VICTORIA - I’ve never met Terri Schiavo, her husband or parents. She’s 41 now, and has been in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. in a Florida hospital bed.
Through most of that time the woman with a tube in her stomach has been at the centre of a legal tug of war. Should she be left to die, or kept alive? Who knows her best, loves her more? What would she want?
Schiavo’s husband says she always told him that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially under these kind of circumstances. He’s asked the courts to approve ending life support.
Her parents want Schiavo kept alive, arguing that is what she would want.
It’s a terrible situation. But the courts, in 2000, and 2003 and again sveral times this year, heard from everyone involved and decided the feeding tube should be removed. That is what Schaivo would have wanted, given her condition. Barring a miracle, that would mean she would die within two weeks.
I pray I never have to face that kind of decision.
But I also pray that others will have the courage and love to honour my own views about when life has so little meaning that it is no longer worth preserving through heroic medical efforts. When it is time.
Schiavo is not being granted that kind of respect.
As the courts and family wrestled with this difficult decision, the U.S. politicians rushed into action. They knew little about Terri Schiavo, or what she wanted from her life and death. But they were undeterred by their ignorance.
The U.S. Congress rushed to Washington for a weekend session. President George Bush cut short a Texas vacation to sign a bill ordering another legal review of the court’s decision. Everyone involved made their case on CNN, and the extremists grabbed their media moments. Schiavo as an individual was forgotten; she mattered only as a symbol.
It couldn’t happen here, ethics experts maintained.
But it could. Look at Evelyn Martens, who was arrested, tried - and acquitted - for aiding a suicide. The issues are much the same.
Or listen to the public discussions about the Schiavo case. A nice-sounding woman called into the CBC, to offer her view - based on nothing - that Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive.
She went on. Even if Schiavo had specified in advance that she did not want to be kept alive, her wishes should be ignored, the caller said.
Some people believe suffering is part of God’s plan, and should be embraced. Some want every medical measure taken to prolong life. Others have decided where they want to draw the line; where pain or emptiness or loss of meaning outweigh the drive to remain alive.
I’d never presume to make this decision for anyone else. But many people would, here as well as in the U.S.
You have an option. Decisions continuing life support, or undertaking desperate medical interventions, are complex. If the patient is uable to make the decisions - like Schiavo - B.C. doctors are required to turn to family members. But as the Schiavo case shows, that does not always provide clear answers. (And it also places family members in a difficult position.)
You can help help. B.C.'s Representation Agreement Act allows you to make a legally enforceable living will, setting out what kinds of treatment and life support you want, given different medical circumstances. You can also specify who should make the decisions on your behalf - a family member, or perhaps a friend if you wish to spare family the pain. (The Representation Agreement Resource Centre - www.rarc.ca - is a good information starting point. In some cases you may also need a lawyer’s help.)
We’re not keen on contemplating our own deaths. But Schiavo’s plight - and the pain for all involved - shows that it’s important to decide on the way we choose to die, just as we choose the way we live.
Footnote: There’s something quite obscene about the rush by U.S. politicians to capitalize on this case. Thousands die and suffer needlessly every day without attracting their notice. The death of one woman who offers political advantage matters a great deal more, apparently.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
Poll shows Liberals won battle for the middle
VICTORIA - Things are looking brighter for the Liberals.
The latest Ipsos poll found the BC Liberals have opened up a significant lead on the New Democrats. The Liberals have the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, compared with 39 per cent for the NDP.
With the election less than two months away, that's a significant breakthrough. Those kind of poll results suggest a substantial Liberal majority in the May election, with about 50 Liberal MLAs facing some 29 New Democrats.
The results aren't shocking. Voters dumped all over the New Democrats in 2001, and a quick rehabilitation looked unlikely.
But only a year ago the NDP was at 42 per cent support, slightly ahead of the Liberals at 39 per cent. Since then, the polls have found the two parties in a virtual dead heat, until the Liberals pulled ahead.
What's changed? One factor is simply the nearness of the election date. Voters angry at the Liberals who said they would vote New Democrat are now taking a harder look at both parties, and coming down on the side of Campbell and company.
