolers a fair chance to make their way in this world. But for a whale, it's a piece of cake.
Maybe, at base, that's the question here. Can one whale be worth this much? Are people really convinced that Luna - likable as he seems - is worth more than scared and lonely kids? (Sorry, you do have to choose. People aren't willing - or perhaps able - to give enough to meet all the needs.)
I'm thinking not. So if Luna is really a genuine threat, then sell it off, or drive it away.
If it's not, leave the creature alone.
Footnote: An interesting bit of irony. The Mowachaht/Muchalaht, championing Luna, are also part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that is seeking the right to hunt grey whales in its treaty talks. It's not an unreasonable position - there are lots of the whales these days. But it won't play all that well.
Basically, I don't buy any of it. I don't buy that Luna is such a serious threat. I don't buy that there's a way to assess the chances of successfully hooking him up with his pod again. And I don't buy the idea that it it makes sense to spend more than $500,000 on moving one whale.
Luna is an Orca that left its pod and has spent the last three years hanging around Gold River. Note that fact - three years.
Sure, he's been a nuisance to boaters from time to time. Luna is social, and when an 1,800-kg whale decides to nuzzle up to your boat, things can get a little complicated. And the federal department of fisheries and oceans says he's surfaced near landing float planes.
So everybody needs to be careful; there's a whale in the water.
But that's hardly a justification to spend a whack of money on a plan to catch the whale, put him on a truck and drive 300 kilometres down Vancouver Island, put him in another pen for a week and then hopes he reunites with his pod. (And if i doesn't, and becomes a nuisance down here, he'll be caught again and sold to an aquarium.)
For the amount being spent on this exercise, the government could hire a full-time minder for the next decade to keep Luna out of harm's way.
Heck, if I was the town of Gold River I'd be contributing to any plan to keep Luna around. The town is in a beautiful setting, and still struggling to cope with the closure of the Bowater mill that provided most of its jobs. A well-regulated whale-watching business could fuel tourism and help keep Luna out of harm's way.
Instead of an opportunity, the whole exercise is turning into a big PR mess.
People around the world have seen First Nations paddlers leading Luna away from the government officials who want to capture him. He's swimming along side them in the shots, as they scratch his back with their paddles. It's like a Beautiful BC commercial and Free Willie rolled into one, with the DFO stepping into the role of the bad guys.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation want Luna - or Tsuxiit as they call him - to stick around. Chief Mike Maquinna says his people believe Luna carries the spirit of his father, who died around the same time Luna showed up. Maquinna said his father made a deathbed wish for his spirit to inhabit a killer whale.
I don't question others' beliefs. My seriously ill greatgrandmother died happily after a dream in which she met Jesus and was told everything would be fine.
Anyway the whole effort is starting to look ridiculous. The plan to move Luna is plowing through some $500,000 in donations, and being funded heavily by the DFO on top of that. The amount you're paying is mounting every day.
All that to move a whale that's swimming around, as whales were meant to do.
Doesn't this strike you as patently crazy? It would be a huge feat to raise this amount of money to change the lives of 500 little kids in B.C., giving a bunch of preschoolers a fair chance to make their way in this world. But for a whale, it's a piece of cake.
Maybe, at base, that's the question here. Can one whale be worth this much? Are people really convinced that Luna - likable as he seems - is worth more than scared and lonely kids? (Sorry, you do have to choose. People aren't willing - or perhaps able - to give enough to meet all the needs.)
I'm thinking not. So if Luna is really a genuine threat, then sell it off, or drive it away.
If it's not, leave the creature alone.
Footnote: An interesting bit of irony. The Mowachaht/Muchalaht, championing Luna, are also part of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that is seeking the right to hunt grey whales in its treaty talks. It's not an unreasonable position - there are lots of the whales these days. But it won't play all that well.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Seven steps to deciding who to vote for
VICTORIA -It's been a grim election campaign.
The issues have been small, and negative. No party has come close to offering an inspiring vision for Canada, or raising a defining issue that it is prepared to stake its future on.
But the parties are different. You should vote. So here's seven things to consider if you're having trouble deciding how to vote on Monday.
First, forget most of the issues the parties raise in an attempt to make the other guy look bad. Paul Martin is not any softer on child porn than Stephen Harper, despite the stupid press releases from the Conservative party. Harper is not going to take away women's right to abortion. These are bogus issues.
Second, take a hard look at the details of the Conservative platform, particularly the assumption that taxes can be cut while health and military spending are increased, without any reductions in other areas. Most economists are dubious. Many British Columbians recall that the provincial Liberals made similar claims, and a majority of them are dissatisfied with the results. Conservatives say they won't have to cut other programs, just keep the rate of spending increases down. It's a claim that demands a very hard look. (That's especially true because of the vagueness of the Conservative platform.)
Third, take a similar look at Martin's plans. How credible can it be that a leader who chopped health care spending has now suddenly discovered that wait lists are the most important issue facing Canadians? How can a leader who promises to restore democracy blow off Liberal party members in key ridings and appoint his own candidates? And why isn't Martin running on the record of his government - isn't that what we expect from competent political parties seeking re-election?
Fourth, consider your local candidates. An effective MP handling constituent's concerns and working for them in Ottawa is valuable no matter what the party. If you have a candidate you like and respect, then why not pick the person, not the party?
Fifth, get specific. It's a brute to try and sort through the parties' positions on every issue. So pick one that matters to you, and check it out. Base your vote on their ability to reflect your priorities in that critical area. (Party web sites are useful, as are media sites that include overviews of the major issues.)
Sixth, get strategic. Voters have different options in different ridings. In Kelowna the Conservatives are going to win; if you're not in their camp, you can vote for any other party safely. But in Victoria, for example, Liberal David Anderson faces a tighter race according to most observers. Given the closeness of this race nationally, that means that a single Victoria voter could decide the future of Canada. Conservative or Liberal? Minority or majority? It could all be decided by one voter who stays home on Monday, too busy or bored to vote. You can assess the likely outcome in your riding - check out www.electionprediction.org and www.bcelection.ca for insight - and make your vote count.
