VICTORIA - It's hard to see much evidence of the federal Liberal's BC Dream Team in this week's budget.
Overall, the Liberals seem to have cobbled together a budget with a little something for everyone, although the fine print shows the impact will be smaller, and slower to come, than you might at first think.
But this was the first budget that should have borne the fingerprints of the Liberals' highly touted Dream Team, the high-profile MPs like Ujjal Dosanjh and David Emerson who were recruited to make sure B.C. matters.
And despite the promises, there were relatively few signs that the province has registered in Ottawa.
There a couple of clear positive developments. The Vancouver-based Asia Pacific Foundation gets $50 million, a one-time chunk of cash that's intended to make it self-sufficient. The foundation should continue to help B.C., and Canada, take advantage of opportunities for trade and other ties with Asia.
And UBC got an extra $50 million for Triumf, the cutting edge particle physics research centre.
But the budget had noting specific for pine beetle aid, as Finance Minister Colin Hansen noted. The infestation is a natural disaster on the same level as the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery. That failure resulted in more than $1.5 billion in federal aid to the communities affected.The situation isn't as dire here, in part because there are other opportunities for forest workers and their communities. But B.C. still faces an immense crisis. Once the infestation has run its course - which will end with the death of 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine - forest communities face a couple of decades with very little timber to harvest.
Action is needed now to prepare for the coming crunch in 12 to 15 years.
The province has taken relatively small step first steps, promising $101 million over four years. Only $16 million of that is for economic development work; the rest is for reforestation.
That's not nearly enough, and the province's slow start is in part due to the hope that money will be coming from Ottawa.
Emerson is in a good position to understand the issue. He's industry minister, the top political minister for the province and the former head of Canfor.
Emerson says the federal Liberals haven't forgotten the problem, and is continuing to work with the province and industry on the best way to help.
But words are one thing, and action - and money - are another.
There were hints of more specific news for the province still to come.
British Columbia has been lobbying to have the Ottawa-based Canadian Tourism Commission, an $85-million Crown corporation, move to Vancouver. That wasn't announced, but the commission got a $25-million funding increase, which could help pay for the move. Emerson is the minister responsible, and should be able to deliver.
The federal budget also failed to come up with any of the money Prince Rupert has been seeking to take its port to the next level. There is a big increase in money for border security, and infrastructure. But the emphasis, according to the budget documents, is on security, not money for projects like Prince Rupert's port.
It's not fair to expect the federal government to rain dollars down on B.C. We've seen the huge waste of money in other federal economic development programs, which leave taxpayers poorer and produce few results.
But the pine beetle infestation is a foreseeable natural disaster. It can't be halted, but we can act now to reduce the impact on communities, businesses and families. The federal government has an obligation to act.
And there are other investments needed in B.C. that would benefit not just the province, but all Canadians.
Paul Martin made a personal commitment to recognize legitimate needs in the province, and reduce our feeling of distance from a disinterested federal government.
The budget shows he has much more work to do.
Footnote: The lack of federal help in the pine beetle crisis should have British Columbians questioning the province's decision not to use some of this year's surplus - more than $2.2 billion - to establish a legacy fund to help forest communities deal with the coming crunch.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Health care crisis gets Liberals' attention
VICTORIA - It felt like the days of Glen Clark were back this week as the Liberals thrashed around, trying to sort out the problems - health care and political - in the Fraser Health Authority.
On Monday afternoon Health Minister Shirley Bond was still sounding pretty positive about the health region, and specifically about the problems at the over-crowded Surrey Memorial Hospital. She'd asked for a report on measures being taken to improve things at the hospital's emergency room, Bond told NDP MLA Jagrup Brar, but there was no panic.
But by Tuesday morning, the region's CEO, Bob Smith, had got the axe. The health authority board made the decision, said Bond, but her deputy minister had spent a lot of time over there asking questions. And Bond said she had become worried about the authority's inability to react quickly to emerging problems, and supported the firing.
A few hours later, during Question Period, Bond said she was concerned about problems at the Surrey hospital, but mostly she defended the government's overall health record and slagged the former NDP government.
But then the communications people said Premier Gordon Campbell would be available for a secret scrum. (That's the official Press Gallery term. Past premiers have taken questions from reporters each day on their way into caucus and Question Period. Campbell refuses. Occasionally - twice this session, I think - he takes questions in a formal press conference in his office.)
And while we waited in an anteroom, press releases arrived, hot off the copier. Bond was "calling on" the health region to use its $28-million surplus toward expanding the Surrey hospital emergency room.
It's a flip worthy of one of those 13-year-old Romanian gymnasts.
The Liberals promised independence for the five regional health authorities. The government would expect good plans, and measure performance. But the health region boards would decide how to address the needs of their communities.
Until the political heat got to be too great.
There's nothing really wrong with the politicians leaping into the fray. They're ultimately responsible. They answer to us, and they have the sleepless nights when something has gone wrong.
But we'd like them to be involved because they're worried about us. The problems facing Surrey Memorial, which has the second busiest emergency room in Canada, have been evident for years, Bond acknowledged in the legislature. It wasn't until a New Democrat started raising them, three months before the election, that things got urgent.
And note that the government didn't actually come up with any new money, or offer any estimate of what it would actually cost to solve the problems.
The health authority has a small surplus, about 1.5 per cent of total expenses. Use that, says the government, and do what you can.
It would have been more convincing if the government had been able to cost the needed improvements, and fund them out of the $2.8-billion surplus coming for the current fiscal year.
And the intervention would have been better received if it was clear the health region could afford the improvements, but had messed up. The region has had some big bumps in funding, but is looking at less than two per cent annually for the next two years.
Paradoxically, the actions might not help the Liberals politically. When Surrey was represented by Liberals, nothing happened. After just two weeks of Brar raising questions in the legislature, the hospital gets a big improvement. Not bad work for a rookie.
What will voters make of all this? They'll welcome the action, likely.
But they should wonder whether the failure to deliver 5,000 promised long-term care beds has played a role in hospital over-crowding. The Fraser region has fewer beds available for seniors now than it did four years ago.
And they'll also wonder why the government is only now discovering a problem that everyone else had been worried about for years.
Footnote: Forget about worrying about Smith's severance, likely worth more than his salary for a year - $323,000. He changed his life to take the job, and has been fired without cause - the payout is reasonable. (Although it's the second time he's got severance payments of more than $300,000; the NDP came through with a similar amount when his position was eliminated in 1997.)
On Monday afternoon Health Minister Shirley Bond was still sounding pretty positive about the health region, and specifically about the problems at the over-crowded Surrey Memorial Hospital. She'd asked for a report on measures being taken to improve things at the hospital's emergency room, Bond told NDP MLA Jagrup Brar, but there was no panic.
But by Tuesday morning, the region's CEO, Bob Smith, had got the axe. The health authority board made the decision, said Bond, but her deputy minister had spent a lot of time over there asking questions. And Bond said she had become worried about the authority's inability to react quickly to emerging problems, and supported the firing.
A few hours later, during Question Period, Bond said she was concerned about problems at the Surrey hospital, but mostly she defended the government's overall health record and slagged the former NDP government.
But then the communications people said Premier Gordon Campbell would be available for a secret scrum. (That's the official Press Gallery term. Past premiers have taken questions from reporters each day on their way into caucus and Question Period. Campbell refuses. Occasionally - twice this session, I think - he takes questions in a formal press conference in his office.)
And while we waited in an anteroom, press releases arrived, hot off the copier. Bond was "calling on" the health region to use its $28-million surplus toward expanding the Surrey hospital emergency room.
It's a flip worthy of one of those 13-year-old Romanian gymnasts.
The Liberals promised independence for the five regional health authorities. The government would expect good plans, and measure performance. But the health region boards would decide how to address the needs of their communities.
Until the political heat got to be too great.
There's nothing really wrong with the politicians leaping into the fray. They're ultimately responsible. They answer to us, and they have the sleepless nights when something has gone wrong.
But we'd like them to be involved because they're worried about us. The problems facing Surrey Memorial, which has the second busiest emergency room in Canada, have been evident for years, Bond acknowledged in the legislature. It wasn't until a New Democrat started raising them, three months before the election, that things got urgent.
And note that the government didn't actually come up with any new money, or offer any estimate of what it would actually cost to solve the problems.
The health authority has a small surplus, about 1.5 per cent of total expenses. Use that, says the government, and do what you can.
It would have been more convincing if the government had been able to cost the needed improvements, and fund them out of the $2.8-billion surplus coming for the current fiscal year.
And the intervention would have been better received if it was clear the health region could afford the improvements, but had messed up. The region has had some big bumps in funding, but is looking at less than two per cent annually for the next two years.
Paradoxically, the actions might not help the Liberals politically. When Surrey was represented by Liberals, nothing happened. After just two weeks of Brar raising questions in the legislature, the hospital gets a big improvement. Not bad work for a rookie.
What will voters make of all this? They'll welcome the action, likely.
But they should wonder whether the failure to deliver 5,000 promised long-term care beds has played a role in hospital over-crowding. The Fraser region has fewer beds available for seniors now than it did four years ago.
And they'll also wonder why the government is only now discovering a problem that everyone else had been worried about for years.
Footnote: Forget about worrying about Smith's severance, likely worth more than his salary for a year - $323,000. He changed his life to take the job, and has been fired without cause - the payout is reasonable. (Although it's the second time he's got severance payments of more than $300,000; the NDP came through with a similar amount when his position was eliminated in 1997.)
Monday, February 21, 2005
Seniors' bingo bust highlights gambling hypocrisy
VICTORIA - The great Galiano Island bingo bust brings to mind that bumper sticker, the one that says "Don't steal, government hates the competition."
In case you've missed the news, the B.C. government sent four undercover enforcement officers to laid-back Galiano to break up a fun once-a-week bingo game for about a dozen seniors.
You can run out of fingers counting off what's wrong with this.
For starters, there's the foolish waste of money.
We're talking about a drop-in bingo game in a small restaurant, with all the money - maybe $150 in a good week - going back to the players. Deb McKechnie, owner of Galiano's Grand Central Emporium, offered seniors a discount on their meals and a chance to socialize while having a few laughs over a game of bingo. There's no earthly reason for government to do anything about this.
But, says Solicitor General Rich Coleman, government had to launch an investigation, because someone complained.
OK. But that's what a telephone is for. You pick it up, call the restaurant and ask the owner about the bingo game. She tells the officer what's going on, he tells her what she needs to do to be within the law.
Case closed.
But that's not what happened. Four people - two police officers, and two gaming enforcement officers - slipped quietly into the restaurant, surreptiously gathered their evidence - and then retired to the Island Time B&B. The oceanfront resort boasts that it's Galiano's only five-star accommodation, with a Gazebo hot tub, cozy quilts and sherry in hand-cut crystal decanters. Winter rates range from $125 to $155 a night.
The next day two of the presumably well-rested officers showed up back at the restaurant and told McKechnie she was busted, and being charged with the unauthorized sale of lottery tickets. She started crying (like most taxpayers who have heard the whole story). The officers warned her that they could have laid criminal charges, but decided just to issue a $288 ticket.
Figure the total cost at something over $2,000, to deal with a harmless attempt to give seniors some weekly fun and attract a few more customers to a small business.
Coleman initially defended the exercise.
But by Monday, he was having doubts. "I'm not particularly thrilled with the story myself," he said. "This on the surface is not great. That's why I've asked them to take a review and come back and explain it to me."
Excess aside, this is just the latest chapter in the government's extremely diligent efforts to make sure that it's the only one who makes money from gambling. Charities have been told to quit selling raffle tickets on the Internet, or hassled because they were auctioning off a quilt without all the proper paperwork.
At the same time the government is pushing ahead full-speed with gambling expansion plan. (Yes, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to halt the expansion of gambling, because it hurt families and caused addictions and other social problems. More fool you for believing them.)
The new budget shows the Liberals will have almost doubled the amount of money they take from losing gamblers by 2008. The government made $540 million from gambling when the Liberals were elected; they're shooting for more than $1 billion by the third year of the current plan.
Partly, that comes from getting current gamblers to lose more. (Thus the decision to allow alcohol in casinos, and the approval for ATMs so people who have lost all their cash can dip into their savings.)
The government is also recruiting more gamblers. It has a plan to persuade 170,000 people who don't gamble now that it would be a good idea for them to start.
Sure, that will be the start of a hellish addiction for several thousand of those people, but that's not a big problem for the government.
Seniors playing fun bingo in a small restaurant on Galiano Island - that's a big problem.
Footnote: Last word to McKechnie. "I'm a small-business person really trying to stay alive and my taxes that I have to borrow money to pay are going to operations like this? I'm basically running a small business in hard times, open from 5:30 in the morning . . . seven days a week." Sounds like she should have been a LIberal voter - up until now.
In case you've missed the news, the B.C. government sent four undercover enforcement officers to laid-back Galiano to break up a fun once-a-week bingo game for about a dozen seniors.
You can run out of fingers counting off what's wrong with this.
For starters, there's the foolish waste of money.
We're talking about a drop-in bingo game in a small restaurant, with all the money - maybe $150 in a good week - going back to the players. Deb McKechnie, owner of Galiano's Grand Central Emporium, offered seniors a discount on their meals and a chance to socialize while having a few laughs over a game of bingo. There's no earthly reason for government to do anything about this.
But, says Solicitor General Rich Coleman, government had to launch an investigation, because someone complained.
OK. But that's what a telephone is for. You pick it up, call the restaurant and ask the owner about the bingo game. She tells the officer what's going on, he tells her what she needs to do to be within the law.
Case closed.
But that's not what happened. Four people - two police officers, and two gaming enforcement officers - slipped quietly into the restaurant, surreptiously gathered their evidence - and then retired to the Island Time B&B. The oceanfront resort boasts that it's Galiano's only five-star accommodation, with a Gazebo hot tub, cozy quilts and sherry in hand-cut crystal decanters. Winter rates range from $125 to $155 a night.
The next day two of the presumably well-rested officers showed up back at the restaurant and told McKechnie she was busted, and being charged with the unauthorized sale of lottery tickets. She started crying (like most taxpayers who have heard the whole story). The officers warned her that they could have laid criminal charges, but decided just to issue a $288 ticket.
Figure the total cost at something over $2,000, to deal with a harmless attempt to give seniors some weekly fun and attract a few more customers to a small business.
Coleman initially defended the exercise.
But by Monday, he was having doubts. "I'm not particularly thrilled with the story myself," he said. "This on the surface is not great. That's why I've asked them to take a review and come back and explain it to me."
Excess aside, this is just the latest chapter in the government's extremely diligent efforts to make sure that it's the only one who makes money from gambling. Charities have been told to quit selling raffle tickets on the Internet, or hassled because they were auctioning off a quilt without all the proper paperwork.
At the same time the government is pushing ahead full-speed with gambling expansion plan. (Yes, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to halt the expansion of gambling, because it hurt families and caused addictions and other social problems. More fool you for believing them.)
The new budget shows the Liberals will have almost doubled the amount of money they take from losing gamblers by 2008. The government made $540 million from gambling when the Liberals were elected; they're shooting for more than $1 billion by the third year of the current plan.
Partly, that comes from getting current gamblers to lose more. (Thus the decision to allow alcohol in casinos, and the approval for ATMs so people who have lost all their cash can dip into their savings.)
The government is also recruiting more gamblers. It has a plan to persuade 170,000 people who don't gamble now that it would be a good idea for them to start.
Sure, that will be the start of a hellish addiction for several thousand of those people, but that's not a big problem for the government.
Seniors playing fun bingo in a small restaurant on Galiano Island - that's a big problem.
Footnote: Last word to McKechnie. "I'm a small-business person really trying to stay alive and my taxes that I have to borrow money to pay are going to operations like this? I'm basically running a small business in hard times, open from 5:30 in the morning . . . seven days a week." Sounds like she should have been a LIberal voter - up until now.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Liberals wrong, foolish, to cut off budget debate
VICTORIA - What's wrong with the people making decisions for the Liberals?
They've got a budget that is going to find wide support, certainly one that most governments would be happy to take into an election campaign.
And now they're making it look like they have something to hide by indicating that they'll shut down the legislature to avoid detailed debate on their budget.
Worse, they're acting in a way that makes it evident that they know they are doing something wrong - at best evasive, at worst misleading.
The norma - the proper - process for a budget is straightforward. The budget is introduced, and there are six days of general debate on the budget speech.
Then the real work starts with the estiimates' debates. Ministers appear before the legislature to answer detailed questions about their spending plans, where the money will go and what results they'll get.
That's the part the Liberals want to avoid.
Estimates debates often do produce some difficult questions for governments. This time, it might be the details of the $400 million in economic development money that looks much like a pre-election political fund, or the lack of a plan to deliver promised long-term care beds.
Prolonging the session also gives the NDP more chances to raise damaging issues in Question Period each day.