The Liberals themselves have also changed. A steady stream of press releases have announced and reannounced money for health care, education and social services, as the Liberals try to look more like Santa and less like the Grinch. They want voters to see them as a party that's moved to the middle of the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, the New Democrats, perhaps heartened by their poll results over the last year, haven't made the same move. The party's election platform remains under wraps until the campaign starts. The ties to unions, which concern many potential moderate supporters, haven't been loosened. And the party has nominated candidates - like Harry Lali, Erda Walsh and Adrian Dix - who are symbols of the last bad government.
That's looking like a mistake. A year ago, about 20 per cent of voters were undecided or didn't offer an opinion when Ipsos called. That's fallen to 13 per cent in the current poll, and it appears most of the people who formed an opinion have opted to support the Liberals.
New Democrats ae still taking satisfaction in their progress since the last election. In 2001, the party took 22 per cent of the popular vote, as even traditional NDP supporters stayed home or voted for another party.
Getting back up to about 40 per cent is a significant achievement. That level means the party has won back the faithful, and convinced some swing voters that it could form a credible government.
But the New Democrats - despite a lot of public concern about the Campbell Liberals - haven’t come close to the level of support that would allow them to form government.
Maybe climbing out of the political graveyard is enough for many New Democrats this time around. Even that didn’t look like a sure thing barely four years ago.
Still, the poll may be marked as an early indicator of a new era of political stability in B.C. The Liberals, despite alienating a huge chunk of the public, have established a broad enough base to ensure re-election.
And the New Democrats, despite the kind of crisis that encourages cruel self-evaluation, have not done much to win the critical support of swing voters, perhaps counting too much on people angry at the Liberals, and not enough on people inspired by the NDP.
The poll found voters were evenly divided on whether the Liberals have done a good job. But only 13 per cent of the public strongly approve of the Campbell government’s record. More than one-third offer “moderate approval.” Those are potential swing voters. (The resuts are still good news for the Liberals. Their approval rating has jumped in the last six months.)
There are still almost two months until election day, and potential pitfalls for both parties.
But the latest Ipsos poll suggests the Liberals - if they stay in the middle - are on track for a second majority.
Footnote: The poll showed a divided province. In the Lower Mainland - representing more than half the seats - the Liberals are at 51 per cent and the NDP at 37. Across the rest of the province the parties are tied. The NDP has meaningful leads on the Island and Coast and in the southern Interior.
The latest Ipsos poll found the BC Liberals have opened up a significant lead on the New Democrats. The Liberals have the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, compared with 39 per cent for the NDP.
With the election less than two months away, that's a significant breakthrough. Those kind of poll results suggest a substantial Liberal majority in the May election, with about 50 Liberal MLAs facing some 29 New Democrats.
The results aren't shocking. Voters dumped all over the New Democrats in 2001, and a quick rehabilitation looked unlikely.
But only a year ago the NDP was at 42 per cent support, slightly ahead of the Liberals at 39 per cent. Since then, the polls have found the two parties in a virtual dead heat, until the Liberals pulled ahead.
What's changed? One factor is simply the nearness of the election date. Voters angry at the Liberals who said they would vote New Democrat are now taking a harder look at both parties, and coming down on the side of Campbell and company.
The Liberals themselves have also changed. A steady stream of press releases have announced and reannounced money for health care, education and social services, as the Liberals try to look more like Santa and less like the Grinch. They want voters to see them as a party that's moved to the middle of the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, the New Democrats, perhaps heartened by their poll results over the last year, haven't made the same move. The party's election platform remains under wraps until the campaign starts. The ties to unions, which concern many potential moderate supporters, haven't been loosened. And the party has nominated candidates - like Harry Lali, Erda Walsh and Adrian Dix - who are symbols of the last bad government.
That's looking like a mistake. A year ago, about 20 per cent of voters were undecided or didn't offer an opinion when Ipsos called. That's fallen to 13 per cent in the current poll, and it appears most of the people who formed an opinion have opted to support the Liberals.