Seventh, recognize that your vote means money for a party for the next several years. Corporate and union donations have been banned; instead parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote per year. (Reasonable concept, but too costly - $1 per vote would have been reasonable.) Even if the outcome in your riding is not in doubt, your vote matters. The Green Party, for example, raised about $140,000 in 2002. If they can hold their current level of support, they will get about $1.4 million a year. That's a lot of organizing money.
You should vote. It's a cliche, but people did die - and are dying today - over the right. Practically, our collective decisions are better than choices made by just a few of us.
And surely, following the seven-step program, you can find a reason to head out to vote on Monday.
Footnote: B.C. - and your vote - matter this time. Nationally, the Liberals and Conservatives are each on the brink of forming a minority government. The Election Prediction Project reports that with days left 16 B.C. ridings ae too close to call. The rest of Canada could be watching B.C. to see who will govern
The issues have been small, and negative. No party has come close to offering an inspiring vision for Canada, or raising a defining issue that it is prepared to stake its future on.
But the parties are different. You should vote. So here's seven things to consider if you're having trouble deciding how to vote on Monday.
First, forget most of the issues the parties raise in an attempt to make the other guy look bad. Paul Martin is not any softer on child porn than Stephen Harper, despite the stupid press releases from the Conservative party. Harper is not going to take away women's right to abortion. These are bogus issues.
Second, take a hard look at the details of the Conservative platform, particularly the assumption that taxes can be cut while health and military spending are increased, without any reductions in other areas. Most economists are dubious. Many British Columbians recall that the provincial Liberals made similar claims, and a majority of them are dissatisfied with the results. Conservatives say they won't have to cut other programs, just keep the rate of spending increases down. It's a claim that demands a very hard look. (That's especially true because of the vagueness of the Conservative platform.)
Third, take a similar look at Martin's plans. How credible can it be that a leader who chopped health care spending has now suddenly discovered that wait lists are the most important issue facing Canadians? How can a leader who promises to restore democracy blow off Liberal party members in key ridings and appoint his own candidates? And why isn't Martin running on the record of his government - isn't that what we expect from competent political parties seeking re-election?
Fourth, consider your local candidates. An effective MP handling constituent's concerns and working for them in Ottawa is valuable no matter what the party. If you have a candidate you like and respect, then why not pick the person, not the party?
Fifth, get specific. It's a brute to try and sort through the parties' positions on every issue. So pick one that matters to you, and check it out. Base your vote on their ability to reflect your priorities in that critical area. (Party web sites are useful, as are media sites that include overviews of the major issues.)
Sixth, get strategic. Voters have different options in different ridings. In Kelowna the Conservatives are going to win; if you're not in their camp, you can vote for any other party safely. But in Victoria, for example, Liberal David Anderson faces a tighter race according to most observers. Given the closeness of this race nationally, that means that a single Victoria voter could decide the future of Canada. Conservative or Liberal? Minority or majority? It could all be decided by one voter who stays home on Monday, too busy or bored to vote. You can assess the likely outcome in your riding - check out www.electionprediction.org and www.bcelection.ca for insight - and make your vote count.
Seventh, recognize that your vote means money for a party for the next several years. Corporate and union donations have been banned; instead parties that meet a minimum threshold will get $1.75 per vote per year. (Reasonable concept, but too costly - $1 per vote would have been reasonable.) Even if the outcome in your riding is not in doubt, your vote matters. The Green Party, for example, raised about $140,000 in 2002. If they can hold their current level of support, they will get about $1.4 million a year. That's a lot of organizing money.
You should vote. It's a cliche, but people did die - and are dying today - over the right. Practically, our collective decisions are better than choices made by just a few of us.
And surely, following the seven-step program, you can find a reason to head out to vote on Monday.
Footnote: B.C. - and your vote - matter this time. Nationally, the Liberals and Conservatives are each on the brink of forming a minority government. The Election Prediction Project reports that with days left 16 B.C. ridings ae too close to call. The rest of Canada could be watching B.C. to see who will govern
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Harper win means tougher times for BC treaty talks
VICTORIA - A perfect storm is about to slam into First Nations treaty talks.
Things were already getting bumpier in B.C. Add a Conservative election win and the dramatic treaty policy changes likely to follow, and the skies grow decidedly darker. Successful talks look less likely, and the chance of blockades and lawsuits increases.
The prospect of a Conservative government has cranked up fears. The party doesn't mention B.C. treaties in its platform, but expect at least tougher negotiating line.
Or perhaps much more. Tony Penikett is a former Yukon premier, and a senior fellow on First Nations treaty issues at Simon Fraser University. "If there's a Harper government after June 28, that may effectively end treaty negotiations in B.C.," he says.
Mr. Penikett points to the influence of Tom Flanagan, probably Conservative leader Stephen Harper's closest policy advisor. Mr. Flanagan, an academic, is national campaign manager and certain of a senior role in a Harper government.
Mr. Flanagan has strong views on the treaty process and relations with Canada's aboriginal communities. (Mr. Flanagan rejects the First Nations term, arguing Canada's native groups don't qualify as nations.)
Back in 2001 Mr. Flanagan attacked the basic principles of treaty making in B.C. It's impractical to settle treaties by providing land, he said, because the land is already being used by others.
And he said Ottawa should give the treaty process another three years, and then hand the issue to a federal commission to resolve. Parliament - and the B.C. legislature - would approve the settlements, title would be extinguished and everything would be resolved.
It's an appealing but unworkable solution. The legal issue of title is not so easily swept away. And damaging First Nations' protests and pressure campaigns would be inevitable.
Mr. Flanagan has also argued that collective ownership of land by First Nations should be replaced by private ownership to encourage economic growth. Again, it's an interesting idea. But it is considered poisonous by First Nations, who see shared ownership as fundamental to their identity as a people. Give that up, they believe, and it is the end of their culture. (Mr. Flanagan argues for assimilation.)
Conservatives' aboriginal affairs critic John Duncan says he leads the policy development. But the Vancouver Island MP is vague about the party's plans for treaty talks, promising "productive" changes. But Mr. Duncan was a leading critic of the Nisga'a Treaty, objecting to the amount of land and money provided and the self-government provisions. Future agreements should "compensate aboriginals for what the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement," he says.
Policy debates are fine.