And there's no doubt that ending the session early would be a big advantage for Liberal candidates. The legislature is scheduled to sit until April 18, when the election campaign begins. But shutting down by the end of this month would give the 72 Liberal MLAs an extra six weeks to campaign in their ridings, before the official start of the race. In most cases, their opponents will still be working at their day jobs.
But what about their obligation to us, the people who elected them?
The theory is that governments do not get to spend money without the informed approval of the legislature. MLAs have an important role in critically examining each ministry's spending plans, making sure that the interests of their communities are being served. It's a fundamental principle of our form of government.
There is ample time for the legislature to do that work before the election campaign legally starts, despite the claims of Finance Minister Colin Hansen.
Instead, the government appears to want the legislature to approve billions in spending without proper scrutiny, signing a blank cheque on your behalf.
Efforts to defend shutting down debate have so far been lame. Hansen noted - completely accurately - that Glen Clark had brought in a budget and then called the election within hours in 1996. The implication was that the Liberals aren't that bad; at least there will be a token period of general debate.
The defence is the political equivalent of 'all the other kids are doing it.' And it ignores the fact that the Clark budget, which claimed a surplus and may have decided the election, was false. A superficial debate on the budget wouldn't have revealed that. Detailed estimates debate might well have.
In any case, voters elected the Liberals to do better, not to repeat the abuses of the past.
Instead, they're ducking and dodging to avoid answering a simple question - will the legislature be allowed to review the budget.
Sure, says Gordon Campbell. But he is equivocating, pretending to promise full scrutiny but really only committing to the superficial debate on the speech. I don't know, says Hansen.
And I'm not saying, contributes House leader Graham Bruce.
Not a straight answer to be found.
It's wrong, and it's foolish. This is a budget that the Liberals should be happy to defend, just as they should be happy to champion the principle of accountability.
Instead, they are looking evasive and defensive, and abandoning an important principle.
It is a strange way to choose to head into an election campaign.
Footnote: The Liberals' success in 2001 has earned them a big advantage this time around. MLAs get paid through the campaign; new candidates have to figure out how much time they can take off work to seek votes. If the legislature does break at the beginning of March, Liberal MLAs will be paid to spend much of more than two months campaigning for the party.
They've got a budget that is going to find wide support, certainly one that most governments would be happy to take into an election campaign.
And now they're making it look like they have something to hide by indicating that they'll shut down the legislature to avoid detailed debate on their budget.
Worse, they're acting in a way that makes it evident that they know they are doing something wrong - at best evasive, at worst misleading.
The norma - the proper - process for a budget is straightforward. The budget is introduced, and there are six days of general debate on the budget speech.
Then the real work starts with the estiimates' debates. Ministers appear before the legislature to answer detailed questions about their spending plans, where the money will go and what results they'll get.
That's the part the Liberals want to avoid.
Estimates debates often do produce some difficult questions for governments. This time, it might be the details of the $400 million in economic development money that looks much like a pre-election political fund, or the lack of a plan to deliver promised long-term care beds.
Prolonging the session also gives the NDP more chances to raise damaging issues in Question Period each day.
And there's no doubt that ending the session early would be a big advantage for Liberal candidates. The legislature is scheduled to sit until April 18, when the election campaign begins. But shutting down by the end of this month would give the 72 Liberal MLAs an extra six weeks to campaign in their ridings, before the official start of the race. In most cases, their opponents will still be working at their day jobs.
But what about their obligation to us, the people who elected them?
The theory is that governments do not get to spend money without the informed approval of the legislature. MLAs have an important role in critically examining each ministry's spending plans, making sure that the interests of their communities are being served. It's a fundamental principle of our form of government.
There is ample time for the legislature to do that work before the election campaign legally starts, despite the claims of Finance Minister Colin Hansen.
Instead, the government appears to want the legislature to approve billions in spending without proper scrutiny, signing a blank cheque on your behalf.
Efforts to defend shutting down debate have so far been lame. Hansen noted - completely accurately - that Glen Clark had brought in a budget and then called the election within hours in 1996. The implication was that the Liberals aren't that bad; at least there will be a token period of general debate.
The defence is the political equivalent of 'all the other kids are doing it.' And it ignores the fact that the Clark budget, which claimed a surplus and may have decided the election, was false. A superficial debate on the budget wouldn't have revealed that. Detailed estimates debate might well have.
In any case, voters elected the Liberals to do better, not to repeat the abuses of the past.
Instead, they're ducking and dodging to avoid answering a simple question - will the legislature be allowed to review the budget.
Sure, says Gordon Campbell. But he is equivocating, pretending to promise full scrutiny but really only committing to the superficial debate on the speech. I don't know, says Hansen.
And I'm not saying, contributes House leader Graham Bruce.
Not a straight answer to be found.
It's wrong, and it's foolish. This is a budget that the Liberals should be happy to defend, just as they should be happy to champion the principle of accountability.
Instead, they are looking evasive and defensive, and abandoning an important principle.
It is a strange way to choose to head into an election campaign.
Footnote: The Liberals' success in 2001 has earned them a big advantage this time around. MLAs get paid through the campaign; new candidates have to figure out how much time they can take off work to seek votes. If the legislature does break at the beginning of March, Liberal MLAs will be paid to spend much of more than two months campaigning for the party.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Trust me, says Campbell, things will be different
VICTORIA - The budget should be a pretty good launch into the next stage of this long election campaign.
Lots more spending, money to pay down the debt, a quarter-billion-dollar fund to tap for goodies between now and the start of the official campaign - it's all the stuff that voters should like.
But there's a problem. For many voters,Gordon Campbell is going to look like one of those panicky guys in the final days of a dying relationship, swearing that he can change. Just give him another chance and this time he'll pay more attention, bring home flowers every now and then, and take care of the kids more often.
It comes down to trust, like so many things in life.
The Liberals, like all desperate suitors, are doing a lot of things right. Spending across government ministries is going up by more than seven per cent, giving lots of opportunity to win friends. There are tax cuts and reductions in MSP premiums for people with low incomes, an extension of the break for small businesses and new provisions that make it cheaper to buy one of those new non-polluting cars. Health care gets a one-time 6.6-per-cent budget increase, and economic development funding goes from a paltry $18 million to $237 million in one jump. (That’s an election slush fund, as the money disappears again next year. But it’s still a lot to toss towards communities in the next few months.)
The Liberals say look, this is what we wanted to do all along. But to get here, we had to make tough decisions. That's why we kept a tight lid on school spending, and cut funding to the ministry of children and families, made more seniors pay for their prescriptions and didn't deliver those 5,000 promised long-term care beds.
Those were all necessary, unhappy sacrifices, the Liberals say sadly, but they're paying off. Things will be different from now on.
Whether that flies will depend partly on whether people buy the argument that those sacrifices were necessary. The Liberals chopped personal and corporate taxes on their first day in office, before they had even seen the government's books. Those cuts, which knocked $2 billion off revenues, forced the deep cuts to services and prevented the government from coming up with the money needed to deliver on promises like adding 5,000 long-term care beds.
People who believe the tax cuts helped create today's improved economy will likely forgive the Liberals the hard times. Those who think more targeted cuts would have achieved the same goals without turning government upside-down won't.
The Liberals' success will also depend on their ability to convince people that they really have changed. It's easy to play the devoted suitor in a bid to get a relationship back on track, and just as easy to revert to type once the crisis is past.
The Liberals hope this budget will be the political equivalent of a truckload of roses.
But some voters are going to look hard at the details over the next three months. The decision to pay down at least $1.7 billion on the debt - the final number will be closer to $2.2 billion - will get an especially close look.
B.C. already has the second lowest debt in Canada, and there is no urgency to repayment.
And all the pre-budget consultation indicated that improved services, not debt repayment, was British Columbians’ priority. More of that money could have gone for one-time expenditures, from health care to infrastructure. (Or, boldly, to set up a major legacy fund to help communities cope with the long-term effects of the pine beetle infestation.)
Campbell is already hitting the road to woo voters, launching a tour of chambers of commerce (not really the people who need persuading).
The Liberals' fortunes in the election will depend much on his success in convincing voters that he’s a changed man.
Footnote: The spending jump slows after this year, with education, for example, forecast to rise about one per cent a year after a 2.8-per-cent jump in this budget. That number doesn't include more money for salary increases; that money is in a separate budget category until the government decides on its new wage mandate to replace the current freeze. That’s a welcome budgeting change.
Lots more spending, money to pay down the debt, a quarter-billion-dollar fund to tap for goodies between now and the start of the official campaign - it's all the stuff that voters should like.
But there's a problem. For many voters,Gordon Campbell is going to look like one of those panicky guys in the final days of a dying relationship, swearing that he can change. Just give him another chance and this time he'll pay more attention, bring home flowers every now and then, and take care of the kids more often.
It comes down to trust, like so many things in life.
The Liberals, like all desperate suitors, are doing a lot of things right. Spending across government ministries is going up by more than seven per cent, giving lots of opportunity to win friends. There are tax cuts and reductions in MSP premiums for people with low incomes, an extension of the break for small businesses and new provisions that make it cheaper to buy one of those new non-polluting cars. Health care gets a one-time 6.6-per-cent budget increase, and economic development funding goes from a paltry $18 million to $237 million in one jump. (That’s an election slush fund, as the money disappears again next year. But it’s still a lot to toss towards communities in the next few months.)
The Liberals say look, this is what we wanted to do all along. But to get here, we had to make tough decisions. That's why we kept a tight lid on school spending, and cut funding to the ministry of children and families, made more seniors pay for their prescriptions and didn't deliver those 5,000 promised long-term care beds.
Those were all necessary, unhappy sacrifices, the Liberals say sadly, but they're paying off. Things will be different from now on.
Whether that flies will depend partly on whether people buy the argument that those sacrifices were necessary. The Liberals chopped personal and corporate taxes on their first day in office, before they had even seen the government's books. Those cuts, which knocked $2 billion off revenues, forced the deep cuts to services and prevented the government from coming up with the money needed to deliver on promises like adding 5,000 long-term care beds.
People who believe the tax cuts helped create today's improved economy will likely forgive the Liberals the hard times. Those who think more targeted cuts would have achieved the same goals without turning government upside-down won't.
The Liberals' success will also depend on their ability to convince people that they really have changed. It's easy to play the devoted suitor in a bid to get a relationship back on track, and just as easy to revert to type once the crisis is past.
The Liberals hope this budget will be the political equivalent of a truckload of roses.
But some voters are going to look hard at the details over the next three months. The decision to pay down at least $1.7 billion on the debt - the final number will be closer to $2.2 billion - will get an especially close look.
B.C. already has the second lowest debt in Canada, and there is no urgency to repayment.
And all the pre-budget consultation indicated that improved services, not debt repayment, was British Columbians’ priority. More of that money could have gone for one-time expenditures, from health care to infrastructure. (Or, boldly, to set up a major legacy fund to help communities cope with the long-term effects of the pine beetle infestation.)
Campbell is already hitting the road to woo voters, launching a tour of chambers of commerce (not really the people who need persuading).
The Liberals' fortunes in the election will depend much on his success in convincing voters that he’s a changed man.
Footnote: The spending jump slows after this year, with education, for example, forecast to rise about one per cent a year after a 2.8-per-cent jump in this budget. That number doesn't include more money for salary increases; that money is in a separate budget category until the government decides on its new wage mandate to replace the current freeze. That’s a welcome budgeting change.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Long-term care broken promise hurts seniors, health system
VICTORIA - The Liberal promised a big increase in seniors' long-term care.
The reality is fewer beds in the Interior Health Region and no increase across the province.
The campaign promise was 5,000 additional beds across the province by 2006, a 20-per-cent increase.
But in the Interior, there are now actually 333 fewer beds - a loss of about seven per cent of the total the Liberals inherited.
The region started off with 4,700 beds. It closed 1,321 residential care beds, and has replaced them so far with 620 residential care beds - the highest level of care - and 368 assisted living spaces.
Overall, that leaves the region down 333 beds.
(At least that's how the health region counts them. Health Minister Shirley Bond comes up with a higher number of beds by including the extension of high-level services to 53 people who aren't living in care homes. The region is also renting beds in private facilities to help deal with the shortage.)
The quibbles over numbers don't really matter. The Liberal promise was a 20-per-cent increase in care beds across the province by 2006. They said the beds were urgently needed, and claimed there was a 4,200-bed shortfall at the time of the election.
Now they have abandoned the campaign promise. Bond says the beds will be ready by 2008.
And in a period when the number of people in the province over 75 has increased by 13 per cent, the government has added - by the most favorable count - fewer than one per cent more beds. Across B.C., the government claims to have added 171 beds; the health authorities count shows a 274-bed decline from the time of the election.
The numbers are tiny in all regions. The North has at best maintained the number of beds it had four years ago; the Fraser Health Region is down a few dozen beds; on Vancouver Island, the government has added two beds. In the populous and growing Vancouver Coastal region, it has added 33 beds. So much for the 5,000-bed commitment.
There's lots of enthusiasm in the health authorities for the changes in seiors' care currrently under way. Older, outmoded facilities are being closed. New centres offer a range of options, from residential care with full medical support to assisted living homes that provide more independence. An emphasis on supporting people in their homes, or in other non-medical residential settings, is keeping people out of care homes. All these are positive changes that should eventually make life better for seniors.
But in the meantime no one is saying that the current bed supply is adequate for the needs of seniors and their families.
Remember, the Liberals identified this problem in the election campaign, pointing to a major shortage of beds. They promised a plan to address the shortage. And they haven't delivered.
The result is problems through the heath care system. If seniors can't get needed residential care, they end up in acute care hospital beds. That means those beds aren't available for people who need surgery, or who should be admitted through emergency. In the Interior region about 100 of the 1,200 hospital acute care beds are occupied by people who should be in long-term care.
Pemier Gordon Campbell blams the broken promise on the NDP. The long-term care centres were in worse shape than expected, and more beds had to be closed.
But the government completed a review of all the centres almost three years ago. The supposed plan for 5,000 additional beds was approved at a televised cabinet meeting in April 2002. And until now the government has insisted the plan was on track and the deadline would be met.
That raises two concerns. Either government managemen was so poor that no one knew the plan was off the rails, or the government knew and kept silent.
Either way, seniors, their families and anyone who needed the health care system have been hurt by this broken promise.
Footnote: The Liberals are skittish about this issue, which has been a major sore point with smaller communities. The health ministry refuses to release its count of bed closures and openings by region. Bond won't say how many beds the province needs today, based on the ministry's best estimates.
The reality is fewer beds in the Interior Health Region and no increase across the province.
The campaign promise was 5,000 additional beds across the province by 2006, a 20-per-cent increase.
But in the Interior, there are now actually 333 fewer beds - a loss of about seven per cent of the total the Liberals inherited.
The region started off with 4,700 beds. It closed 1,321 residential care beds, and has replaced them so far with 620 residential care beds - the highest level of care - and 368 assisted living spaces.
Overall, that leaves the region down 333 beds.
(At least that's how the health region counts them. Health Minister Shirley Bond comes up with a higher number of beds by including the extension of high-level services to 53 people who aren't living in care homes. The region is also renting beds in private facilities to help deal with the shortage.)
The quibbles over numbers don't really matter. The Liberal promise was a 20-per-cent increase in care beds across the province by 2006. They said the beds were urgently needed, and claimed there was a 4,200-bed shortfall at the time of the election.
Now they have abandoned the campaign promise. Bond says the beds will be ready by 2008.
And in a period when the number of people in the province over 75 has increased by 13 per cent, the government has added - by the most favorable count - fewer than one per cent more beds. Across B.C., the government claims to have added 171 beds; the health authorities count shows a 274-bed decline from the time of the election.
The numbers are tiny in all regions. The North has at best maintained the number of beds it had four years ago; the Fraser Health Region is down a few dozen beds; on Vancouver Island, the government has added two beds. In the populous and growing Vancouver Coastal region, it has added 33 beds. So much for the 5,000-bed commitment.
There's lots of enthusiasm in the health authorities for the changes in seiors' care currrently under way. Older, outmoded facilities are being closed. New centres offer a range of options, from residential care with full medical support to assisted living homes that provide more independence. An emphasis on supporting people in their homes, or in other non-medical residential settings, is keeping people out of care homes. All these are positive changes that should eventually make life better for seniors.
But in the meantime no one is saying that the current bed supply is adequate for the needs of seniors and their families.
Remember, the Liberals identified this problem in the election campaign, pointing to a major shortage of beds. They promised a plan to address the shortage. And they haven't delivered.
The result is problems through the heath care system. If seniors can't get needed residential care, they end up in acute care hospital beds. That means those beds aren't available for people who need surgery, or who should be admitted through emergency. In the Interior region about 100 of the 1,200 hospital acute care beds are occupied by people who should be in long-term care.
Pemier Gordon Campbell blams the broken promise on the NDP. The long-term care centres were in worse shape than expected, and more beds had to be closed.