But this is a dangerous time for the Ottawa to lurch in a whole new treaty making direction.
After two years of apparent progress, relations between First Nations and the provincial government are souring. First Nations have found common cause in the Title and Rights Alliance, which is borrowing the proven tactics of the environmental campaigners.
The alliance is already out warning institutional investors about the risks of operating in B.C. until land claims are resolved.Its first "information blockades" on roads and highways will go up as early as the end of this month.
Tthe First Nations' Summit has just voted to support the alliance. And Dave Porter of the Kaska Dene has just been elected to its leadership group. Mr. Porter was a deputy premier in the Yukon NDP government, an aboriginal affairs assistant deputy minister under the B.C. New Democrats and the province's first oil and gas commissioner. He will be a formidable foe, or friend, for government.
All this comes as the BC Treaty Commission operates without a chief commissioner. Miles Richardson resigned to run as a Liberal candidate in Skeena-Bulkely Valley. First Nations and federal and provincial government have to agree on a candidate. It's unlikely the job will be filled before the fall, leaving a critical vacancy, at a difficult time.
B.C. needs treaties. But the process - already shaky - is facing a flood of changes and challenges that will make progress much tougher.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Things were already getting bumpier in B.C. Add a Conservative election win and the dramatic treaty policy changes likely to follow, and the skies grow decidedly darker. Successful talks look less likely, and the chance of blockades and lawsuits increases.
The prospect of a Conservative government has cranked up fears. The party doesn't mention B.C. treaties in its platform, but expect at least tougher negotiating line.
Or perhaps much more. Tony Penikett is a former Yukon premier, and a senior fellow on First Nations treaty issues at Simon Fraser University. "If there's a Harper government after June 28, that may effectively end treaty negotiations in B.C.," he says.
Mr. Penikett points to the influence of Tom Flanagan, probably Conservative leader Stephen Harper's closest policy advisor. Mr. Flanagan, an academic, is national campaign manager and certain of a senior role in a Harper government.
Mr. Flanagan has strong views on the treaty process and relations with Canada's aboriginal communities. (Mr. Flanagan rejects the First Nations term, arguing Canada's native groups don't qualify as nations.)
Back in 2001 Mr. Flanagan attacked the basic principles of treaty making in B.C. It's impractical to settle treaties by providing land, he said, because the land is already being used by others.
And he said Ottawa should give the treaty process another three years, and then hand the issue to a federal commission to resolve. Parliament - and the B.C. legislature - would approve the settlements, title would be extinguished and everything would be resolved.
It's an appealing but unworkable solution. The legal issue of title is not so easily swept away. And damaging First Nations' protests and pressure campaigns would be inevitable.
Mr. Flanagan has also argued that collective ownership of land by First Nations should be replaced by private ownership to encourage economic growth. Again, it's an interesting idea. But it is considered poisonous by First Nations, who see shared ownership as fundamental to their identity as a people. Give that up, they believe, and it is the end of their culture. (Mr. Flanagan argues for assimilation.)
Conservatives' aboriginal affairs critic John Duncan says he leads the policy development. But the Vancouver Island MP is vague about the party's plans for treaty talks, promising "productive" changes. But Mr. Duncan was a leading critic of the Nisga'a Treaty, objecting to the amount of land and money provided and the self-government provisions. Future agreements should "compensate aboriginals for what the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement," he says.
Policy debates are fine.
But this is a dangerous time for the Ottawa to lurch in a whole new treaty making direction.
After two years of apparent progress, relations between First Nations and the provincial government are souring. First Nations have found common cause in the Title and Rights Alliance, which is borrowing the proven tactics of the environmental campaigners.
The alliance is already out warning institutional investors about the risks of operating in B.C. until land claims are resolved.Its first "information blockades" on roads and highways will go up as early as the end of this month.
Tthe First Nations' Summit has just voted to support the alliance. And Dave Porter of the Kaska Dene has just been elected to its leadership group. Mr. Porter was a deputy premier in the Yukon NDP government, an aboriginal affairs assistant deputy minister under the B.C. New Democrats and the province's first oil and gas commissioner. He will be a formidable foe, or friend, for government.
All this comes as the BC Treaty Commission operates without a chief commissioner. Miles Richardson resigned to run as a Liberal candidate in Skeena-Bulkely Valley. First Nations and federal and provincial government have to agree on a candidate. It's unlikely the job will be filled before the fall, leaving a critical vacancy, at a difficult time.
B.C. needs treaties. But the process - already shaky - is facing a flood of changes and challenges that will make progress much tougher.
- From the Vancouver Sun
Friday, June 18, 2004
New Democrat on FN Summit; a mine plan dies; and lessons from polls
VICTORIA - Random notes: A long-time New Democrat and former deputy premier takes a leading First Nations' role, a mining company stock skids after a B.C. government decision and a RAV poll highlights a big Liberal problem.
The newest leader of the First Nations Summit is coming into the job with a lot of political and bureaucratic experience - mostly on the opposite side from the BC Liberals.
Dave Porter is one of two new people elected to the summit's leadership, joining Chief Ed John.
Porter is chief treaty negotiator for the Kaska Dene Council, in the province's far northwest.
But he's also a former deputy premier and cabinet minister in the Yukon NDP government of the late '80s, and was an assistant deputy minister for aboriginal affairs under the B.C. New Democrats. Porter was also tapped by then energy minister Dan Miller to become the province's first oil and gas commissioner when the NDP wanted to make it easier for energy companies to do business in the province.
Porter's arrival comes at an interesting time. After what looked like a significant improvement in relations over the last two years, things have gone wrong. A new group, the Title and Rights Alliance, has created unusual unity among First Nations and promises to adopt more effective pressure tactics.
And the Treaty Commission, which manages the process, has pledged to become more aggressive in publicly pressuring any parties - First Nations or federal or provincial governments - that are blocking progress.
What's it mean? Porter knows the government and bureaucracy, and that could help get agreements - or it could make him a more effective opponent. (The federal government has bailed from the treaty table with the Kaska Dene, saying legal disputes have to be resolved before talks can resume.)