But the government completed a review of all the centres almost three years ago. The supposed plan for 5,000 additional beds was approved at a televised cabinet meeting in April 2002. And until now the government has insisted the plan was on track and the deadline would be met.
That raises two concerns. Either government managemen was so poor that no one knew the plan was off the rails, or the government knew and kept silent.
Either way, seniors, their families and anyone who needed the health care system have been hurt by this broken promise.
Footnote: The Liberals are skittish about this issue, which has been a major sore point with smaller communities. The health ministry refuses to release its count of bed closures and openings by region. Bond won't say how many beds the province needs today, based on the ministry's best estimates.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Time to hit back at U.S., despite risks
VICTORIA - It's time to go to war with the U.S., even if we're going to take some heavy economic casualities at home.
Federal Trade Minister Jim Peterson has just taken the first steps towards retaliating in the softwood dispute, preparing to throw up barriers to U.S. products. Ottawa wants to slap duties on U.S. imports into Canada equivalent to the U.S. softwood duties; the theory is that American producers will be hurt, and pressure their government to settle the softwood dispute.
It's time, says Forest Minister Mike de Jong. But he's warning that Canadian consumers are going to get caught in the crossfire.
Trade wars are inherently destructive, and in this case Canada has the most to lose from an escalating battle. But given the U.S. refusal to settle the dispute, or to agree to refund more than $4 billion in duties if Canada wins the legal battle, there appear to be few alternatives.
Peterson plans to ask the World Trade Organization for permission to impose duties that would push up the costs of targeted goods from the U.S. by some $4 billion. De Jong said likely targets would include food and alcohol products from the U.S.
About time, people in forest communities might say.
But the duties don't just make life tougher for California wineries and Washington apple growers. The $5 billion in duties may hit sectors of the U.S. economy, but it comes out of your pocket too.
Slap a 50-per-cent duty on Gala apples from Yakima, and the producers will absorb some of the extra costs and then raise prices enough to pass the rest on to Canadian consumers. Canadian growers, with less competition, will take advantage of the chance to raise their prices. Those apples you put in the kids' lunches - which they probably throw away - will cost more.
That makes it critical for the federal government to come up with a strategic approach. The aim is to inflict the maximum pain on the most politically influential producers in the U.S., without hurting Canadians too badly.
It's a high-risk move. Canadian consumers - and businesses that face higher costs on U.S. products they need because of duties - are going to becoming unhappy quickly.
And a trade war, like any other war, can escalate rapidly and destructively. The U.S. government has so far sided with its lumber industry every step of the way. One response to Canadian duties might be more duties on our exports, or border barriers that slow the movement of goods from Canada.
Canada needs access to the U.S. market much more than the Americans needs us. Canada exports about $300 billion worth of goods to the U.S., against $200 million worth of products that flow northward. Given the scale of the two economies, it's easy to see who is going to take the bad beating in any full-on trade battle.
But it's hard to see any other option at this point. Canada has prevailed in most of the WTO and NAFTA decision in this dispute, without winning any softening of the American position.
Now, U.S. politicians are talking publicly about hanging on to the $4 billion duties collected so far even if they are found to be illegal.
Canada's not rushing to do battle. Winning TO approval for the retaliatory duties will take at least six months. Ottawa will then consult with Canadian industry on a proposed list of target products, to give companies a chance to argue against levies on American products they need.
The delay is useful. Canada can begin urging American companies who may be hurt by new duties to lobby their government to resolve the dispute.
A trade ware should be a last resort, after negotiations and legal efforts to find a solution have been exhausted.
But given American intransigence, and increasing signs that the U.S. government is unwilling to accept legal decisions, it's time to take the risk.
Footnote: The B.C. forest industry, which has paid about half the duties so far, naturally welcomed the tougher stance. De Jong and Premier Gordon Campbell are heading to Ottawa this week to meet with Prime Minister Paul Martin, hoping to convince him to meet with George Bush on the issue.
Federal Trade Minister Jim Peterson has just taken the first steps towards retaliating in the softwood dispute, preparing to throw up barriers to U.S. products. Ottawa wants to slap duties on U.S. imports into Canada equivalent to the U.S. softwood duties; the theory is that American producers will be hurt, and pressure their government to settle the softwood dispute.
It's time, says Forest Minister Mike de Jong. But he's warning that Canadian consumers are going to get caught in the crossfire.
Trade wars are inherently destructive, and in this case Canada has the most to lose from an escalating battle. But given the U.S. refusal to settle the dispute, or to agree to refund more than $4 billion in duties if Canada wins the legal battle, there appear to be few alternatives.
Peterson plans to ask the World Trade Organization for permission to impose duties that would push up the costs of targeted goods from the U.S. by some $4 billion. De Jong said likely targets would include food and alcohol products from the U.S.
About time, people in forest communities might say.
But the duties don't just make life tougher for California wineries and Washington apple growers. The $5 billion in duties may hit sectors of the U.S. economy, but it comes out of your pocket too.
Slap a 50-per-cent duty on Gala apples from Yakima, and the producers will absorb some of the extra costs and then raise prices enough to pass the rest on to Canadian consumers. Canadian growers, with less competition, will take advantage of the chance to raise their prices. Those apples you put in the kids' lunches - which they probably throw away - will cost more.
That makes it critical for the federal government to come up with a strategic approach. The aim is to inflict the maximum pain on the most politically influential producers in the U.S., without hurting Canadians too badly.
It's a high-risk move. Canadian consumers - and businesses that face higher costs on U.S. products they need because of duties - are going to becoming unhappy quickly.
And a trade war, like any other war, can escalate rapidly and destructively. The U.S. government has so far sided with its lumber industry every step of the way. One response to Canadian duties might be more duties on our exports, or border barriers that slow the movement of goods from Canada.
Canada needs access to the U.S. market much more than the Americans needs us. Canada exports about $300 billion worth of goods to the U.S., against $200 million worth of products that flow northward. Given the scale of the two economies, it's easy to see who is going to take the bad beating in any full-on trade battle.
But it's hard to see any other option at this point. Canada has prevailed in most of the WTO and NAFTA decision in this dispute, without winning any softening of the American position.
Now, U.S. politicians are talking publicly about hanging on to the $4 billion duties collected so far even if they are found to be illegal.
Canada's not rushing to do battle. Winning TO approval for the retaliatory duties will take at least six months. Ottawa will then consult with Canadian industry on a proposed list of target products, to give companies a chance to argue against levies on American products they need.
The delay is useful. Canada can begin urging American companies who may be hurt by new duties to lobby their government to resolve the dispute.
A trade ware should be a last resort, after negotiations and legal efforts to find a solution have been exhausted.
But given American intransigence, and increasing signs that the U.S. government is unwilling to accept legal decisions, it's time to take the risk.
Footnote: The B.C. forest industry, which has paid about half the duties so far, naturally welcomed the tougher stance. De Jong and Premier Gordon Campbell are heading to Ottawa this week to meet with Prime Minister Paul Martin, hoping to convince him to meet with George Bush on the issue.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Liberals go green, centrist with Throne Speech
VICTORIA - There are going to be an awful lot of meetings if Gordon Campbell wins a second term.
The Throne Speech this week set out the Liberals' plans, mostly bathed in golden light and slightly out of focus like a TV commercial filmed on a California beach. That is the nature of Throne Speeches.
It's also appropriate, if Campbell is to be believed. For we are heading into a 'Golden decade,' the speech promised. (Fool's gold, said NDP leader Carole James, but then that is her job.)
All in all the speech like a big Liberal hop towards the middle, a greener, more caring party than we have seen since 2001.
The government that removed all controls on university and college tuition fees - which resulted in annual increases of up to 30 per cent for B.C. students - has changed course. From now on, tuition increases will be limited to the inflation rate, about two per cent these days.
The speech promised the insitutions would get about three per cent a year more from the province as well; the unanswered question is whether the allowable tuition increases, and provincial funding, will be enough to pay for the promised 25,000 new post-secondary spaces.
But an effective tuition freeze - already proposed by NDP leader Carole James - is a good vote-getter.
So are commissions and councils and task forces, the Liberals hope. The Throne Speech announced at least five major new ones.
A BC Competition Council will bring together organized labour, employers, academics and regional representatives to address productivity and international competitiveness issues. (That does seem lifted from James' playbook; the Liberals have not been keen to involve unions.) An Asia-Pacific Trade Council will oversee new BC Trade and Cultural Centres overseas.
An Alternative Energy and Power Task Force will help harness the winds and tides, and a Pacific Salmon Forum will worry about the fish. (Take that, Green Party.) A Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors' Issues will look at getting rid of mandatory retirement, among other issues. And a Provincial Congress on Public Safety will tackle crime.
They're all good ideas. But they all would have been good ideas much earlier than barely three months before the election, and some - like the seniors council - replace similar bodies killed by the Liberals.
The Liberals also made a big attempt to paint themselves Green in this Throne Speech, a prudent move when close races may be decided by where Green voters settle. There's the alternative energy task force, a BC Conservation Corps program which will hire young people to work in parks, the salmon forum and talk about protecting rivers.
But there were still gaps in the speech.
Health care was the most glaring. The speech promised a welcome focus on improving our diets and exercise practices, an important way to create a healthier population and cut medical costs.
But that's long-term, and the speech offered little to address the immediate concerns of many British Columbians about waits for treatment and the expansion of two-tier health care. (The speech did, sort of, acknowledge that the Liberals have abandoned the campaign promise of 5,000 new long-term care beds for ailing seniors by 2006. Only 100 beds have been added, according to Health MInister Shirley Bond, and Campbell confirmed the promise won't be kept.)
There was also little mention of B.C.'s regions. Two years ago, the Throne Speech focused on about the Heartlands. This time, the word wasn't used. Campbell says that's because big actions have already been taken to help the regions; voters will decide if they've worked.
And the government offered no vision for the troubled and under-funded ministry of children and families.
The speech did promise valuable attention to the economy, promising a review of every sector to see how B.C. would be affected by tougher global competition - a necessary exercise.
The Liberals appeared to be trying to persuade voters they have moved closer to the centre. Carole James is making the same pitch for her party.
The test will be who can win swing voters decide they can believe.
Footnote: There were at least three specific promises aimed at regional voters. The Liberals said they would work with communities to find a way to re-open closed schools as drop-in centres or clinics, said a regional tourism initiative would come this month and promised action to help communities and families deal with the coming shortage of timber once the pine beetle infestation wipes out existing stands.
The Throne Speech this week set out the Liberals' plans, mostly bathed in golden light and slightly out of focus like a TV commercial filmed on a California beach. That is the nature of Throne Speeches.
It's also appropriate, if Campbell is to be believed. For we are heading into a 'Golden decade,' the speech promised. (Fool's gold, said NDP leader Carole James, but then that is her job.)
All in all the speech like a big Liberal hop towards the middle, a greener, more caring party than we have seen since 2001.
The government that removed all controls on university and college tuition fees - which resulted in annual increases of up to 30 per cent for B.C. students - has changed course. From now on, tuition increases will be limited to the inflation rate, about two per cent these days.
The speech promised the insitutions would get about three per cent a year more from the province as well; the unanswered question is whether the allowable tuition increases, and provincial funding, will be enough to pay for the promised 25,000 new post-secondary spaces.
But an effective tuition freeze - already proposed by NDP leader Carole James - is a good vote-getter.
So are commissions and councils and task forces, the Liberals hope. The Throne Speech announced at least five major new ones.
A BC Competition Council will bring together organized labour, employers, academics and regional representatives to address productivity and international competitiveness issues. (That does seem lifted from James' playbook; the Liberals have not been keen to involve unions.) An Asia-Pacific Trade Council will oversee new BC Trade and Cultural Centres overseas.
An Alternative Energy and Power Task Force will help harness the winds and tides, and a Pacific Salmon Forum will worry about the fish. (Take that, Green Party.) A Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors' Issues will look at getting rid of mandatory retirement, among other issues. And a Provincial Congress on Public Safety will tackle crime.
They're all good ideas. But they all would have been good ideas much earlier than barely three months before the election, and some - like the seniors council - replace similar bodies killed by the Liberals.
The Liberals also made a big attempt to paint themselves Green in this Throne Speech, a prudent move when close races may be decided by where Green voters settle. There's the alternative energy task force, a BC Conservation Corps program which will hire young people to work in parks, the salmon forum and talk about protecting rivers.
But there were still gaps in the speech.
Health care was the most glaring. The speech promised a welcome focus on improving our diets and exercise practices, an important way to create a healthier population and cut medical costs.
But that's long-term, and the speech offered little to address the immediate concerns of many British Columbians about waits for treatment and the expansion of two-tier health care. (The speech did, sort of, acknowledge that the Liberals have abandoned the campaign promise of 5,000 new long-term care beds for ailing seniors by 2006. Only 100 beds have been added, according to Health MInister Shirley Bond, and Campbell confirmed the promise won't be kept.)
There was also little mention of B.C.'s regions. Two years ago, the Throne Speech focused on about the Heartlands. This time, the word wasn't used. Campbell says that's because big actions have already been taken to help the regions; voters will decide if they've worked.
And the government offered no vision for the troubled and under-funded ministry of children and families.
The speech did promise valuable attention to the economy, promising a review of every sector to see how B.C. would be affected by tougher global competition - a necessary exercise.
The Liberals appeared to be trying to persuade voters they have moved closer to the centre. Carole James is making the same pitch for her party.
The test will be who can win swing voters decide they can believe.
Footnote: There were at least three specific promises aimed at regional voters. The Liberals said they would work with communities to find a way to re-open closed schools as drop-in centres or clinics, said a regional tourism initiative would come this month and promised action to help communities and families deal with the coming shortage of timber once the pine beetle infestation wipes out existing stands.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Corky's back, a parachute problem and Liberal headaches
VICTORIA - Notes from the front: the return of Corky Evans, hard feelings over Liberal parachute candidate Mary Polak, and some political headaches for the Liberals as the legislative session begins.
NDP leader Carole James should be pleased at the return of Corky Evans, who has just won the party's nomination in Nelson-Creston, which he represented in the previous government.
Mostly the return of the gang of 1996 is bad news for James. Voters rose up in anger to boot them out of office; their reappearance will remind voters how dismal the NDP record was.
But Evans is an exception. Partisan, sure, and a member of cabinet, but he managed to remain apart from the scandals and mismanagement that plagued the Clark government. He took on the role of the populist politician willing to speak up for people outside the Lower Mainland.
It's a pitch that plays well, and will be useful in the election campaign.
Evans should have some time to venture outside his riding to support other candidates. His opponent, Blair Suffredine, only managed to capture 39 per cent of the popular vote in 2001, fourth lowest of all the Liberal candidates. Green party deputy leader Colleen McRory was a big factor, with 22 per cent of the votes. Evans looks a good bet to take the riding, and have some time to lend support in close races. (The news was less good for James in nearby Kootenay East, where former MLA and Clark loyalist Erda Walsh took the nomination. Liberal Bill Bennett should be able to hold on to the seat.)
Meanwhile, the Liberals' bid to parachute controversial candidate Mary Polak into the Langley riding is causing problems. Polak is best known for being on the Surrey school board when trustees spent $1 million trying to keep three books out of schools because they depicted same sex parents.
Polak was recruited to run, and then crushed, in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection. Despite brave talk of running again there on the night of the defeat, she started looking for a safer seat and began eying Langley, where Liberal Lynn Stephens isn't running again.
Parachute candidates are always controversial, Polak especially so. Stephens criticized Polak for not knowing about the riding issues and being too far right.
But what's really angered some Liberals is a perception that the provincial executive wants to make sure Polak wins. The local riding executive wanted a nomination meeting in the fall, but the party brass said no. They asked for a date in January, and February, to no avail. Now the party has set March 9, meaning the cut-off date for new members was last week. The perception is that the delay was engineered to give Polak more time to sell the memberships she needed to win. The Liberals will hold the riding no matter who wins the nomination, but the illwill will be there.
Finally, big headaches around the spring session for the Liberals as a result of the fixed election date.
The budget comes next week, and the legislature is scheduled to sit until April 19, when the official election campaign starts.
But that's a lot of time to answer questions from the three New Democrats on the budget and other issues, and a lot of time for Liberal MLAs to be in Victoria when they could be home campaigning.
The Liberals have the ability to cut things short. But unless they allow a full budget debate, including questions on each ministries' plans, then they would have to pass a special law to let the government spend billions without the required legislative approval. That approval would wait until June, when the legislature returns after the election.
If they do go that route, the Liberals face big criticism. Governments aren't supposed to spend money without legislative approval, especially if the reason is because the party in power wants to avoid tough questions.
Footnote: Headline writers are eagerly waiting to see if the Liberals succeed in recruiting Olympic gold medal wrestler Daniel Igali to run in Surrey-Newton, the seat now held by Tony Bhullar, giving them a chance to use a whole new wave of sports cliches. (Bhullar plans to move to Surrey-Panorama Ridge.) Igali's decision is expected within days.
NDP leader Carole James should be pleased at the return of Corky Evans, who has just won the party's nomination in Nelson-Creston, which he represented in the previous government.
Mostly the return of the gang of 1996 is bad news for James. Voters rose up in anger to boot them out of office; their reappearance will remind voters how dismal the NDP record was.
But Evans is an exception. Partisan, sure, and a member of cabinet, but he managed to remain apart from the scandals and mismanagement that plagued the Clark government. He took on the role of the populist politician willing to speak up for people outside the Lower Mainland.
It's a pitch that plays well, and will be useful in the election campaign.
Evans should have some time to venture outside his riding to support other candidates. His opponent, Blair Suffredine, only managed to capture 39 per cent of the popular vote in 2001, fourth lowest of all the Liberal candidates. Green party deputy leader Colleen McRory was a big factor, with 22 per cent of the votes. Evans looks a good bet to take the riding, and have some time to lend support in close races. (The news was less good for James in nearby Kootenay East, where former MLA and Clark loyalist Erda Walsh took the nomination. Liberal Bill Bennett should be able to hold on to the seat.)
Meanwhile, the Liberals' bid to parachute controversial candidate Mary Polak into the Langley riding is causing problems. Polak is best known for being on the Surrey school board when trustees spent $1 million trying to keep three books out of schools because they depicted same sex parents.
Polak was recruited to run, and then crushed, in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection. Despite brave talk of running again there on the night of the defeat, she started looking for a safer seat and began eying Langley, where Liberal Lynn Stephens isn't running again.
Parachute candidates are always controversial, Polak especially so. Stephens criticized Polak for not knowing about the riding issues and being too far right.
But what's really angered some Liberals is a perception that the provincial executive wants to make sure Polak wins. The local riding executive wanted a nomination meeting in the fall, but the party brass said no. They asked for a date in January, and February, to no avail. Now the party has set March 9, meaning the cut-off date for new members was last week. The perception is that the delay was engineered to give Polak more time to sell the memberships she needed to win. The Liberals will hold the riding no matter who wins the nomination, but the illwill will be there.
Finally, big headaches around the spring session for the Liberals as a result of the fixed election date.
The budget comes next week, and the legislature is scheduled to sit until April 19, when the official election campaign starts.
But that's a lot of time to answer questions from the three New Democrats on the budget and other issues, and a lot of time for Liberal MLAs to be in Victoria when they could be home campaigning.
The Liberals have the ability to cut things short. But unless they allow a full budget debate, including questions on each ministries' plans, then they would have to pass a special law to let the government spend billions without the required legislative approval. That approval would wait until June, when the legislature returns after the election.
If they do go that route, the Liberals face big criticism. Governments aren't supposed to spend money without legislative approval, especially if the reason is because the party in power wants to avoid tough questions.
Footnote: Headline writers are eagerly waiting to see if the Liberals succeed in recruiting Olympic gold medal wrestler Daniel Igali to run in Surrey-Newton, the seat now held by Tony Bhullar, giving them a chance to use a whole new wave of sports cliches. (Bhullar plans to move to Surrey-Panorama Ridge.) Igali's decision is expected within days.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Tax breaks for kids’ sports, arts fees needs a hard look
VICTORIA - I feel like a bit of a grinch, raising doubts about Christy Clark's pitch for tax subsidies for parents who sign their kids up for hockey or art classes.
It's obviously appealing, and the goals make sense. Clark lined up an impressive group of backers to launch her effort, some two dozen reps from sports associations, arts groups and health organizations.
Parents are out there spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on programs that keep their children active and creative, she says. A tax credit would give them some of that money back, courtesy of other taxpayers, and may allow more families to get their children involved.
But there are a couple of issues, both flowing from the basic question of whether this is the best way of achieving the admirable goal of helping kids grow up happier and healthier.
The most obvious one is how you make sure that this isn't just a tax break for people who are already able to put their children into these kinds of programs. There's not much need to give a family with a household income of $250,000 a $100 tax break because they've enrolled their children in soccer and ballet.
If the policy goal is to ensure that more children participate, then any tax credit should only go to those parents who can't afford to provide the opportunities for their children now. (Or making huge sacrifices, anyway.) Fewer recepients would allow a larger tax break for the families who really needed it, and mean more children were active.
My sense was that the people supporting the idea wren't really thinking about a program only for people with incomes under $40,000, for example.
The other question, the one Finance Minister Colin Hansen is interested in, is whether this is really the best, most cost-effective way to work toward the goal.
Clark says she's leaving the details up to the finance ministry and the health ministry to sort out - her aim is to get the issue on the agenda, and push the Liberals to include some similar tax credit program in their platform for the May election.
The cost could be vary wildly, depending on how extensive and generous the program is, she says, and the important thing is to take a first step.
But say the credit is designed to cover 25 per cent of the registration costs for these progams. My best guess - wildly rough - puts the cost of providing that aid to hockey parents across the province at $4 million. (Based on 40,000 players, at registration costs of $400.) So say $50 million, when you include registration fees for dance and piano and tennis and all the rest.
The question then becomes what else could you do with that money.
It would be enough to give school districts across B.C. an extra $2,500 per class for arts and recreation programs, or launch a masive after-school program aimed at every child under the age of 12, or an even larger program focused on kids most at-risk of inactivity.
Full marks to Clark for rasiing the issue, which should lead to some sort of government response.
Children aren’t active enough, to the point that this generation will actually live shorter lives than their parents, according to Bobbe Wood of the BC Heart and Stroke Foundation. Preventable diseases - diabetes, heart and lung problems - are ging to take more lives, and add huge health care costs, unless we take action now.
Clark also deserves credit for demonstrating how a backbencher, admittedly a highly experienced one, can advance an issue publicly.
It’s an opportunity they make use of much too rarely - only this effort, Lorne Mayencourt’s safe streets bill and Steve Orcherton’s push for alternative medical treatments come to mind.
People elect MLAs to speak out publicly on the issues that matter, not just behind closed doors in caucus commmittees.
Clark showed how effective that can be.
Footnote: Clark plans a private member’s motion urging support for her plan. She said a “bizarre” rule in the B.C. legislature bars MLAs from introducing any actual bills that deal with the collecting or spending of money.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
It's obviously appealing, and the goals make sense. Clark lined up an impressive group of backers to launch her effort, some two dozen reps from sports associations, arts groups and health organizations.
Parents are out there spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on programs that keep their children active and creative, she says. A tax credit would give them some of that money back, courtesy of other taxpayers, and may allow more families to get their children involved.
But there are a couple of issues, both flowing from the basic question of whether this is the best way of achieving the admirable goal of helping kids grow up happier and healthier.
The most obvious one is how you make sure that this isn't just a tax break for people who are already able to put their children into these kinds of programs. There's not much need to give a family with a household income of $250,000 a $100 tax break because they've enrolled their children in soccer and ballet.
If the policy goal is to ensure that more children participate, then any tax credit should only go to those parents who can't afford to provide the opportunities for their children now. (Or making huge sacrifices, anyway.) Fewer recepients would allow a larger tax break for the families who really needed it, and mean more children were active.
My sense was that the people supporting the idea wren't really thinking about a program only for people with incomes under $40,000, for example.
The other question, the one Finance Minister Colin Hansen is interested in, is whether this is really the best, most cost-effective way to work toward the goal.
Clark says she's leaving the details up to the finance ministry and the health ministry to sort out - her aim is to get the issue on the agenda, and push the Liberals to include some similar tax credit program in their platform for the May election.
The cost could be vary wildly, depending on how extensive and generous the program is, she says, and the important thing is to take a first step.
But say the credit is designed to cover 25 per cent of the registration costs for these progams. My best guess - wildly rough - puts the cost of providing that aid to hockey parents across the province at $4 million. (Based on 40,000 players, at registration costs of $400.) So say $50 million, when you include registration fees for dance and piano and tennis and all the rest.
The question then becomes what else could you do with that money.
It would be enough to give school districts across B.C. an extra $2,500 per class for arts and recreation programs, or launch a masive after-school program aimed at every child under the age of 12, or an even larger program focused on kids most at-risk of inactivity.
Full marks to Clark for rasiing the issue, which should lead to some sort of government response.
Children aren’t active enough, to the point that this generation will actually live shorter lives than their parents, according to Bobbe Wood of the BC Heart and Stroke Foundation. Preventable diseases - diabetes, heart and lung problems - are ging to take more lives, and add huge health care costs, unless we take action now.
Clark also deserves credit for demonstrating how a backbencher, admittedly a highly experienced one, can advance an issue publicly.
It’s an opportunity they make use of much too rarely - only this effort, Lorne Mayencourt’s safe streets bill and Steve Orcherton’s push for alternative medical treatments come to mind.
People elect MLAs to speak out publicly on the issues that matter, not just behind closed doors in caucus commmittees.
Clark showed how effective that can be.
Footnote: Clark plans a private member’s motion urging support for her plan. She said a “bizarre” rule in the B.C. legislature bars MLAs from introducing any actual bills that deal with the collecting or spending of money.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Time to ban corporate, union political donations
VICTORIA - It's time to clean up political fundraising in B.C.
That's not an attack on business, or unions, or any political party. It's simply stating the obvious. No matter what the politicians think, most voters believe that the people who write big cheques to political parties get special access and privileges in return.
Elections BC has just released its latest report on political donations, covering the first 10 months of last year.
The Liberals did well, pulling in more than $5 million, twice as much as the NDP. About 70 per cent of the Liberals' donations came from corporate and business donors.
Individuals came up with about $1.5 million, but when it came to grassroots support - people who donated less than $250 - the Liberals got only $350,000 from 8,600 people.
The NDP, despite the Liberals' frequent attempts to paint the party as under the thumb of big labour, got 80 per cent of its money from individuals. Only $360,000 came from unions. And more than half the NDP's money came from 29,000 individuals who donated less than $250. (The Greens raised $63,000.)
The Liberals' position, like the New Democrats when they were in government, is that the current system is fine. All donations must be disclosed, so the public can see if big donors get special favours.
There is an argument that corporations and unions - acting on behalf of shareholders and members - have a right to try and put up cash to help the party that they think will best serve their interests.
But the arguments against corporate and union donations have become overwhelming.
Last year's fund-raising reports show the BC Automobile Dealers' Association donated almost $60,000 to the Liberals. EnCana gave $42,000, Weyerhaeuser $27,340 and TimberWest $23,000.
Jimmy Pattison, through his various companies, donated $55,000, and Gary Collins' new employer David Ho came up with $80,000.
On the left side of the ledger, the BC Federation of Labour gave $133,000, the BCGEU $85,000 and Hospital Employees' Union about $59,000.
Those are all big cheques. And most peoples' life experience has convinced them that people who write big cheques get special attention. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
Both the Liberals and NDP think so too. Liberals say the NDP is in the pocket of its big union donors; the New Democrats say big corporate donors have huge influence over the Campbell party.
They agree that big donations bring special influence.
So does the public, and that breeds cynicism and distance from the political process.
There are alternatives. Manitoba has already banned corporate and union donations, and limited individual donations to $3,000. Quebec has taken similar steps.
Federally, the Chretien government banned union and corporate donations and limited individual contributions to $5,000. Instead, each year parties get $1.75 per vote they received in the last election - about $9 million a year for the LIberals, down to $1 million for the Greens.
The federal system is flawed, mainly because the funding levels are far too generous. Part of the goal of any reform should be to halt the trend that has seen politics turn into a big money business, and try to return to the time when it was built on community support and a clash of ideas. Paul Martin raised $12 million for his bid for the Liberal leadership, an indicator that only people with strong big business connections should hope to be head the party.
Gordon Campbell is opposed to change in the current funding system. Carole James says the NDP would ban both corporate and union donations.
The public should push to make this an election issue, and demand that the Liberals commit to change, or at least to refer the question to another citizens' assembly.
The public believes big money has corrupted our politics. That demands action.
Footnote: Money isn't everything. The Liberals spent $150,000 - almost twice as much as the NDP - in losing the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection. Liberal Mary Polak's team spent $36 per vote; New Democrat Jagrup Brar $12 per vote. Both parties were helped by outside spending, a topic for another column.
That's not an attack on business, or unions, or any political party. It's simply stating the obvious. No matter what the politicians think, most voters believe that the people who write big cheques to political parties get special access and privileges in return.
Elections BC has just released its latest report on political donations, covering the first 10 months of last year.
The Liberals did well, pulling in more than $5 million, twice as much as the NDP. About 70 per cent of the Liberals' donations came from corporate and business donors.
Individuals came up with about $1.5 million, but when it came to grassroots support - people who donated less than $250 - the Liberals got only $350,000 from 8,600 people.
The NDP, despite the Liberals' frequent attempts to paint the party as under the thumb of big labour, got 80 per cent of its money from individuals. Only $360,000 came from unions. And more than half the NDP's money came from 29,000 individuals who donated less than $250. (The Greens raised $63,000.)
The Liberals' position, like the New Democrats when they were in government, is that the current system is fine. All donations must be disclosed, so the public can see if big donors get special favours.
There is an argument that corporations and unions - acting on behalf of shareholders and members - have a right to try and put up cash to help the party that they think will best serve their interests.
But the arguments against corporate and union donations have become overwhelming.
Last year's fund-raising reports show the BC Automobile Dealers' Association donated almost $60,000 to the Liberals. EnCana gave $42,000, Weyerhaeuser $27,340 and TimberWest $23,000.
Jimmy Pattison, through his various companies, donated $55,000, and Gary Collins' new employer David Ho came up with $80,000.
On the left side of the ledger, the BC Federation of Labour gave $133,000, the BCGEU $85,000 and Hospital Employees' Union about $59,000.
Those are all big cheques. And most peoples' life experience has convinced them that people who write big cheques get special attention. A study done in 2000 found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believed "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
Both the Liberals and NDP think so too. Liberals say the NDP is in the pocket of its big union donors; the New Democrats say big corporate donors have huge influence over the Campbell party.
They agree that big donations bring special influence.
So does the public, and that breeds cynicism and distance from the political process.
There are alternatives. Manitoba has already banned corporate and union donations, and limited individual donations to $3,000. Quebec has taken similar steps.
Federally, the Chretien government banned union and corporate donations and limited individual contributions to $5,000. Instead, each year parties get $1.75 per vote they received in the last election - about $9 million a year for the LIberals, down to $1 million for the Greens.
The federal system is flawed, mainly because the funding levels are far too generous. Part of the goal of any reform should be to halt the trend that has seen politics turn into a big money business, and try to return to the time when it was built on community support and a clash of ideas. Paul Martin raised $12 million for his bid for the Liberal leadership, an indicator that only people with strong big business connections should hope to be head the party.
Gordon Campbell is opposed to change in the current funding system. Carole James says the NDP would ban both corporate and union donations.
The public should push to make this an election issue, and demand that the Liberals commit to change, or at least to refer the question to another citizens' assembly.
The public believes big money has corrupted our politics. That demands action.
Footnote: Money isn't everything. The Liberals spent $150,000 - almost twice as much as the NDP - in losing the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection. Liberal Mary Polak's team spent $36 per vote; New Democrat Jagrup Brar $12 per vote. Both parties were helped by outside spending, a topic for another column.
Leave it to the market, I tell the Senate media committee
(NOTE: I was invited to appear before the Senate committee on media during its two days of hearings in Vancouver. For those interested, here's a pretty good approximation of my comments, which suggest the market will sort out most problems.
And for an alternate view, check out the presentation by David Beers and Charles Campbell - Creating Counterweights to Big Media - at www.thetyee.ca.)
Thanks for the invitation.
I'm a freelance journalist now, writing mostly about B.C. politics and providing content to daily newspapers, including The Sun, community papers, radio and occasionally television.
Although I started as a journalist, I also had a career in newspaper management.
I was a publisher of what was then Canada's only foreign-owned newspaper,
publisher and president of two newspapers for the Irvings in Saint John, New Brunswick, and a publisher and group manager for The Thomson Corporation through an interesting time. I've been on the board of the Newspaper Marketing Bureau and was vice-chair of The Canadian Press.
The point being, that I come at this from a variety of different perspectives.
I'll try and address some of the key questions I know you want to look at.
Mostly, I'll suggest that government stay out of this. That's based not on any view that the mass media are in great shape, but on my belief in where solutions lie.
But first a few general observations.
I was publisher of The Red Deer Advocate, then British-owned, when I was recruited to be CEO of New Brunswick Publishing Co. and run two daily newspapers for the Irvings.
I turned to the Kent Commission report on the media before I took the job, and it painted a bleak picture of the newspapers and the Irvings' control.
I flew off for interviews, and Arthur Irving raised the issue of interference in the newspapers' content. They would never say a word about what was in the newspapers, he said, and anyone who claimed they did would be a damn liar.