Things were looking up for Cline Mining Corp. The company, listed on the TSE Venture Exchange, had seen its lightly traded stock climb from 15 cents to 50 cents in April, before settling into the 40-cent range. The price was rising on plans for an open pit mine near Fernie, which the company said would produce $5 billion worth of coal during its lifetime and 1.500 jobs.
That changed May 28, when Energy Minister Richard Neufeld killed the project, citing environmental concerns and a desire to avoid conflict with U.S. opponents.
Within a few days the stock had lost half its value, and the company canceled plans to raise another $300,000 to work on planning for the mine.
The move surprised most people in the area, including mine opponents who were getting ready for a big fight.
But the odds were heavily stacked against it. Liberal MLA Bill Bennett said he had taken local opposition to Neufeld and Premier Gordon Campbell. And the anti-mine lobby across the border in Montana was organized and efficient. They had already persuaded Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa with concerns, and scored wide publicity, including a sympathetic New York Times story. (The mine would have been near Montana's Glacier National Park.)
Cline is considering its next move. But the enviros have already launched theirs, arguing that the same principles mean that plans for coal bed methane development in the south Kootenays should also be shelved.
If you want to understand the problem facing the Campbell Liberals, take a look at a poll commissioned by business types to show support for Vancouver's RAV line.
The poll found 69 per cent of those surveyed supported the line, with 46 per cent strongly supporting it.
But when the pollster asked about the Liberal offer to take on all the risk of cost over-runs - and come up with $170 million for another line - support fell. Only 65 per cent of supported going ahead with the line, and only 39 per cent offered strong support.
It's a better deal for Lower Mainland residents, but the association with the provincial government was apparently enough to drive support away.
Footnote: More poll news. StatsCan reported this week B.C. residents have the lowest satisfaction with health care services among the provinces. The province is also one of only three where satisfaction has fallen over the last three years (along with Newfoundland and P.E.I.).
The newest leader of the First Nations Summit is coming into the job with a lot of political and bureaucratic experience - mostly on the opposite side from the BC Liberals.
Dave Porter is one of two new people elected to the summit's leadership, joining Chief Ed John.
Porter is chief treaty negotiator for the Kaska Dene Council, in the province's far northwest.
But he's also a former deputy premier and cabinet minister in the Yukon NDP government of the late '80s, and was an assistant deputy minister for aboriginal affairs under the B.C. New Democrats. Porter was also tapped by then energy minister Dan Miller to become the province's first oil and gas commissioner when the NDP wanted to make it easier for energy companies to do business in the province.
Porter's arrival comes at an interesting time. After what looked like a significant improvement in relations over the last two years, things have gone wrong. A new group, the Title and Rights Alliance, has created unusual unity among First Nations and promises to adopt more effective pressure tactics.
And the Treaty Commission, which manages the process, has pledged to become more aggressive in publicly pressuring any parties - First Nations or federal or provincial governments - that are blocking progress.
What's it mean? Porter knows the government and bureaucracy, and that could help get agreements - or it could make him a more effective opponent. (The federal government has bailed from the treaty table with the Kaska Dene, saying legal disputes have to be resolved before talks can resume.)
Things were looking up for Cline Mining Corp. The company, listed on the TSE Venture Exchange, had seen its lightly traded stock climb from 15 cents to 50 cents in April, before settling into the 40-cent range. The price was rising on plans for an open pit mine near Fernie, which the company said would produce $5 billion worth of coal during its lifetime and 1.500 jobs.
That changed May 28, when Energy Minister Richard Neufeld killed the project, citing environmental concerns and a desire to avoid conflict with U.S. opponents.
Within a few days the stock had lost half its value, and the company canceled plans to raise another $300,000 to work on planning for the mine.
The move surprised most people in the area, including mine opponents who were getting ready for a big fight.
But the odds were heavily stacked against it. Liberal MLA Bill Bennett said he had taken local opposition to Neufeld and Premier Gordon Campbell. And the anti-mine lobby across the border in Montana was organized and efficient. They had already persuaded Secretary of State Colin Powell to write Ottawa with concerns, and scored wide publicity, including a sympathetic New York Times story. (The mine would have been near Montana's Glacier National Park.)
Cline is considering its next move. But the enviros have already launched theirs, arguing that the same principles mean that plans for coal bed methane development in the south Kootenays should also be shelved.
If you want to understand the problem facing the Campbell Liberals, take a look at a poll commissioned by business types to show support for Vancouver's RAV line.
The poll found 69 per cent of those surveyed supported the line, with 46 per cent strongly supporting it.
But when the pollster asked about the Liberal offer to take on all the risk of cost over-runs - and come up with $170 million for another line - support fell. Only 65 per cent of supported going ahead with the line, and only 39 per cent offered strong support.
It's a better deal for Lower Mainland residents, but the association with the provincial government was apparently enough to drive support away.
Footnote: More poll news. StatsCan reported this week B.C. residents have the lowest satisfaction with health care services among the provinces. The province is also one of only three where satisfaction has fallen over the last three years (along with Newfoundland and P.E.I.).
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Harper has a good TV night, Martin falls short
VICTORIA - Stephen Harper should sleep more soundly after the big debate.
And for Paul Martin, more restless nights.
The whole winner-loser commentary on debates is a bit of a mug's game.
But if you look at what the leaders needed to achieve in this week's TV debate, Harper had the best showing. (Except perhaps for Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, but he's irrelevant in an English-language debate.)
Martin, who needed to rescue a faltering campaign, couldn't shake off the big liabilities he's dragging along behind him.
Debates are mainly chance to take a quick measure of the person, and to contrast the media image with a somewhat twisted form of reality. (The leaders are wearing make-up, and have spent hours rehearsing. Bright lights are shining in their eyes and they're talking to a camera lens. It's not a normal setting.)
That makes it an advantage to enter the debate as the underdog. The lower the initial expectations, the easier it is to surprise people with your insight or warmth.
Stephen Harper is still an unknown quantity for many Canadians. All he really needed to do was show up, avoid big mistakes and reassure people that he isn't a maniac anxious to arm Canadians, gut the health care system and make heterosexual marriage a legal obligation.
Harper succeeded, especially with the people who matter. By now each party has a firm base, people who won't be swayed by the debate. The leaders' target audience is the 30 per cent of voters who are uncommitted or wavering.