I took the job.
I have always taken my obligation to readers seriously. I think they offer up some trust in agreeing to read the newspaper. In return, I think we have a commitment to tell them everything that they would find important or interesting as soon as we have the information.
That's what we did in Saint John. We did a series on pollution in the Bay of Fundy, which focused on Irving family businesses - pulp mills and manufacturing plants and refineries. We explored the problems for small businesses in a community when a single conglomerate with a strong commitment to vertical integration dominates the economy. We put out good newspapers.
The owners, I'm sure, were sometimes unhappy, as any business owner facing unfavorable coverage would be.
JK Irving - one of the two brothers I reported to - personally threw one of our reporters out of a company building, because the newspaper's reporting so infuriated him.
But never did the owners raise a concern with me, or send a message through some intermediary, or hint in any way that they wanted us to do anything differently.
They wanted the newspapers run well.
But they never interfered in content.
And they never worried about monthly financial performance. They just wanted to be confident we were acting competently.
After Saint John, I went to Peterborough, and was publisher of The Examiner, a newspaper with a proud history, then owned by The Thomson Corporation. My desk was the same one one Robertson Davies had used during his decade as publisher.
I felt challenged by talk of the glory days of the newspaper.
So I went back into the bound volumes, and looked at those newspapers. And I found bad writing, superficial coverage, and a failure to reflect life in a mid-size Ontario town through a remarkable 10 years.
On to Victoria, continuing through a brief period when The Thomson Corporation was giving newspapers once last chance.
Newspapers had been good to Roy and Ken Thomson.
They extracted remarkable profit margins from their generally monopoly newspapers.
But newspaper were seen, even then some 15 years ago, as the - and this is the ultimate curse - "a mature industry."
The corporation made what I see as a good faith effort to challenge that, gave up and sold its newspapers across North America, a $1-billion business.
I suppose the perfect newspaper owner, from an editor's or publisher's - or perhaps some committee members' - perspective would be a private, local owner, with little interest in maximizing profitability, and a matching lack of interest in influencing local events.
There have always been few of those people.
The owners I have worked for were uniformly interested in how many people were reading the newspaper, and how much cash I could send their way at the end of each month. Their concern was often in meeting whatever quarterly profit target would please the principal shareholder or investment analysts.
That is a significant factor affecting the quality of news coverage. But owners - individual or group or corporate - will always set their targets for a return on their investment.
None of the owners were interested in content, except as it related to those two factors.
There are no guarantees that owners will be disinterested. Many of Canada's newspapers were started as vehicles for the proprietor's views.
And owners have a right to say this is what I want in the newspaper.
But exercising the right brings risks. The public does notice, and react. Canwest's experiment in having newspapers run editorials expressing a common, corporate view on some issues was short-lived.
Readers reacted badly.
And the editorials ceased appearing.
And although media corporations may have dominant shareholders, managers have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of all shareholders.
If pursuing a particular viewpoint or demanding certain editorial content damages the business, those other shareholders have a right to complain, and ultimately, I suppose, a case for damages.
I am worried about newspapers, and the other mass media.
When I started working for daily newspapers, close to 80 per cent of people in most towns and cities read the paper on a typical day.
Flawed or not, the newspaper provided a shared understanding of the facts about issues. People could disagree about solutions , but they started from a common understanding of some of the basic issues. The newspaper helped make them a community.
Now the percentage of people who read a daily newspaper on a typical day is 40 per cent to 70 per cent.
That's a big erosion of our role, and in my view a loss for communities.
It should have us desperately concerned that too many people are finding that they do not need a daily newspaper as part of their lives.
But the reasons for that have little to do with changing ownership patterns, or media concentration.
Our communities have changed, and become much more diverse in every sense. More than one-in-three Vancouver residents now self-identifies as being of Asian ethnic origin; a large percentage are relatively recent arrivals.
Daily newspapers in Vancouver, and across Canada, have not found a way to attract large numbers of those readers.
And they've struggled to convince younger readers that a daily newspaper should be a habit, not an occasional indulgence.
Despite the fears about concentration, the media world has actually become much more diverse.
It is not that long ago that people in Vancouver and its immediate suburbs had a choice of two daily newspapers, two Canadian television stations - and three U.S. stations - and a handful of radio stations.
Now they have four English language daily newspapers - three with the same owners - two Chinese-language daily newspapers, and a couple of U.S.-based daily newspapers.
And apparently soon one or more free daily newspapers.
Most households also get two community newspapers delivered to their door several times a week, and at least in this market they are competing vigorously on the strength of their editorial content. There are at least five weekly newspapers aimed at IndoCanadian readers, and dozens meeting the information needs of other ethnic communities plus a wide range of broadcasters and the Internet information sources.
Even given the concentration of ownership, it's a picture of diversity.
That's not to say any of these media are necessarily doing a superb job.
But I haven't seen any evidence that concentration or convergence have made a significant difference - positive or negative - in the job being done for readers by the media.
I have concerns.
We've lost at least some of the potential for experimentation, with different owners taking different paths to improve the value for readers, listeners and viewers. It is natural for a large corporate owner to attempt find one best path.
And the potential for abuse does exist. An owner with a large number of properties, especially across media, could be tempted to use editorial coverage in ways that would be both unfair to readers, and anti-competitive - promoting it's television offerings in the news pages for example. That would violate the trust with readers, and provide an unfair competitive advantage.
But I haven't seen it, and so no need for action or intervention.
On to the questions you are asking presenters to consider:
1) Do Canadians have appropriate amounts and quality of information about international, national, regional and local issues, considering availability, relevance, lack of bias and inclusiveness.
My position is that only Canadians can answer that question, and they answer it most clearly by deciding to support new sources if they are dissatisfied with existing ones.
The market is the only effective way that I can see for concerns about the media to be addressed.
The alternatives - state regulation, or councils with the ability to dictate news coverage, or more publicly funded media - all create new problems, especially around freedom of expression, that should be taken seriously.
2) Are communities, minorities and remote centres appropriately served?
Again, the market will decide that.
But my impression is that lowered costs of entry and a greater advertiser interest in target marketing have meant that in terms of their information needs they are remarkably well-served. Across much of B.C.> remote communities are served by competing newspapers; many are excellent.
The experience and priorities of minorities aren't well-enough reflected in mass media; that will change as a matter of economic survival for the various media providers.
3) Do changes in concentration or cross-ownership affect diversity in the news media or would further concentration be likely to do so?
It's almost inevitable that there would be some reduction in diversity, though much less than claimed. Some coverage is pooled, but the media has always relied on The Canadian Press or Broadcast News or corporate news services.
Convergence has led to more pooled reporting, which reduces slightly diversity of reporters' judgments.
But the impact has been tiny, and doesn't call for a public policy response.
4) How can the Government of Canada develop a policy and regulatory framework
that encourages an appropriate diversity of news and views without harming freedom of the press?
It's probably clear that I don't believe that it can.
The Competition Bureau and the CRTC can usefully continue to attempt to maintain market competitiveness, assessing the economic impact of changing ownership.
But beyond that any proposal to improve diversity or quality that I have seen is either ineffective or contrary to basic principles of freedom of expression.
(Often both.)
My view comes down to respect for the public. If they are not receiving the information they fell they need, they will abandon the current dominant media and seek alternatives.
If they believe corporate interests are being placed ahead of their interests, they'll quit reading or watching.
And the media will either improve, or be replaced.
6) Finally, should existing foreign ownership restrictions be changed?
No.
Despite everything I have said, I recognize that we are moving through some large changes in the news and information world in Canada.
Allowing more foreign ownership at this time raises the possibility of a large increase in concentration. Foreign ownership means the opportunity for access to more capital; that increases the likelihood of more acquisitions and concentration.
It seems simply prudent to leave the restrictions in place until we have more experience with the effects of convergence, especially given the lack of any compelling case to change the worlds.
Thanks for the chance to speak with you.
Although I've mostly said don't do anything, I do think the committee's work is important.
And I would like to see similar reviews, perhaps smaller in scale, every three to five years.
I strongly oppose intervention.
But regular outside scrutiny and criticism would be useful for the media and for the people who rely on us.
And for an alternate view, check out the presentation by David Beers and Charles Campbell - Creating Counterweights to Big Media - at www.thetyee.ca.)
Thanks for the invitation.
I'm a freelance journalist now, writing mostly about B.C. politics and providing content to daily newspapers, including The Sun, community papers, radio and occasionally television.
Although I started as a journalist, I also had a career in newspaper management.
I was a publisher of what was then Canada's only foreign-owned newspaper,
publisher and president of two newspapers for the Irvings in Saint John, New Brunswick, and a publisher and group manager for The Thomson Corporation through an interesting time. I've been on the board of the Newspaper Marketing Bureau and was vice-chair of The Canadian Press.
The point being, that I come at this from a variety of different perspectives.
I'll try and address some of the key questions I know you want to look at.
Mostly, I'll suggest that government stay out of this. That's based not on any view that the mass media are in great shape, but on my belief in where solutions lie.
But first a few general observations.
I was publisher of The Red Deer Advocate, then British-owned, when I was recruited to be CEO of New Brunswick Publishing Co. and run two daily newspapers for the Irvings.
I turned to the Kent Commission report on the media before I took the job, and it painted a bleak picture of the newspapers and the Irvings' control.
I flew off for interviews, and Arthur Irving raised the issue of interference in the newspapers' content. They would never say a word about what was in the newspapers, he said, and anyone who claimed they did would be a damn liar.
I took the job.
I have always taken my obligation to readers seriously. I think they offer up some trust in agreeing to read the newspaper. In return, I think we have a commitment to tell them everything that they would find important or interesting as soon as we have the information.
That's what we did in Saint John. We did a series on pollution in the Bay of Fundy, which focused on Irving family businesses - pulp mills and manufacturing plants and refineries. We explored the problems for small businesses in a community when a single conglomerate with a strong commitment to vertical integration dominates the economy. We put out good newspapers.
The owners, I'm sure, were sometimes unhappy, as any business owner facing unfavorable coverage would be.
JK Irving - one of the two brothers I reported to - personally threw one of our reporters out of a company building, because the newspaper's reporting so infuriated him.
But never did the owners raise a concern with me, or send a message through some intermediary, or hint in any way that they wanted us to do anything differently.
They wanted the newspapers run well.
But they never interfered in content.
And they never worried about monthly financial performance. They just wanted to be confident we were acting competently.
After Saint John, I went to Peterborough, and was publisher of The Examiner, a newspaper with a proud history, then owned by The Thomson Corporation. My desk was the same one one Robertson Davies had used during his decade as publisher.
I felt challenged by talk of the glory days of the newspaper.
So I went back into the bound volumes, and looked at those newspapers. And I found bad writing, superficial coverage, and a failure to reflect life in a mid-size Ontario town through a remarkable 10 years.
On to Victoria, continuing through a brief period when The Thomson Corporation was giving newspapers once last chance.
Newspapers had been good to Roy and Ken Thomson.
They extracted remarkable profit margins from their generally monopoly newspapers.
But newspaper were seen, even then some 15 years ago, as the - and this is the ultimate curse - "a mature industry."
The corporation made what I see as a good faith effort to challenge that, gave up and sold its newspapers across North America, a $1-billion business.
I suppose the perfect newspaper owner, from an editor's or publisher's - or perhaps some committee members' - perspective would be a private, local owner, with little interest in maximizing profitability, and a matching lack of interest in influencing local events.
There have always been few of those people.
The owners I have worked for were uniformly interested in how many people were reading the newspaper, and how much cash I could send their way at the end of each month. Their concern was often in meeting whatever quarterly profit target would please the principal shareholder or investment analysts.
That is a significant factor affecting the quality of news coverage. But owners - individual or group or corporate - will always set their targets for a return on their investment.
None of the owners were interested in content, except as it related to those two factors.
There are no guarantees that owners will be disinterested. Many of Canada's newspapers were started as vehicles for the proprietor's views.
And owners have a right to say this is what I want in the newspaper.
But exercising the right brings risks. The public does notice, and react. Canwest's experiment in having newspapers run editorials expressing a common, corporate view on some issues was short-lived.
Readers reacted badly.
And the editorials ceased appearing.
And although media corporations may have dominant shareholders, managers have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of all shareholders.
If pursuing a particular viewpoint or demanding certain editorial content damages the business, those other shareholders have a right to complain, and ultimately, I suppose, a case for damages.
I am worried about newspapers, and the other mass media.
When I started working for daily newspapers, close to 80 per cent of people in most towns and cities read the paper on a typical day.
Flawed or not, the newspaper provided a shared understanding of the facts about issues. People could disagree about solutions , but they started from a common understanding of some of the basic issues. The newspaper helped make them a community.
Now the percentage of people who read a daily newspaper on a typical day is 40 per cent to 70 per cent.
That's a big erosion of our role, and in my view a loss for communities.
It should have us desperately concerned that too many people are finding that they do not need a daily newspaper as part of their lives.
But the reasons for that have little to do with changing ownership patterns, or media concentration.
Our communities have changed, and become much more diverse in every sense. More than one-in-three Vancouver residents now self-identifies as being of Asian ethnic origin; a large percentage are relatively recent arrivals.
Daily newspapers in Vancouver, and across Canada, have not found a way to attract large numbers of those readers.
And they've struggled to convince younger readers that a daily newspaper should be a habit, not an occasional indulgence.
Despite the fears about concentration, the media world has actually become much more diverse.
It is not that long ago that people in Vancouver and its immediate suburbs had a choice of two daily newspapers, two Canadian television stations - and three U.S. stations - and a handful of radio stations.
Now they have four English language daily newspapers - three with the same owners - two Chinese-language daily newspapers, and a couple of U.S.-based daily newspapers.
And apparently soon one or more free daily newspapers.
Most households also get two community newspapers delivered to their door several times a week, and at least in this market they are competing vigorously on the strength of their editorial content. There are at least five weekly newspapers aimed at IndoCanadian readers, and dozens meeting the information needs of other ethnic communities plus a wide range of broadcasters and the Internet information sources.
Even given the concentration of ownership, it's a picture of diversity.
That's not to say any of these media are necessarily doing a superb job.
But I haven't seen any evidence that concentration or convergence have made a significant difference - positive or negative - in the job being done for readers by the media.
I have concerns.
We've lost at least some of the potential for experimentation, with different owners taking different paths to improve the value for readers, listeners and viewers. It is natural for a large corporate owner to attempt find one best path.
And the potential for abuse does exist. An owner with a large number of properties, especially across media, could be tempted to use editorial coverage in ways that would be both unfair to readers, and anti-competitive - promoting it's television offerings in the news pages for example. That would violate the trust with readers, and provide an unfair competitive advantage.
But I haven't seen it, and so no need for action or intervention.
On to the questions you are asking presenters to consider:
1) Do Canadians have appropriate amounts and quality of information about international, national, regional and local issues, considering availability, relevance, lack of bias and inclusiveness.
My position is that only Canadians can answer that question, and they answer it most clearly by deciding to support new sources if they are dissatisfied with existing ones.
The market is the only effective way that I can see for concerns about the media to be addressed.
The alternatives - state regulation, or councils with the ability to dictate news coverage, or more publicly funded media - all create new problems, especially around freedom of expression, that should be taken seriously.
2) Are communities, minorities and remote centres appropriately served?
Again, the market will decide that.
But my impression is that lowered costs of entry and a greater advertiser interest in target marketing have meant that in terms of their information needs they are remarkably well-served. Across much of B.C.> remote communities are served by competing newspapers; many are excellent.
The experience and priorities of minorities aren't well-enough reflected in mass media; that will change as a matter of economic survival for the various media providers.
3) Do changes in concentration or cross-ownership affect diversity in the news media or would further concentration be likely to do so?
It's almost inevitable that there would be some reduction in diversity, though much less than claimed. Some coverage is pooled, but the media has always relied on The Canadian Press or Broadcast News or corporate news services.
Convergence has led to more pooled reporting, which reduces slightly diversity of reporters' judgments.
But the impact has been tiny, and doesn't call for a public policy response.
4) How can the Government of Canada develop a policy and regulatory framework
that encourages an appropriate diversity of news and views without harming freedom of the press?
It's probably clear that I don't believe that it can.
The Competition Bureau and the CRTC can usefully continue to attempt to maintain market competitiveness, assessing the economic impact of changing ownership.
But beyond that any proposal to improve diversity or quality that I have seen is either ineffective or contrary to basic principles of freedom of expression.
(Often both.)
My view comes down to respect for the public. If they are not receiving the information they fell they need, they will abandon the current dominant media and seek alternatives.
If they believe corporate interests are being placed ahead of their interests, they'll quit reading or watching.
And the media will either improve, or be replaced.
6) Finally, should existing foreign ownership restrictions be changed?
No.
Despite everything I have said, I recognize that we are moving through some large changes in the news and information world in Canada.
Allowing more foreign ownership at this time raises the possibility of a large increase in concentration. Foreign ownership means the opportunity for access to more capital; that increases the likelihood of more acquisitions and concentration.
It seems simply prudent to leave the restrictions in place until we have more experience with the effects of convergence, especially given the lack of any compelling case to change the worlds.
Thanks for the chance to speak with you.
Although I've mostly said don't do anything, I do think the committee's work is important.
And I would like to see similar reviews, perhaps smaller in scale, every three to five years.
I strongly oppose intervention.
But regular outside scrutiny and criticism would be useful for the media and for the people who rely on us.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Money raining down from Victoria, but will it win votes
VICTORIA - It's positively energizing heading into work at the Press Gallery right now, confident that each day will bring a new spending announcement to report.
The mining industry gets a $25-million boost one day, women's shelters $12.5 million the next. Schools hit the jackpot, and get $150 million. Legal aid gets $4.6 million more.
My rough count puts the tally at something like $400 million in the last three weeks. The steady flow of press releases and promises prompted BCTV to dig back into the video vault, and find film from the Liberals' 1996 election campaign. Back then they staged a stunt that had a guy in a bad Glen Clark mask slinging gold coins off a dump truck, the theme being that the NDP was shovelling money off the back of a truck to try and buy votes.
Gordon Campbell - nine years younger - was there with a shovel, scraping up the coins off the pavement and throwing them back on the truck.
The whole thing was kind of cheesy looking, the kind of stunt that probably cost the Liberals votes in that close election.
So is it the same thing in reverse almost a decade later? Are the Liberals doing just what they accused the NDP of doing, chucking money off the back of a truck and trying to buy peoples' votes with their own money?
Not really.
Sure, they're trying to persuade you that all sorts of good things will come if you just re-elect them. And the Campbell government, with a reputation for indifference at best, mean-spiritedness at worst, is trying to show that it really cares about improving services.
But there's at least one significant difference this time around. The Liberals can actually afford to deliver on their promises - or at least the ones made so far - without creating future deficits. Government revenues over the next several years will cover the increased costs. That wasn't true for the NDP in 1996.
The Liberals have their own problems around these spending announcements.
Take the $150 million in additional school funding, for example.
Sounds like a lot. But even with the increase, the money going to school districts will have increased by 8.2 per cent since the Liberals were elected. The consumer price index, the basic measure of inflationary pressures, will have risen by almost 14 per cent through the same period.
Education Minister Tom Christensen argues that's not really a fair comparison. The number of students in the system has gone down, so school districts should expect less money.
That's partly true. But a drop in students doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in costs for school districts; if there are 15 fewer children in a school the heating bill and other fixed costs stay the same. Still, the government can now point to a real increase in the amount of money available per student (or will be able to next year). Since the election the amount of money school boards get per student will have risen by about $225, or 3.5 per cent, in real terms.
Other questions will remain for some voters. Christensen said the new money would be targeted at providing library services, arts and music programs and special needs. Those were all areas hurt by the education funding policies introduced by the LIberals in their first year.
The government position is that there was no choice, The province couldn't afford to provide the desired quality of education for students. Voters will be judging whether that is true, and how much the Liberals' massive first-day tax cuts created the funding crisis. Those judgments will be one factor in how people view these spending announcements. The other major factor will be trust. The Liberals have to convince voters that they are promising the spending because they believe the services are important - and not just because we are in the last months before the election.
Footnote: Expect the announcements to continue. Almost all the initiatives unveiled so far will be included in the Feb. 15 budget, but the Liberals want to make sure they won't be lost on in the flood of news on budget day. That leaves almost two more weeks of spending good news.
The mining industry gets a $25-million boost one day, women's shelters $12.5 million the next. Schools hit the jackpot, and get $150 million. Legal aid gets $4.6 million more.
My rough count puts the tally at something like $400 million in the last three weeks. The steady flow of press releases and promises prompted BCTV to dig back into the video vault, and find film from the Liberals' 1996 election campaign. Back then they staged a stunt that had a guy in a bad Glen Clark mask slinging gold coins off a dump truck, the theme being that the NDP was shovelling money off the back of a truck to try and buy votes.
Gordon Campbell - nine years younger - was there with a shovel, scraping up the coins off the pavement and throwing them back on the truck.
The whole thing was kind of cheesy looking, the kind of stunt that probably cost the Liberals votes in that close election.
So is it the same thing in reverse almost a decade later? Are the Liberals doing just what they accused the NDP of doing, chucking money off the back of a truck and trying to buy peoples' votes with their own money?
Not really.
Sure, they're trying to persuade you that all sorts of good things will come if you just re-elect them. And the Campbell government, with a reputation for indifference at best, mean-spiritedness at worst, is trying to show that it really cares about improving services.
But there's at least one significant difference this time around. The Liberals can actually afford to deliver on their promises - or at least the ones made so far - without creating future deficits. Government revenues over the next several years will cover the increased costs. That wasn't true for the NDP in 1996.
The Liberals have their own problems around these spending announcements.
Take the $150 million in additional school funding, for example.
Sounds like a lot. But even with the increase, the money going to school districts will have increased by 8.2 per cent since the Liberals were elected. The consumer price index, the basic measure of inflationary pressures, will have risen by almost 14 per cent through the same period.
Education Minister Tom Christensen argues that's not really a fair comparison. The number of students in the system has gone down, so school districts should expect less money.
That's partly true. But a drop in students doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in costs for school districts; if there are 15 fewer children in a school the heating bill and other fixed costs stay the same. Still, the government can now point to a real increase in the amount of money available per student (or will be able to next year). Since the election the amount of money school boards get per student will have risen by about $225, or 3.5 per cent, in real terms.
Other questions will remain for some voters. Christensen said the new money would be targeted at providing library services, arts and music programs and special needs. Those were all areas hurt by the education funding policies introduced by the LIberals in their first year.
The government position is that there was no choice, The province couldn't afford to provide the desired quality of education for students. Voters will be judging whether that is true, and how much the Liberals' massive first-day tax cuts created the funding crisis. Those judgments will be one factor in how people view these spending announcements. The other major factor will be trust. The Liberals have to convince voters that they are promising the spending because they believe the services are important - and not just because we are in the last months before the election.
Footnote: Expect the announcements to continue. Almost all the initiatives unveiled so far will be included in the Feb. 15 budget, but the Liberals want to make sure they won't be lost on in the flood of news on budget day. That leaves almost two more weeks of spending good news.
Friday, January 28, 2005
SpongeBob, Stephen Harper and same-sex marriage
VICTORIA - I've got to figure out how to apologize to my young friend Spencer for the terrible thing I've done, while innocently thinking we were just going to the movies.
We picked the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. And now I learn, too late, that I may have inadvertently exposed an impressionable young person to images of . . . tolerance.
The horror. A very bright person like Spencer, encouraged to be tolerant of people who may be different.
The warning of SpongeBob's evil complicity came from James Dobson, the head of a big U.S.-based religious group called Focus on the Family, which thinks there is entirely too much talk of this tolerance stuff.
People pay attention to Dobson. His radio show draws about seven million listeners, and he's credited with helping George Bush to critical wins in Florida and Ohio. (If the group sounds familiar, it may because you heard about it during Cindy Silver's unsuccessful bid for a Liberal nomination; Silver was Focus on the Family's former legal advisor in Canada.)
To be fair, Dobson didn't really have it in for SpongeBob. But the amiable, squeaky-voiced cartoon megastar appeared with Barney, Bob the Builder, Big Bird and all the heavyweights in a video going out to schools for Family Day in March, promoting diversity and understanding. (Nile Rodgers, who wrote 'We Are Family, I've G All My Sisters With Me,' helped create the video through a foundation that he started after 911 to teach kids about diversity.)
Bad idea, says Dobson. Tolerance is just another word hijacked by homosexuals. And just look at the foundation's tolerance pledge, he adds.
"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own," the pledge says.
OK, I admit that I don't see the evil. Are we supposed to disrespect some of those people? Does that mean we get to hit them, or do we have to be content with shunning?
Which leads, perhaps in a slightly twisting way, to Conservative leader Stephen Harper.
The Conservatives just wrapped up a caucus meeting here in Victoria, and tolerance was much on the agenda. Harper and Prime Minister Paul Martin - meeting on the other coast with his caucus - lobbed long-distance grenades at each other about same sex marriage.
Or they did for a while. I made it to a midday scrum at the Empress Hotel on the second day of the visit. Harper wanted to talk about Jean Chretien' attempts to derail the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. He didn't want to talk about same sex marriage. I had my head down, taking notes, when a reporter asked two questions on the issue. When I looked up Harper was gone, bolting from the room.
I like to think Harper was embarrassed. People may feel strongly about the issue. But ultimately, it's no big deal. The question is whether governments issue a piece of paper that uses the word marriage to same sex couples. They don't get any new rights, or financial advantages. No one is compelled to do anything, or even recognize the marriage. It's all about a piece of paper.
And the reality - despite Harper's claims to the contrary - is that the only way out of acknowledging same sex marriages is invoking the notwithstanding clause in the charter of rights and freedoms. That means saying that the state is willing to deprive some Canadians of their constitutionally guaranteed rights because respecting those rights would do serious harm to the country.
And that's a very tough claim, since we're almost two years into allowing same sex marriages in Canada, with no signs of social collapse.
What a choice. Dobson and Harper, or SpongeBob and Paul Martin.
Spencer and I, we want to hear about some real issues.
Footnote: Harper, to his credit, met with a lesbian couple near retirement age who told him how important their 2003 wedding was in healing rifts in their families. But he said he would still have their marriage annulled, and hoped they would be happy with some other form of civil union.
We picked the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. And now I learn, too late, that I may have inadvertently exposed an impressionable young person to images of . . . tolerance.
The horror. A very bright person like Spencer, encouraged to be tolerant of people who may be different.
The warning of SpongeBob's evil complicity came from James Dobson, the head of a big U.S.-based religious group called Focus on the Family, which thinks there is entirely too much talk of this tolerance stuff.
People pay attention to Dobson. His radio show draws about seven million listeners, and he's credited with helping George Bush to critical wins in Florida and Ohio. (If the group sounds familiar, it may because you heard about it during Cindy Silver's unsuccessful bid for a Liberal nomination; Silver was Focus on the Family's former legal advisor in Canada.)
To be fair, Dobson didn't really have it in for SpongeBob. But the amiable, squeaky-voiced cartoon megastar appeared with Barney, Bob the Builder, Big Bird and all the heavyweights in a video going out to schools for Family Day in March, promoting diversity and understanding. (Nile Rodgers, who wrote 'We Are Family, I've G All My Sisters With Me,' helped create the video through a foundation that he started after 911 to teach kids about diversity.)
Bad idea, says Dobson. Tolerance is just another word hijacked by homosexuals. And just look at the foundation's tolerance pledge, he adds.
"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own," the pledge says.
OK, I admit that I don't see the evil. Are we supposed to disrespect some of those people? Does that mean we get to hit them, or do we have to be content with shunning?
Which leads, perhaps in a slightly twisting way, to Conservative leader Stephen Harper.
The Conservatives just wrapped up a caucus meeting here in Victoria, and tolerance was much on the agenda. Harper and Prime Minister Paul Martin - meeting on the other coast with his caucus - lobbed long-distance grenades at each other about same sex marriage.
Or they did for a while. I made it to a midday scrum at the Empress Hotel on the second day of the visit. Harper wanted to talk about Jean Chretien' attempts to derail the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. He didn't want to talk about same sex marriage. I had my head down, taking notes, when a reporter asked two questions on the issue. When I looked up Harper was gone, bolting from the room.
I like to think Harper was embarrassed. People may feel strongly about the issue. But ultimately, it's no big deal. The question is whether governments issue a piece of paper that uses the word marriage to same sex couples. They don't get any new rights, or financial advantages. No one is compelled to do anything, or even recognize the marriage. It's all about a piece of paper.
And the reality - despite Harper's claims to the contrary - is that the only way out of acknowledging same sex marriages is invoking the notwithstanding clause in the charter of rights and freedoms. That means saying that the state is willing to deprive some Canadians of their constitutionally guaranteed rights because respecting those rights would do serious harm to the country.
And that's a very tough claim, since we're almost two years into allowing same sex marriages in Canada, with no signs of social collapse.
What a choice. Dobson and Harper, or SpongeBob and Paul Martin.
Spencer and I, we want to hear about some real issues.
Footnote: Harper, to his credit, met with a lesbian couple near retirement age who told him how important their 2003 wedding was in healing rifts in their families. But he said he would still have their marriage annulled, and hoped they would be happy with some other form of civil union.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Vinning afffair: Strange goings on in the premier's office
VICTORIA - Think you had a lousy week at work?
It could be worse. You could be Prem Vinning, hired on Monday to a great-sounding job in the premier's office, and gone by Wednesday after admiting using a fake name to lob a spftball question to Premier Gordon Campbell on a call-in show.
Liberals should be steamed at the decision to hire Vinning in the first place, which showed wretched political judgment.
The whole mess was reported by Sean Holman, the obsessive watcher of B.C. politics, on his always interesting web site PublicEyeOnline.com.
Vinning was hired as director of Asia-Pacific trade and economic development in the premier's office, a brand new job. The idea that B.C. need a better focus on Asian opportunities makes sense.
But the logical place for that initiative is in the economic development ministry, which has other trade responsibilities and all the needed support staff.
And the logical candidate would likely be someone other than Vinning. That's no slight on his accomplishments. Vinning is fiftyish, one-time housebuilder and part-owner of Jackpine Forest Products up in Williams Lake. He was born in India, grew up and went to school in England. It's not the resume of an obvious candidate for the job of driving trade with Asia.
Vinning has other credentials though. He has been a hugely influential figure in federal Liberal politics in B.C. for 15 years or so, able to deliver nominations and influence elections. Vinning ran unsuccessfully for the federal party in 1993, and has been a power behind the scenes since. If you were looking for support from the IndoCanadian community in B.C., Vinning was probably the first person you called on.
Campbell apparently did. The Liberals publicly blamed star candidate Mary Polak's defeat in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection on a loss of support in the IndoCanadian community. In December, Campbell held meetings to try and win back a voter group that feels ignored by the government they helped elect. And Vinning was a key person on the guest list.
The meetings did not go well, at least according to a report in the IndoCanadian press.
Barely a month later, four months before the May election, Vinning winds up in a good job in the premier's office, working in a field where he does not seem to be the most obvious candidate. Suspicious minds might wonder if part of his allure was the chance to improve Liberal political fortunes - and then wonder if taxpayers should really be paying for that effort.
On top of those concerns, add a lingering controversy. The federal government came up with a $55-million program to help B.C. cope with duties levied under the softwood dispute in late 2002. The first business to get money - and the only one in the first round of payments - was Vinning's Jackpine. (All the other recepients were community groups.) The company got a $2-million loan for a new plant. Two months later, it went to court to seek protection from its creditors. The committee that approved the loan said it was never told about the financial problems.
And then came Campbell's weekend talk show appearance. Vinning, two days before starting his new job, called in. But he used a different name, calling himself Peter. "I'm in the trucking business and, you know, the economy is going great guns and that's good." But what will the premier do about transportation delays, he asked.
"A very, very good question," said Campbell, before launching into a pitch for the Liberals' transportation plans.
Two hours after Holman posted an item on the call, Vinning resigned.
There's a sad haplessness about it all, from the creation of the job through the hiring of Vinning and on to the phoney call dsigned to make the boss look good.
If the Liberals' plan to win back IndoCanadian voters, there going to have to do a lot better.
Footnote: Campbell says he didn't recognize Vinning's voice. Lots of other people did, from both political parties. Perhaps the mini-scandal will convince all parties to end the dubious practice of having political operatives call talk shows to offer easy and supportive questions whenever their masters are on the air.
It could be worse. You could be Prem Vinning, hired on Monday to a great-sounding job in the premier's office, and gone by Wednesday after admiting using a fake name to lob a spftball question to Premier Gordon Campbell on a call-in show.
Liberals should be steamed at the decision to hire Vinning in the first place, which showed wretched political judgment.
The whole mess was reported by Sean Holman, the obsessive watcher of B.C. politics, on his always interesting web site PublicEyeOnline.com.
Vinning was hired as director of Asia-Pacific trade and economic development in the premier's office, a brand new job. The idea that B.C. need a better focus on Asian opportunities makes sense.
But the logical place for that initiative is in the economic development ministry, which has other trade responsibilities and all the needed support staff.
And the logical candidate would likely be someone other than Vinning. That's no slight on his accomplishments. Vinning is fiftyish, one-time housebuilder and part-owner of Jackpine Forest Products up in Williams Lake. He was born in India, grew up and went to school in England. It's not the resume of an obvious candidate for the job of driving trade with Asia.