Harper didn't seem crazy. (It is a great advantage to start a debate knowing that you win if you don't seem nuts.) He didn't hide from his views, and acknowledged Canada's diversity. He didn't shout. He didn't seem the obvious bogeyman the Liberals had claimed in their attack ads. Mission accomplished.
Martin had a much bigger challenge, and he couldn't meet it. The sponsorship scandal was like a yoke on his rounded shoulders. His commitment to health care waiting list reduction was mocked, as the other leaders pointed out that inadequate federal funding under the Liberals had helped create those waiting lists.
Martin had the huge task of convincing voters that he would be a strong and decisive prime minister, delivering a clear - and different - type of government. But ultimately he appeared to offer more of the same, and that is not what many voters want.
Jack Layton had a tough job as well. He tried to convince people that the Conservatives would be very bad for Canada, while dissuading them from the obvious conclusion that they should thus vote Liberal to block Harper. That would have required a huge leap in the perceived credibility of the NDP. It didn't happen.
What now?
The Conservatives just have to keep doing what they they are doing, targeting their efforts more and more specifically to close ridings.
The Liberals need to rethink a campaign gone wrong.
The attacks on Harper as a social conservative have not worked, and the debate should confirm that they won't. He's to the right of many Canadians, to use that somewhat arbitrary characterization. But he's no more extreme than lots of the people most voters know and work with.
Harper looked weakest on fiscal policy - what governments take in and how they spend it.
The Conservative plan calls for tax cuts and more money for the military and health care. Harper says he won't cut spending in other areas, just slow the growth.
But Martin argued that the plans will leave a $50-billion shortfall over the next five years, and the Conservatives will be forced to make significant cuts. It's a good issue for the Liberals to push in the coming days. And it will find the most receptive audience in critical B.C. and Ontario ridings, where provincial government tax cuts have raised awareness of the risks.
But for now, Harper has become the favorite.
Footnote: Not much for B.C. in the debate. A passing reference to the softwood lumber dispute, but nothing on treaties, or First Nations generally, or energy policy. Not even a token reference to the broader issue of Western alienation, which Martin had said was a major concern before the campaign began.
And for Paul Martin, more restless nights.
The whole winner-loser commentary on debates is a bit of a mug's game.
But if you look at what the leaders needed to achieve in this week's TV debate, Harper had the best showing. (Except perhaps for Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, but he's irrelevant in an English-language debate.)
Martin, who needed to rescue a faltering campaign, couldn't shake off the big liabilities he's dragging along behind him.
Debates are mainly chance to take a quick measure of the person, and to contrast the media image with a somewhat twisted form of reality. (The leaders are wearing make-up, and have spent hours rehearsing. Bright lights are shining in their eyes and they're talking to a camera lens. It's not a normal setting.)
That makes it an advantage to enter the debate as the underdog. The lower the initial expectations, the easier it is to surprise people with your insight or warmth.
Stephen Harper is still an unknown quantity for many Canadians. All he really needed to do was show up, avoid big mistakes and reassure people that he isn't a maniac anxious to arm Canadians, gut the health care system and make heterosexual marriage a legal obligation.
Harper succeeded, especially with the people who matter. By now each party has a firm base, people who won't be swayed by the debate. The leaders' target audience is the 30 per cent of voters who are uncommitted or wavering.
Harper didn't seem crazy. (It is a great advantage to start a debate knowing that you win if you don't seem nuts.) He didn't hide from his views, and acknowledged Canada's diversity. He didn't shout. He didn't seem the obvious bogeyman the Liberals had claimed in their attack ads. Mission accomplished.
Martin had a much bigger challenge, and he couldn't meet it. The sponsorship scandal was like a yoke on his rounded shoulders. His commitment to health care waiting list reduction was mocked, as the other leaders pointed out that inadequate federal funding under the Liberals had helped create those waiting lists.
Martin had the huge task of convincing voters that he would be a strong and decisive prime minister, delivering a clear - and different - type of government. But ultimately he appeared to offer more of the same, and that is not what many voters want.
Jack Layton had a tough job as well. He tried to convince people that the Conservatives would be very bad for Canada, while dissuading them from the obvious conclusion that they should thus vote Liberal to block Harper. That would have required a huge leap in the perceived credibility of the NDP. It didn't happen.
What now?
The Conservatives just have to keep doing what they they are doing, targeting their efforts more and more specifically to close ridings.
The Liberals need to rethink a campaign gone wrong.
The attacks on Harper as a social conservative have not worked, and the debate should confirm that they won't. He's to the right of many Canadians, to use that somewhat arbitrary characterization. But he's no more extreme than lots of the people most voters know and work with.
Harper looked weakest on fiscal policy - what governments take in and how they spend it.
The Conservative plan calls for tax cuts and more money for the military and health care. Harper says he won't cut spending in other areas, just slow the growth.
But Martin argued that the plans will leave a $50-billion shortfall over the next five years, and the Conservatives will be forced to make significant cuts. It's a good issue for the Liberals to push in the coming days. And it will find the most receptive audience in critical B.C. and Ontario ridings, where provincial government tax cuts have raised awareness of the risks.
But for now, Harper has become the favorite.
Footnote: Not much for B.C. in the debate. A passing reference to the softwood lumber dispute, but nothing on treaties, or First Nations generally, or energy policy. Not even a token reference to the broader issue of Western alienation, which Martin had said was a major concern before the campaign began.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
End wait chaos with guarantees
VICTORIA - Sure it's dangerous that the courts are being asked to define Canadians' right to health care - and perhaps approve a two-tier system.
But it's also inevitable given governments' failures.
Montrealer George Zeliotis waited - in pain - more than seven months for hip replacement surgery in 1999. This week his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that his charter rights were violated. Governments must either provide timely treatment, or allow people to go to pay for surgery at private clinics, they claimed.
The federal government and several provinces - not including B.C. - intervened, rightly arguing that allowing people to pay for speedier treatment would violate the basic medicare principle of equality.
Governments must be allowed to decide how much should be spent on health care, they said. Sometimes people just have to wait.
That's a profoundly unsatisfactory position, one that suggests Canadians have no right to treatment. If a government makes health care a priority, wait lists drop. If it decides tax cuts or education are more important, you wait longer.
It's a bizarre model. I pay about $900 for car insurance, and have a clear understanding what ICBC will and won't provide in return. We pay an average $2,800 each for health care, and have a right to the same kind of clarity.
The governments' legal position would have been stronger if they had been able to tell the court the maximum times patients must wait for different procedures, and how they had decided that those waits were reasonable.
But it doesn't work that way. If budgets are tight, health authorities reduce the number of operations being done, and people wait longer. There's no medical rationale for the delay, or study of the economic costs of making people wait. Government sets the budget, and that drives the quality of care.
It's as if you crashed your car and ICBC told you that unfortunately it wasn't fixing any more front ends this fiscal year because the budget for that had been spent.
Basically the governments are saying trust us.
But people don't. An ipsos-Reid poll done for the BC Medical Association last month asked people who they believe when talk turns to managing health care. Three out of four people said the doctors' organization was believable. Only half as many were willing to believe Premier Gordon Campbell. Almost 40 per cent said he was not at all believable on health care. (That's not overly surprising. The Liberals' platform noted patients' anger that the treatment they had paid for wasn't available when they needed it, and promised better. Instead waiting times have increased. The anger remains.)
But it's not a Liberal issue, or a B.C. one. All Canadian governments take a similar approach.
There are alternatives. The BCMA is pushing for guaranteed maximum wait times, a commitment already in place in some countries and being introduced in a rudimentary form in Saskatchewan. If the government can't fulfill its guarantees, the doctors say, it should have to pay for a procedure in a private clinic or another jurisdiction
Governments could provide the guarantees. The health ministry knows, for example, that about 2,500 hip replacements will be done this year, not enough to keep up with new diagnoses, let alone reduce the 2,900-person wait list. It could calculate a reasonable guaranteed maximum wait.
Government has the right to decide that the $25 million needed to clear the backlog would be better spent elsewhere. But patients have a right to some guarantee of service. Perhaps an urgent case is promised treatment in seven days; moderate no more than five months; the rest no more than 18 months. You're assessed, and you know what the future holds. (Today many surgical patients are convinced the wait is endless.)
Governments have paid attention to their need for flexibility.
But they've ignored the need for commitments and accountability in return. That's hurt patients, and undermined an honest debate about what we can expect from our health care system.
- From The Vancouver Sun
But it's also inevitable given governments' failures.
Montrealer George Zeliotis waited - in pain - more than seven months for hip replacement surgery in 1999. This week his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that his charter rights were violated. Governments must either provide timely treatment, or allow people to go to pay for surgery at private clinics, they claimed.
The federal government and several provinces - not including B.C. - intervened, rightly arguing that allowing people to pay for speedier treatment would violate the basic medicare principle of equality.
Governments must be allowed to decide how much should be spent on health care, they said. Sometimes people just have to wait.
That's a profoundly unsatisfactory position, one that suggests Canadians have no right to treatment. If a government makes health care a priority, wait lists drop. If it decides tax cuts or education are more important, you wait longer.
It's a bizarre model. I pay about $900 for car insurance, and have a clear understanding what ICBC will and won't provide in return. We pay an average $2,800 each for health care, and have a right to the same kind of clarity.
The governments' legal position would have been stronger if they had been able to tell the court the maximum times patients must wait for different procedures, and how they had decided that those waits were reasonable.
But it doesn't work that way. If budgets are tight, health authorities reduce the number of operations being done, and people wait longer. There's no medical rationale for the delay, or study of the economic costs of making people wait. Government sets the budget, and that drives the quality of care.
It's as if you crashed your car and ICBC told you that unfortunately it wasn't fixing any more front ends this fiscal year because the budget for that had been spent.
Basically the governments are saying trust us.
But people don't. An ipsos-Reid poll done for the BC Medical Association last month asked people who they believe when talk turns to managing health care. Three out of four people said the doctors' organization was believable. Only half as many were willing to believe Premier Gordon Campbell. Almost 40 per cent said he was not at all believable on health care. (That's not overly surprising. The Liberals' platform noted patients' anger that the treatment they had paid for wasn't available when they needed it, and promised better. Instead waiting times have increased. The anger remains.)
But it's not a Liberal issue, or a B.C. one. All Canadian governments take a similar approach.
There are alternatives. The BCMA is pushing for guaranteed maximum wait times, a commitment already in place in some countries and being introduced in a rudimentary form in Saskatchewan. If the government can't fulfill its guarantees, the doctors say, it should have to pay for a procedure in a private clinic or another jurisdiction
Governments could provide the guarantees. The health ministry knows, for example, that about 2,500 hip replacements will be done this year, not enough to keep up with new diagnoses, let alone reduce the 2,900-person wait list. It could calculate a reasonable guaranteed maximum wait.
Government has the right to decide that the $25 million needed to clear the backlog would be better spent elsewhere. But patients have a right to some guarantee of service. Perhaps an urgent case is promised treatment in seven days; moderate no more than five months; the rest no more than 18 months. You're assessed, and you know what the future holds. (Today many surgical patients are convinced the wait is endless.)
Governments have paid attention to their need for flexibility.
But they've ignored the need for commitments and accountability in return. That's hurt patients, and undermined an honest debate about what we can expect from our health care system.
- From The Vancouver Sun
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Liberals blowing opportunity on Harper's Iraq stance
VICTORIA - The Liberals' attack ads are a big mistake.
They're bound to alienate many voters, who associate them with ugly American political campaigns.
And they'll wreck the Liberals' credibility on those issues where Harper should be held to account, like his support for sending Canadian troops to fight alongside the Americans in Iraq.
The attack ads say Harper wanted to send Canadian forces into Iraq - true - and wants to limit abortion rights (false), wants to ally with the Bloc Québécois (irrelevant, since the Bloc won't work with any federalist party) and wants to spend heavily on military hardware (true). All this in front of scenes suggesting health care disaster and a dissolving Canadian flag and .
Scare tactics make the attacking party look both desperate and devoid of their own ideas. And their hysteria means that legitimate criticisms are written off as more of the same political smears.
In fact, there are legitimate issues the Liberals could be raising.