Vinning has other credentials though. He has been a hugely influential figure in federal Liberal politics in B.C. for 15 years or so, able to deliver nominations and influence elections. Vinning ran unsuccessfully for the federal party in 1993, and has been a power behind the scenes since. If you were looking for support from the IndoCanadian community in B.C., Vinning was probably the first person you called on.
Campbell apparently did. The Liberals publicly blamed star candidate Mary Polak's defeat in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection on a loss of support in the IndoCanadian community. In December, Campbell held meetings to try and win back a voter group that feels ignored by the government they helped elect. And Vinning was a key person on the guest list.
The meetings did not go well, at least according to a report in the IndoCanadian press.
Barely a month later, four months before the May election, Vinning winds up in a good job in the premier's office, working in a field where he does not seem to be the most obvious candidate. Suspicious minds might wonder if part of his allure was the chance to improve Liberal political fortunes - and then wonder if taxpayers should really be paying for that effort.
On top of those concerns, add a lingering controversy. The federal government came up with a $55-million program to help B.C. cope with duties levied under the softwood dispute in late 2002. The first business to get money - and the only one in the first round of payments - was Vinning's Jackpine. (All the other recepients were community groups.) The company got a $2-million loan for a new plant. Two months later, it went to court to seek protection from its creditors. The committee that approved the loan said it was never told about the financial problems.
And then came Campbell's weekend talk show appearance. Vinning, two days before starting his new job, called in. But he used a different name, calling himself Peter. "I'm in the trucking business and, you know, the economy is going great guns and that's good." But what will the premier do about transportation delays, he asked.
"A very, very good question," said Campbell, before launching into a pitch for the Liberals' transportation plans.
Two hours after Holman posted an item on the call, Vinning resigned.
There's a sad haplessness about it all, from the creation of the job through the hiring of Vinning and on to the phoney call dsigned to make the boss look good.
If the Liberals' plan to win back IndoCanadian voters, there going to have to do a lot better.
Footnote: Campbell says he didn't recognize Vinning's voice. Lots of other people did, from both political parties. Perhaps the mini-scandal will convince all parties to end the dubious practice of having political operatives call talk shows to offer easy and supportive questions whenever their masters are on the air.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Bond's job is to get facts on Nelson hospital case
VICTORIA - Health Minister Shirley Bond has two choices - order an independent review of a controversial death at Nelson's hospital, or pick up the phone and ask the coroner's office for some information.
The second choice is the simplest, most sensible option.
Edward Morritt died last March after a series of events that heightened Nelson residents' concerns about the quality of available medical care.
Morritt was 75, and suffered from health problems that could be expected at that age. He fell while working in his yard, made his way into his house, and waited three hours until he could reach a family member. He arrived at Kootenay Lake General Hospital in Nelson by ambulance at 6:18 p.m. Doctors feared internal bleeding. His condition meant x-rays weren't practical. The hospital had ultrasound equipment, but technicians weren't on call after hours.
By 8 p.m., doctors wanted to move him to Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail for a CT scan, admission to the Intensive Care Unit and surgical care.
But they couldn't connect with the surgeon, and were told no bed was available. The situation was eventually straightened out, but the result was that Morritt didn't arrive at the hospital until 10:40 p.m. He died less than three hours later. The cause of death was internal bleeding from a ruptured spleen.
People die every day, despite the best care we're able to provide. Perhaps Morritt, who was taking blood thinning medication, was just one of those people who received too serious an injury to allow effective treatment.
But his family, and others in the community, have raised questions about the reduced level of care in the Nelson hospital. They want to know if he could have been saved if more options had been available in his hometown. And they had hoped that a coroner's inquest would provide some answers.
It didn't. Coroner Jeff Dolan ruled the death accidental and made no recommendations.
Perhaps that could have ended the issue.
But CBC News learned that the investigator who reviewed the death for the coroner did make recommendations, which weren't included in the final report. The coroner's agent, Jim Draper, wouldn't reveal specifics but said three important recommendations related to questions about how the health care system may have failed Morritt.
So why weren't the recommendations included? Dolan says he can't answer that question. Lisa Lapointe, speaking for the coroner's office, says she can't discuss specifics, but adds that coroners rarely tell health authorities what to do. (raising the question, why not?)
The result leaves questions about whether service reductions in Nelson were a factor in Morritt's death.
Bond was quick to point to the coroner's report as an indication that everything was fine in Nelson. (The Interior Health Authority made the same claim.)
But Bond says she's content with final report, and doesn't want to compromise the independence of the coroner's office by asking questions about the abandoned recommendations.
That's a bad answer. The medical staff at Nelson's hospital have expressed concerns over the effect of cuts on Morritt and other patients, and the lack of recommendations in the coroner's report. The issue is important to the people of the region. The health minister should want answers.
All Bond has to do is call the coroner's office and ask for the draft recommendations. If the chief coroner says no, she would have to consider next steps, but any effective health minister would ask for the information.
If she is unwilling to do that, Bond should order an independent, public inquiry. It does not need to be involved, or costly. A review of the existing record should suffice. (The health authority hired an Alberta doctor to review the case, but hasn't released its findings.)
Major questions remain about Morritt's death. The health minister's should want to get the answers.
Footnote: Hospital medical staff say Morritt would have been able to get an ultrasound in Nelson before the cuts to services; the IHA says that's not true. The community needs a definitive answer to that and other questions. Restructuring health care is a huge undertaking, with significant risks and benefits. We need to look at the consequences and learn, instead of shying away from the facts.
The second choice is the simplest, most sensible option.
Edward Morritt died last March after a series of events that heightened Nelson residents' concerns about the quality of available medical care.
Morritt was 75, and suffered from health problems that could be expected at that age. He fell while working in his yard, made his way into his house, and waited three hours until he could reach a family member. He arrived at Kootenay Lake General Hospital in Nelson by ambulance at 6:18 p.m. Doctors feared internal bleeding. His condition meant x-rays weren't practical. The hospital had ultrasound equipment, but technicians weren't on call after hours.
By 8 p.m., doctors wanted to move him to Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail for a CT scan, admission to the Intensive Care Unit and surgical care.
But they couldn't connect with the surgeon, and were told no bed was available. The situation was eventually straightened out, but the result was that Morritt didn't arrive at the hospital until 10:40 p.m. He died less than three hours later. The cause of death was internal bleeding from a ruptured spleen.
People die every day, despite the best care we're able to provide. Perhaps Morritt, who was taking blood thinning medication, was just one of those people who received too serious an injury to allow effective treatment.
But his family, and others in the community, have raised questions about the reduced level of care in the Nelson hospital. They want to know if he could have been saved if more options had been available in his hometown. And they had hoped that a coroner's inquest would provide some answers.
It didn't. Coroner Jeff Dolan ruled the death accidental and made no recommendations.
Perhaps that could have ended the issue.
But CBC News learned that the investigator who reviewed the death for the coroner did make recommendations, which weren't included in the final report. The coroner's agent, Jim Draper, wouldn't reveal specifics but said three important recommendations related to questions about how the health care system may have failed Morritt.
So why weren't the recommendations included? Dolan says he can't answer that question. Lisa Lapointe, speaking for the coroner's office, says she can't discuss specifics, but adds that coroners rarely tell health authorities what to do. (raising the question, why not?)
The result leaves questions about whether service reductions in Nelson were a factor in Morritt's death.
Bond was quick to point to the coroner's report as an indication that everything was fine in Nelson. (The Interior Health Authority made the same claim.)
But Bond says she's content with final report, and doesn't want to compromise the independence of the coroner's office by asking questions about the abandoned recommendations.
That's a bad answer. The medical staff at Nelson's hospital have expressed concerns over the effect of cuts on Morritt and other patients, and the lack of recommendations in the coroner's report. The issue is important to the people of the region. The health minister should want answers.
All Bond has to do is call the coroner's office and ask for the draft recommendations. If the chief coroner says no, she would have to consider next steps, but any effective health minister would ask for the information.
If she is unwilling to do that, Bond should order an independent, public inquiry. It does not need to be involved, or costly. A review of the existing record should suffice. (The health authority hired an Alberta doctor to review the case, but hasn't released its findings.)
Major questions remain about Morritt's death. The health minister's should want to get the answers.
Footnote: Hospital medical staff say Morritt would have been able to get an ultrasound in Nelson before the cuts to services; the IHA says that's not true. The community needs a definitive answer to that and other questions. Restructuring health care is a huge undertaking, with significant risks and benefits. We need to look at the consequences and learn, instead of shying away from the facts.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Random notes: Chinese bonanza; a new party; and Nettleton
VICTORIA - Random notes: Great economic news, a new party rises and Paul Nettleton jumps ridings.
First, the best economic news for B.C. in ages came from Beijing Friday, where federal Industry Minister David Emerson announced that China has recognized Canada as an approved tourist destination. Sounds like a small thing, but it's a huge breakthrough. Chinese tourists can visit about 30 approved countries - which up until now have not included Canada - fairly easily. If the country isn't on the list, it's far more difficult to leap through an official approval process that can take months - and still end in refusal.
Even more importantly, tour companies are effectively barred from organizing group excursions - the most likely way Chinese would visit Canada - to non-approved countries.
The potential is enormous. Australia doubled its number of visitors from China once it was approved, and Canada has the potential to be a much larger draw for China's new rich and slowly emerging middle class. A 2002 survey found that 1.9 million newly affluent Chinese were interested in visiting Canada. That translates into about $1 billion per year in new tourism revenue, with B.C. in a position to grab a large share of the business.
Canada has been trying to get approval for five years, and has immediately announced plans to open a tourism office in Beijing. The provincial government could wisely set aside part of this year's surplus for a one-time marketing program aimed at China.
Second, yet another new political party for B.C., one that starts with an MLA sitting in the legislature.
The new party is Democratic Reform BC - or DRBC, which they hope you'll pronounce as Doctor BC. The leader is Tom Morino, a lawyer, Vancouver Island town councillor and former Liberal candidate. The MLA is Elayne Brenzinger, the Surrey MLA who quit the Liberal caucus last year.
The party claims a socially progressive, fiscally conservative approach, although its platform seems to have more ideas about spending money than raising it. And the presence of a large number of former Reform BC members will make some people nervous about the socially progressive claim.
I don't give the group much chance. Brenzinger has problems over her ugly allegation of sexual harassment by a colleague in the Liberal caucus, which she later retracted. The party has no money, and at best 2,000 members. And with four months to go it is hard to believe that any fledgling party can insert itself into the fray.
But it will be a factor in Brenzinger's riding of Surrey-Whalley and Morino's home riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
The NDP was already the likely winner Brenzinger's riding; if she draws significant support from the Liberal candidate a New Democrat win becomes a sure thing.
Morino, who barely lost in his riding in 1991 as a Liberal, could play a similar role in his Victoria-area riding.
Third, the other independent MLA, Paul Nettleton, revealed his election plans this week, and they are going to affect two Prince George races.
Nettleton, who quit the Liberals over what he saw as a threat to BC Hydro (and who, like Brenzinger, blames Gordon Campbell for the party's problems) is leaving his old riding of Prince George-Omineca and running against Health Minister Shirley Bond in Prince George-Robson.
Nettleton is going to attract votes, and given his overall approach - he broke with the federal Liberals because he's opposed to same sex marriage - more of those votes are going to come from the Liberal candidates.
That means the Liberal in Omineca - a candidate hasn't been selected yet - is now the favorite.
But Bond's campaign has become much tougher. She won a big victory in 2001, and her profile should help. But it was an NDP riding in the previous two elections, and if Nettleton provides an option for disgruntled potential Liberal voters then Bond could be in trouble.
And there's still four months to go.
Footnote: The polls have convinced both parties that every seat may matter in this election. The Liberals hope to slide MLA Tony Bhullar into Surrey-Panorama Ridge, hoping he put up a good fight against new NDP MLA Jagrup Brar. Olympic gold-winning wrestler Daniel Igali is being courted to run for the Liberals in Bhullar's old riding of Surrey-Newton.
First, the best economic news for B.C. in ages came from Beijing Friday, where federal Industry Minister David Emerson announced that China has recognized Canada as an approved tourist destination. Sounds like a small thing, but it's a huge breakthrough. Chinese tourists can visit about 30 approved countries - which up until now have not included Canada - fairly easily. If the country isn't on the list, it's far more difficult to leap through an official approval process that can take months - and still end in refusal.
Even more importantly, tour companies are effectively barred from organizing group excursions - the most likely way Chinese would visit Canada - to non-approved countries.
The potential is enormous. Australia doubled its number of visitors from China once it was approved, and Canada has the potential to be a much larger draw for China's new rich and slowly emerging middle class. A 2002 survey found that 1.9 million newly affluent Chinese were interested in visiting Canada. That translates into about $1 billion per year in new tourism revenue, with B.C. in a position to grab a large share of the business.
Canada has been trying to get approval for five years, and has immediately announced plans to open a tourism office in Beijing. The provincial government could wisely set aside part of this year's surplus for a one-time marketing program aimed at China.
Second, yet another new political party for B.C., one that starts with an MLA sitting in the legislature.
The new party is Democratic Reform BC - or DRBC, which they hope you'll pronounce as Doctor BC. The leader is Tom Morino, a lawyer, Vancouver Island town councillor and former Liberal candidate. The MLA is Elayne Brenzinger, the Surrey MLA who quit the Liberal caucus last year.
The party claims a socially progressive, fiscally conservative approach, although its platform seems to have more ideas about spending money than raising it. And the presence of a large number of former Reform BC members will make some people nervous about the socially progressive claim.
I don't give the group much chance. Brenzinger has problems over her ugly allegation of sexual harassment by a colleague in the Liberal caucus, which she later retracted. The party has no money, and at best 2,000 members. And with four months to go it is hard to believe that any fledgling party can insert itself into the fray.
But it will be a factor in Brenzinger's riding of Surrey-Whalley and Morino's home riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
The NDP was already the likely winner Brenzinger's riding; if she draws significant support from the Liberal candidate a New Democrat win becomes a sure thing.
Morino, who barely lost in his riding in 1991 as a Liberal, could play a similar role in his Victoria-area riding.
Third, the other independent MLA, Paul Nettleton, revealed his election plans this week, and they are going to affect two Prince George races.
Nettleton, who quit the Liberals over what he saw as a threat to BC Hydro (and who, like Brenzinger, blames Gordon Campbell for the party's problems) is leaving his old riding of Prince George-Omineca and running against Health Minister Shirley Bond in Prince George-Robson.
Nettleton is going to attract votes, and given his overall approach - he broke with the federal Liberals because he's opposed to same sex marriage - more of those votes are going to come from the Liberal candidates.
That means the Liberal in Omineca - a candidate hasn't been selected yet - is now the favorite.
But Bond's campaign has become much tougher. She won a big victory in 2001, and her profile should help. But it was an NDP riding in the previous two elections, and if Nettleton provides an option for disgruntled potential Liberal voters then Bond could be in trouble.
And there's still four months to go.
Footnote: The polls have convinced both parties that every seat may matter in this election. The Liberals hope to slide MLA Tony Bhullar into Surrey-Panorama Ridge, hoping he put up a good fight against new NDP MLA Jagrup Brar. Olympic gold-winning wrestler Daniel Igali is being courted to run for the Liberals in Bhullar's old riding of Surrey-Newton.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Promise - 5,000 long-term beds; reality so far - 100
VICTORIA - The Liberals' promise of "an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006" has faded away.
Almost four years after the election only 100 additional beds have been added to the system. The New Era promise won't be kept, Health Minister Shirley Bond concedes, with the goal now 2008.
It was an important pledge. The new government even created a junior minister responsible for residential care for seniors, and unveiled a big - if hopelessly muddled -strategy in 2002.
The reality is that the province has gone backwards. The 100 new beds falls short of the increased demand created by an aging and growing population.
It's a significant broken promise. The most obvious impact is on seniors who need the care, and their families. They need the kind of care that was promised, and they can't get it.
But it also affects everyone in the province. When long-term care isn't available, seniors end up in the hospital. That is often miserable for them and the people who care about them.
It's also a major reason why people can't get needed surgery and emergency rooms are jammed, with sick and injured people waiting hours, only to end up on stretchers in halls because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Communities across the province have complained about lost long-term care beds. But most have been unable to get good information about the number of beds lost versus any beds added, or the effects.
Here in Victoria the Capital Regional District, reacting to public concern, studied the issue last year. It found that the Vancouver Island Health Authority had closed almost 600 existing residential care beds. It had opened 105 new residential care beds, and 207 assisted living units, which provide a lower level of support.
Do the math, and you find that means there are 205 fewer beds available - about a seven-per-cent decrease in the time the Liberals were promising a major increase. The region is short 325 beds, based on the government's own model.
"The shortfall is a result of closing too many residential care beds too quickly and not having the alternatives, including assisted living, in place," the report found. "This was predicted in 2002 and is in large part a function of the provincial government's fiscal restraint." One in three of the people admitted to residential care had been waiting more than 90 days, VIHA reports, and waits have been increasing.