Harper's support for the war in Iraq, for one. He accepted claims of weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat - claims now proved false. His statements at the time suggest that if he had been prime minister, Canadians would be fighting and dying in Iraq, and our role in the world permanently altered.
That issue leads to an examination of Harper's pledge for a massive increase in military spending. The Conservative platform calls for an immediate 10-per-cent jump, an extra $1.2 billion a year. Over time he wants to see spending increased by $8 billion a year - a 67-per-cent jump. The number of troops would increase by one-third, to 80,000.
None of the other parties propose such a massive increase.
My guess is Harper is out-of-step with most Canadians. Voters do believe that the military should be properly equipped, and that soldiers should not be sent on dangerous missions with inadequate support.
But Canada spends $12 billion a year on its armed forces - about $400 per person. Most polls suggest that health care or other quality-of-life issues rank as higher priorities with Canadians.
Both sides on defence spending find statistics to back their views. Most comparable countries do spend a significantly larger share of their GDP on their militaries. And Liberal governments did cut military spending to help balance the budget.
But Canada is still 11th out of 19 NATO countries in military spending, and in the top 10 per cent of countries around the world.
So why the need for so much more money?
The military's current mission includes three tasks - protecting Canada, defending North America in co-operation with the U.S. and contributing to peace and international security.
But the conventional military threat against Canada and North America seems remote. And there is little evidence that the best way to deal with any threats that do emerge is by adding thousands of permanent troops, or committing to more costly initiatives like the $10-billion frigate program.
And while it is fine that the military has a goal of contributing to peace and international security, it's much less clear that the best way of accomplishing that is with more soldiers and more new weapons. We have only 3,800 troops overseas now - 2,200 in Afghanistan, 200 in the Mideast, 500 in Haiti, 655 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's difficult, important work. But it is a small part of what Canada's military does, and one that could be handled without a massive spending increase.
In fact, Harper needs to explain why the extra $8 billion a year he wants to spend on the military couldn't be used to build peace and security more effectively in other ways. About 7,000 people a day are dying of AIDs in Africa, for example; their security could be helped more by medical and economic aid than more soldiers.
There are some real questions to be answered. Too bad the Liberals are choosing ineffective attack ads instead of asking them.
Footnote: The Liberals' attack ads have an inherent flaw. The party is in trouble in part because voters don't trust Paul Martin and company. But the attack ads will only work if voters believe them - if they trust the source. The only significant effect will be to make the Liberals looked panicky.
They're bound to alienate many voters, who associate them with ugly American political campaigns.
And they'll wreck the Liberals' credibility on those issues where Harper should be held to account, like his support for sending Canadian troops to fight alongside the Americans in Iraq.
The attack ads say Harper wanted to send Canadian forces into Iraq - true - and wants to limit abortion rights (false), wants to ally with the Bloc Québécois (irrelevant, since the Bloc won't work with any federalist party) and wants to spend heavily on military hardware (true). All this in front of scenes suggesting health care disaster and a dissolving Canadian flag and .
Scare tactics make the attacking party look both desperate and devoid of their own ideas. And their hysteria means that legitimate criticisms are written off as more of the same political smears.
In fact, there are legitimate issues the Liberals could be raising.
Harper's support for the war in Iraq, for one. He accepted claims of weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat - claims now proved false. His statements at the time suggest that if he had been prime minister, Canadians would be fighting and dying in Iraq, and our role in the world permanently altered.
That issue leads to an examination of Harper's pledge for a massive increase in military spending. The Conservative platform calls for an immediate 10-per-cent jump, an extra $1.2 billion a year. Over time he wants to see spending increased by $8 billion a year - a 67-per-cent jump. The number of troops would increase by one-third, to 80,000.
None of the other parties propose such a massive increase.
My guess is Harper is out-of-step with most Canadians. Voters do believe that the military should be properly equipped, and that soldiers should not be sent on dangerous missions with inadequate support.
But Canada spends $12 billion a year on its armed forces - about $400 per person. Most polls suggest that health care or other quality-of-life issues rank as higher priorities with Canadians.
Both sides on defence spending find statistics to back their views. Most comparable countries do spend a significantly larger share of their GDP on their militaries. And Liberal governments did cut military spending to help balance the budget.
But Canada is still 11th out of 19 NATO countries in military spending, and in the top 10 per cent of countries around the world.
So why the need for so much more money?
The military's current mission includes three tasks - protecting Canada, defending North America in co-operation with the U.S. and contributing to peace and international security.
But the conventional military threat against Canada and North America seems remote. And there is little evidence that the best way to deal with any threats that do emerge is by adding thousands of permanent troops, or committing to more costly initiatives like the $10-billion frigate program.
And while it is fine that the military has a goal of contributing to peace and international security, it's much less clear that the best way of accomplishing that is with more soldiers and more new weapons. We have only 3,800 troops overseas now - 2,200 in Afghanistan, 200 in the Mideast, 500 in Haiti, 655 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's difficult, important work. But it is a small part of what Canada's military does, and one that could be handled without a massive spending increase.
In fact, Harper needs to explain why the extra $8 billion a year he wants to spend on the military couldn't be used to build peace and security more effectively in other ways. About 7,000 people a day are dying of AIDs in Africa, for example; their security could be helped more by medical and economic aid than more soldiers.
There are some real questions to be answered. Too bad the Liberals are choosing ineffective attack ads instead of asking them.
Footnote: The Liberals' attack ads have an inherent flaw. The party is in trouble in part because voters don't trust Paul Martin and company. But the attack ads will only work if voters believe them - if they trust the source. The only significant effect will be to make the Liberals looked panicky.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Harper does well in the sun, but campaign still just starting
VICTORIA - Quite a sharp contrast between the campaign visits here by Stephen Harper and Paul Martin.
Both men picked seniors' facilities. But, appropriately given the way the campaign is going, Martin came and went under a grey skies and rain while Harper hit town on one of the best days this year.
Martin took only half-a-dozen questions from reporters before climbing back on the bus, while Harper stood around for 40 minutes, long after handlers started looking edgily at their watches. Martin didn't have a whole lot specific to say, while Harper was willing - mostly - to respond directly to questions.
None of it matters that much right now. This is a strangely unformed election campaign. Talking to campaigners for all the parties, it seems the only consistent theme is that voters in B.C. feel more than usually abused by Ottawa. But they haven't yet decided what to do about it, which explains the close results in the polls and the large chunk of undecided voters.
One nice thing about that is that it means B.C. matters. The best seat projections put the Liberals slightly ahead of the Conservatives, 37 seats short of a majority. B.C.'s 34 ridings could make the difference on June 28.
The Liberals made a big push to reach out to the province this week, with the 'Dream Team' - or Parachute Club - candidates unveiling a 'made-in-B.C.' platform. it didn't really say much, waffling on offshore oil and gas, promising some unspecified action on grow ops, better roads between smaller communities and an overhaul of the DFO.
But the platform did raise some obvious questions. If these things are important, why aren't they in the main Liberal platform? And why do we have to send Ujjal Dosanjh, David Emerson and Dave Haggard to Ottawa to fight for the things that Stephen Owen and David Anderson were supposed to be looking after for the past four years?
The whole thing also created the odd sense ot the B.C. wing of the party running against their own party.
So what's your B.C. agenda, Harper was asked? British Columbians, like other Canadians, were mainly angry at an unresponsive federal government, he said. "We run on the same platform everywhere," he said.
Harper wanted to talk about programs for seniors at the Victoria stop. But much of his time was spent defending the Conservatives against Liberal claims that the party had a hidden side, one that ran contrary to Canadian traditions of respect for individual rights.
I'm not sure how successful he was. Several questioners asked him to respond to the comments of Calgary Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who had claimed that Canadians who exercised their right to choose an abortion and doctors who performed them were the same as the Iraqi terrorists who chopped off the head of Nicholas Berg.
I have a standing rule not to write about abortion. It does not lend itself to discussion in a 650-word column. But that was a remarkably stupid, hateful and destructive remark.
Harper only said pro-lifers tend to talk that way, and he doesn't think it's very effective. He promised not to introduce legislation changing abortion laws if the Conservatives the government. But if a private members' bill made it on to the floor of the House, he'd allow a free vote, he said.
That's highly unlikely, and it's also highly unlikely that any changes would pass even with a free vote. But Harper's easy tolerance of extreme views on what most Canadians accept as a complex, difficult matter of personal choice will scare many voters.
Not a bad start for the Conservatives. But the real tests will come over the next two weeks as voters try to figure out just what to do when they hunch over their ballots in some school gym, and all the parties try to avoid the kind of major mistakes that can change the campaign in an instant.
Footnote: Harper did come out in favour of offshore oil and gas development, noting the benefits it brought to Atlantic Canada and the provincial government's position. The Liberals are blocking economic growth in B.C., he said, singling out senior minister David Anderson. "A Liberal government, a Mr. Anderson Liberal government, would be disastrous for the economic development of this province."
Both men picked seniors' facilities. But, appropriately given the way the campaign is going, Martin came and went under a grey skies and rain while Harper hit town on one of the best days this year.
Martin took only half-a-dozen questions from reporters before climbing back on the bus, while Harper stood around for 40 minutes, long after handlers started looking edgily at their watches. Martin didn't have a whole lot specific to say, while Harper was willing - mostly - to respond directly to questions.
None of it matters that much right now. This is a strangely unformed election campaign. Talking to campaigners for all the parties, it seems the only consistent theme is that voters in B.C. feel more than usually abused by Ottawa. But they haven't yet decided what to do about it, which explains the close results in the polls and the large chunk of undecided voters.
One nice thing about that is that it means B.C. matters. The best seat projections put the Liberals slightly ahead of the Conservatives, 37 seats short of a majority. B.C.'s 34 ridings could make the difference on June 28.
The Liberals made a big push to reach out to the province this week, with the 'Dream Team' - or Parachute Club - candidates unveiling a 'made-in-B.C.' platform. it didn't really say much, waffling on offshore oil and gas, promising some unspecified action on grow ops, better roads between smaller communities and an overhaul of the DFO.
But the platform did raise some obvious questions. If these things are important, why aren't they in the main Liberal platform? And why do we have to send Ujjal Dosanjh, David Emerson and Dave Haggard to Ottawa to fight for the things that Stephen Owen and David Anderson were supposed to be looking after for the past four years?
The whole thing also created the odd sense ot the B.C. wing of the party running against their own party.
So what's your B.C. agenda, Harper was asked? British Columbians, like other Canadians, were mainly angry at an unresponsive federal government, he said. "We run on the same platform everywhere," he said.
Harper wanted to talk about programs for seniors at the Victoria stop. But much of his time was spent defending the Conservatives against Liberal claims that the party had a hidden side, one that ran contrary to Canadian traditions of respect for individual rights.
I'm not sure how successful he was. Several questioners asked him to respond to the comments of Calgary Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who had claimed that Canadians who exercised their right to choose an abortion and doctors who performed them were the same as the Iraqi terrorists who chopped off the head of Nicholas Berg.
I have a standing rule not to write about abortion. It does not lend itself to discussion in a 650-word column. But that was a remarkably stupid, hateful and destructive remark.
Harper only said pro-lifers tend to talk that way, and he doesn't think it's very effective. He promised not to introduce legislation changing abortion laws if the Conservatives the government. But if a private members' bill made it on to the floor of the House, he'd allow a free vote, he said.
That's highly unlikely, and it's also highly unlikely that any changes would pass even with a free vote. But Harper's easy tolerance of extreme views on what most Canadians accept as a complex, difficult matter of personal choice will scare many voters.
Not a bad start for the Conservatives. But the real tests will come over the next two weeks as voters try to figure out just what to do when they hunch over their ballots in some school gym, and all the parties try to avoid the kind of major mistakes that can change the campaign in an instant.
Footnote: Harper did come out in favour of offshore oil and gas development, noting the benefits it brought to Atlantic Canada and the provincial government's position. The Liberals are blocking economic growth in B.C., he said, singling out senior minister David Anderson. "A Liberal government, a Mr. Anderson Liberal government, would be disastrous for the economic development of this province."
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Harper's big defence plans a reminder of his Iraq war eagerness
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