The government and the health authorities have maintained that the need for long-term care was being reduced thanks to increased support to allow people to stay in their homes, or seniors' housing. But that hasn't really happened either, the capital region study found. The number of seniors needing home support services for example, had increased by nine per cent; funding for the service rose two per cent.
Seniors wait months for the care they need. If they are lucky, they're families struggle to cope with their increasingly complex medical care needs. If they aren't, the end up in hospitals, which must cope with over-crowding and delayed surgeries because acute care beds are blocked by people who don't need them, but have nowhere else to go. (The best estimate is that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of acute care beds are occupied by people who shouldn't be there.)
Bond says the government has created 4,300 new spaces, but had to close 4,200 because the facilities were outmoded. But those facilities had served for years; communities pleaded with the health authorities to keep them open until replacement beds were created; and most could have been maintained until the promised 5,000 additional beds were delivered.
Even acknowledging the challenges, the issue has been badly mishandled with no clear plan, inadequate funding and a refusal to listen to the legitimate complaints of seniors and communities and government MLAs.
It's a broken promise that has hurt us all.
Footnote: Former long-term care minister Katherine Whittred had an undistinguished tenure, but she did complain in writing that the ministry was closing beds without having adequate replacements. She never reported on the response. The junior minister's position for long-term care was eliminated a year ago in a cabinet shuffle.
Almost four years after the election only 100 additional beds have been added to the system. The New Era promise won't be kept, Health Minister Shirley Bond concedes, with the goal now 2008.
It was an important pledge. The new government even created a junior minister responsible for residential care for seniors, and unveiled a big - if hopelessly muddled -strategy in 2002.
The reality is that the province has gone backwards. The 100 new beds falls short of the increased demand created by an aging and growing population.
It's a significant broken promise. The most obvious impact is on seniors who need the care, and their families. They need the kind of care that was promised, and they can't get it.
But it also affects everyone in the province. When long-term care isn't available, seniors end up in the hospital. That is often miserable for them and the people who care about them.
It's also a major reason why people can't get needed surgery and emergency rooms are jammed, with sick and injured people waiting hours, only to end up on stretchers in halls because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Communities across the province have complained about lost long-term care beds. But most have been unable to get good information about the number of beds lost versus any beds added, or the effects.
Here in Victoria the Capital Regional District, reacting to public concern, studied the issue last year. It found that the Vancouver Island Health Authority had closed almost 600 existing residential care beds. It had opened 105 new residential care beds, and 207 assisted living units, which provide a lower level of support.
Do the math, and you find that means there are 205 fewer beds available - about a seven-per-cent decrease in the time the Liberals were promising a major increase. The region is short 325 beds, based on the government's own model.
"The shortfall is a result of closing too many residential care beds too quickly and not having the alternatives, including assisted living, in place," the report found. "This was predicted in 2002 and is in large part a function of the provincial government's fiscal restraint." One in three of the people admitted to residential care had been waiting more than 90 days, VIHA reports, and waits have been increasing.
The government and the health authorities have maintained that the need for long-term care was being reduced thanks to increased support to allow people to stay in their homes, or seniors' housing. But that hasn't really happened either, the capital region study found. The number of seniors needing home support services for example, had increased by nine per cent; funding for the service rose two per cent.
Seniors wait months for the care they need. If they are lucky, they're families struggle to cope with their increasingly complex medical care needs. If they aren't, the end up in hospitals, which must cope with over-crowding and delayed surgeries because acute care beds are blocked by people who don't need them, but have nowhere else to go. (The best estimate is that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of acute care beds are occupied by people who shouldn't be there.)
Bond says the government has created 4,300 new spaces, but had to close 4,200 because the facilities were outmoded. But those facilities had served for years; communities pleaded with the health authorities to keep them open until replacement beds were created; and most could have been maintained until the promised 5,000 additional beds were delivered.
Even acknowledging the challenges, the issue has been badly mishandled with no clear plan, inadequate funding and a refusal to listen to the legitimate complaints of seniors and communities and government MLAs.
It's a broken promise that has hurt us all.
Footnote: Former long-term care minister Katherine Whittred had an undistinguished tenure, but she did complain in writing that the ministry was closing beds without having adequate replacements. She never reported on the response. The junior minister's position for long-term care was eliminated a year ago in a cabinet shuffle.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Nominations posing risks for both parties
VICTORIA - No one was likely sadder than the Liberals to see Steve Orcherton lose his bid for an NDP nomination in Victoria, just as the New Democrats were sorry to see that Cindy Silver couldn't bump off sitting MLA Dan Jarvis.
Both parties know that nominations are being watched as one indication of which party is moving closest to the centre.
The burden is lightest for the Liberals. Their position is defined in voters' minds, and a majority of candidates are known quantities - sitting MLAs running for re-election. As a result, LIberal nomination battles are few and have less significance.
But they're not irrelevant. Media attention has focused - a little excessively - on Silver, and Mary Polak as indicators that the Liberals are shifting to the right on social issues.
Silver has worked for Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada, and is against same-sex marriage. She's seen as a social conservative, and makes many small 'l' liberals nervous about the party's direction.
Her emergence as the lone challenger to any sitting Liberal MLA, in a safe seat, had people wondering whether she had some unofficial party blessing. (Especially because the government was miffed last year when Jarvis said building BC Ferries ships in Germany was a stupid idea.)
Jarvis won the battle by a small margin, with 168 votes to Silver's 138, a turnout that doesn't reflect well on either hopeful's organizational skills.
Polak is known for her role on the Surrey school board that spent $1 million on a legal fight to keep three books depicting same sex couples out of elementary schools. She was also the losing candidate in the Surrey byelection last fall. Now she's jumping boundaries, trying to get the nomination in Langley hoping for a better shot there.
The federal Conservatives showed how many votes could be lost when 'social conservative' candidates are seen as out of touch with mainstream voters. Still, one candidate hardly makes a trend.
The NDP has a more serious problem. Carole James has to convince voters the party has changed. The most concrete evidence will be the candidates who emerge from the nomination process. If they are the same people who were part of the incompetent government that was turfed by the voters in 2001, it will be hard to argue that this is a new NDP.
That's why James is glad Rob Fleming, a Victoria city councillor seen as a moderate, beat Orcherton. The former MLA makes no bones of his strong loyalty to unions, and ran against James for the leadership urging that the party stay on the hard left of B.C.'s political spectrum. Likewise it's good news for James that Helmut Giesbrecht, another New Democrat from the bad old days, lost the nomination battle in Skeena on the weekend.
But James already has candidates who are a liability to the party's overall effort. Harry Lali, a former NDP cabinet minister, a hardliner and fierce Glen Clark loyalist, is already nominated in Yale-Lillooet. Clark's top political advisor Adrian Dix has the nomination in Vancouver Kingsway. The Liberals can point to both as proof the party hasn't changed.
I feel kind of bad to be writing this column. In many ways there would be merit in parties that embraced candidates who shared a few core values but reflected a wide range of views. They could them come together and work our a consensus on policy and action. The wider the debate, the better the ultimate decisions should be.
The alternative risks group-think, with a flock of candidates who share the same ideas, almost always those of the leader.
But the reality - for now - is that parties need to reassure voters that whether they are on the left or the right, they will stay within a broad mainstream. The candidates they nominate will be the critical in providing that reassurance.
Footnote: Former NDP cabinet minister Ted Stevenson has won the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Stevenson's personal reputation means he doesn't carry much baggage from the Clark years. The battle between Stevenson and Liberal Lorne Mayencourt, who won by 4,000 votes in 2001, should be one of the toughest in the province.
Both parties know that nominations are being watched as one indication of which party is moving closest to the centre.
The burden is lightest for the Liberals. Their position is defined in voters' minds, and a majority of candidates are known quantities - sitting MLAs running for re-election. As a result, LIberal nomination battles are few and have less significance.
But they're not irrelevant. Media attention has focused - a little excessively - on Silver, and Mary Polak as indicators that the Liberals are shifting to the right on social issues.
Silver has worked for Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Fellowship of Canada, and is against same-sex marriage. She's seen as a social conservative, and makes many small 'l' liberals nervous about the party's direction.
Her emergence as the lone challenger to any sitting Liberal MLA, in a safe seat, had people wondering whether she had some unofficial party blessing. (Especially because the government was miffed last year when Jarvis said building BC Ferries ships in Germany was a stupid idea.)
Jarvis won the battle by a small margin, with 168 votes to Silver's 138, a turnout that doesn't reflect well on either hopeful's organizational skills.
Polak is known for her role on the Surrey school board that spent $1 million on a legal fight to keep three books depicting same sex couples out of elementary schools. She was also the losing candidate in the Surrey byelection last fall. Now she's jumping boundaries, trying to get the nomination in Langley hoping for a better shot there.
The federal Conservatives showed how many votes could be lost when 'social conservative' candidates are seen as out of touch with mainstream voters. Still, one candidate hardly makes a trend.
The NDP has a more serious problem. Carole James has to convince voters the party has changed. The most concrete evidence will be the candidates who emerge from the nomination process. If they are the same people who were part of the incompetent government that was turfed by the voters in 2001, it will be hard to argue that this is a new NDP.
That's why James is glad Rob Fleming, a Victoria city councillor seen as a moderate, beat Orcherton. The former MLA makes no bones of his strong loyalty to unions, and ran against James for the leadership urging that the party stay on the hard left of B.C.'s political spectrum. Likewise it's good news for James that Helmut Giesbrecht, another New Democrat from the bad old days, lost the nomination battle in Skeena on the weekend.
But James already has candidates who are a liability to the party's overall effort. Harry Lali, a former NDP cabinet minister, a hardliner and fierce Glen Clark loyalist, is already nominated in Yale-Lillooet. Clark's top political advisor Adrian Dix has the nomination in Vancouver Kingsway. The Liberals can point to both as proof the party hasn't changed.
I feel kind of bad to be writing this column. In many ways there would be merit in parties that embraced candidates who shared a few core values but reflected a wide range of views. They could them come together and work our a consensus on policy and action. The wider the debate, the better the ultimate decisions should be.
The alternative risks group-think, with a flock of candidates who share the same ideas, almost always those of the leader.
But the reality - for now - is that parties need to reassure voters that whether they are on the left or the right, they will stay within a broad mainstream. The candidates they nominate will be the critical in providing that reassurance.
Footnote: Former NDP cabinet minister Ted Stevenson has won the nomination in Vancouver-Burrard. Stevenson's personal reputation means he doesn't carry much baggage from the Clark years. The battle between Stevenson and Liberal Lorne Mayencourt, who won by 4,000 votes in 2001, should be one of the toughest in the province.
Film industry hits up government for your money
VICTORIA - Colin Hansen is following a safe rule in dealing with B.C.'s film industry, which once again has its hand out for tax dollars.
When someone wants something from you and demands an immediate answer, it's best to say no, one of my early bosses advised. It's proved to be good advice.
B.C. film companies want a tax break, and say that if they don't get it immediately they'll pull out of the province and head down the road to Ontario or Quebec. The companies already get hefty subsidies from both the provincial and federal governments, which have played a role in helping develop a $1-billion film and TV industry in the province.
But just before Christmas the Ontario government decided to offer incentives to get a bigger share of the business. The Ontario Liberals responded to an industry lobbying effort and increased the money it will pay to film companies working in the province. Quebec quickly followed suit.
And B.C. companies reacted. Give us the same deal within the next couple of weeks or we're gone, said a half-dozen of the larger companies in B.C.
Ultimately it's a business decision, for the companies and for the government. B.C., Ontario and Quebec had been offering similar subsidies. For foreign productions -- TV series and movies -- the governments had been offering a tax credit that effectively reimbursed the companies for 11 per cent of their wage costs. The film industry in Ontario, suffering from the fallout from the SARS panic and the rising Canadian dollar, persuaded the government to raise that credit to 18 per cent. A few days later Quebec upped the ante to 20 per cent.
Governments like to talk about the value of B.C.'s film infrastructure, and the skilled workforce and the great climate and scenic opportunities. We like to think those are the things that makes us Hollywood North.
But the industry has confirmed those aren't the critical factors. The movie industry is chasing subsidies these days. If one province, or Texas or Mexico or Romania, comes up with a better offer, the work can move.
The money is significant. A typical made-in-B.C. movie may have a budget of $20 million, with about $7 million of that local wage costs that are eligible for the subsidy. In B.C., under the current rules, the company would get a $770,000 tax break from the province. In Ontario, the same company would now get an extra $500,000 back from the provincial government. (In both cases, the companies would also get an additional $1.3 million from Ottawa in tax breaks. The B.C. government also provides lots of other help and subsidies to the industry.)
On one hand, the subsidies are obviously galling. A working single parent in Lillooet is being asked to pay higher taxes to subsidize a successful corporation -- and the high-paid workforce -- making movies in Vancouver.
Taxpayers have every right to wonder why the employees in the industry don't take a seven-per-cent pay cut instead of looking to government to come up with the cash to protect their jobs and the companies' profits.
Hansen will probably deliver the tax cuts, either in next month's budget or sooner.
The justification will be that it makes business sense. The film companies say they're willing to send the work to Ontario, claiming that up to half the $1-billion business could be lost.
The government's first task will be to try and judge if the industry is bluffing. Then it will have to calculate the cost of the subsidy, and balance that against the tax revenue that would be lost if the companies follow through on their threats and the spin-off benefits.
And at least for now, the balance will likely come down on the side of the subsidies. Until some other government decides to offer even bigger subsidies to try and attract film companies.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell has oddly decided to thrust himself into the middle of the issue, asking Hansen to set up a meeting with the film industry honchos. It reinforces the impression that he wants to control all the issues, and reduces the province's bargaining ability. Hansen could have said he wants to help, but the boss would only go so far. Campbell can't use that tactic.
When someone wants something from you and demands an immediate answer, it's best to say no, one of my early bosses advised. It's proved to be good advice.
B.C. film companies want a tax break, and say that if they don't get it immediately they'll pull out of the province and head down the road to Ontario or Quebec. The companies already get hefty subsidies from both the provincial and federal governments, which have played a role in helping develop a $1-billion film and TV industry in the province.
But just before Christmas the Ontario government decided to offer incentives to get a bigger share of the business. The Ontario Liberals responded to an industry lobbying effort and increased the money it will pay to film companies working in the province. Quebec quickly followed suit.
And B.C. companies reacted. Give us the same deal within the next couple of weeks or we're gone, said a half-dozen of the larger companies in B.C.
Ultimately it's a business decision, for the companies and for the government. B.C., Ontario and Quebec had been offering similar subsidies. For foreign productions -- TV series and movies -- the governments had been offering a tax credit that effectively reimbursed the companies for 11 per cent of their wage costs. The film industry in Ontario, suffering from the fallout from the SARS panic and the rising Canadian dollar, persuaded the government to raise that credit to 18 per cent. A few days later Quebec upped the ante to 20 per cent.
Governments like to talk about the value of B.C.'s film infrastructure, and the skilled workforce and the great climate and scenic opportunities. We like to think those are the things that makes us Hollywood North.
But the industry has confirmed those aren't the critical factors. The movie industry is chasing subsidies these days. If one province, or Texas or Mexico or Romania, comes up with a better offer, the work can move.
The money is significant. A typical made-in-B.C. movie may have a budget of $20 million, with about $7 million of that local wage costs that are eligible for the subsidy. In B.C., under the current rules, the company would get a $770,000 tax break from the province. In Ontario, the same company would now get an extra $500,000 back from the provincial government. (In both cases, the companies would also get an additional $1.3 million from Ottawa in tax breaks. The B.C. government also provides lots of other help and subsidies to the industry.)
On one hand, the subsidies are obviously galling. A working single parent in Lillooet is being asked to pay higher taxes to subsidize a successful corporation -- and the high-paid workforce -- making movies in Vancouver.
Taxpayers have every right to wonder why the employees in the industry don't take a seven-per-cent pay cut instead of looking to government to come up with the cash to protect their jobs and the companies' profits.
Hansen will probably deliver the tax cuts, either in next month's budget or sooner.
The justification will be that it makes business sense. The film companies say they're willing to send the work to Ontario, claiming that up to half the $1-billion business could be lost.
The government's first task will be to try and judge if the industry is bluffing. Then it will have to calculate the cost of the subsidy, and balance that against the tax revenue that would be lost if the companies follow through on their threats and the spin-off benefits.
And at least for now, the balance will likely come down on the side of the subsidies. Until some other government decides to offer even bigger subsidies to try and attract film companies.
Footnote: Premier Gordon Campbell has oddly decided to thrust himself into the middle of the issue, asking Hansen to set up a meeting with the film industry honchos. It reinforces the impression that he wants to control all the issues, and reduces the province's bargaining ability. Hansen could have said he wants to help, but the boss would only go so far. Campbell can't use that tactic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