New Democrats ae still taking satisfaction in their progress since the last election. In 2001, the party took 22 per cent of the popular vote, as even traditional NDP supporters stayed home or voted for another party.
Getting back up to about 40 per cent is a significant achievement. That level means the party has won back the faithful, and convinced some swing voters that it could form a credible government.
But the New Democrats - despite a lot of public concern about the Campbell Liberals - haven’t come close to the level of support that would allow them to form government.
Maybe climbing out of the political graveyard is enough for many New Democrats this time around. Even that didn’t look like a sure thing barely four years ago.
Still, the poll may be marked as an early indicator of a new era of political stability in B.C. The Liberals, despite alienating a huge chunk of the public, have established a broad enough base to ensure re-election.
And the New Democrats, despite the kind of crisis that encourages cruel self-evaluation, have not done much to win the critical support of swing voters, perhaps counting too much on people angry at the Liberals, and not enough on people inspired by the NDP.
The poll found voters were evenly divided on whether the Liberals have done a good job. But only 13 per cent of the public strongly approve of the Campbell government’s record. More than one-third offer “moderate approval.” Those are potential swing voters. (The resuts are still good news for the Liberals. Their approval rating has jumped in the last six months.)
There are still almost two months until election day, and potential pitfalls for both parties.
But the latest Ipsos poll suggests the Liberals - if they stay in the middle - are on track for a second majority.
Footnote: The poll showed a divided province. In the Lower Mainland - representing more than half the seats - the Liberals are at 51 per cent and the NDP at 37. Across the rest of the province the parties are tied. The NDP has meaningful leads on the Island and Coast and in the southern Interior.
Ottawa refuses to protect children from sexual predators
VICTORIA - What is wrong with the federal government, that it is so unwilling to take ons emall, important step to protect children from sexual predators?
The excuses keep changing, as the federal Liberals twist and turn to avoid making one legal change that would save young girls from sexual exploitation.
For years people have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent, so grown men can’t claim that they have the right to have sex with 14-year-old girls.
And for years, Ottawa has come up with nothing but increasingly lame excuses.
We won’t let a 14-year-old drink, or drive a car, or vote. The reason is that they are children, without the maturity or judgment to consistently make sound decisions.
But Canada does think it’s fine for a 14-year-old to have sex with a man four times her age, and that it is a decision she’s fully capable of making. At an age when she should be thinking about her Grade 8 graduation, a girl is fair game for any man who can persuade her she’s in love, or dazzle her with praise and promises
Provinces, opposition parties, parents and police have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent to 16 for at least nine years. With no success.
I’ve been writing about the issue for at least five years, and have watched - in genuine bafflement - the federal Liberals evade their responsibility.
Former justice minister Martin Cauchon said there wasn’t a clear provincial consensus on the change, so the government wouldn’t act. That was after every province but Saskatchewan and Quebec had supported raising the age to 16. The Liberals also said they were protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Now the story has changed, and the supposed defence for inaction is downright insulting. Current Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says changing the age of consent could mean thousands of teenagers could be arrested each year for consensual sex with each other. Instead of protecting children, a new law would victimize them, says the justice minister.
It is patent rubbish. The U.S., Britain, Australia - Thailand, even - have higher ages of consent, without the problems Cotler predicts. Sex between individuals within two or three years of each other in age is exempted from prosecution, avoiding the issue entirely.
Yes, teens are going to be sexually active, no matter what parents or others think about their judgment. A survey of B.C. teens found nine per cent of 13-year-old girls and 14 per cent of boys had already had sex. That’s worrying, and points to other needs, like early, detailed sex education. But it’s no excuse for government inaction on the issue of adult predators.
Police have the common sense to recognize that if they find two 15-year-olds having sex in the park, that’s not a criminal matter. If they find a 15-year-old girl having sex with a 50-year-old man in a parked car, that likely is.
Changing the law would make a huge difference, giving police and parents a new tool to fight against adults who target children for sex or profit.
Parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter, an option that does not now exist.
Pimps and johns would both have to factor one more risk into the equation when they put young girls to work, or hired them for sex.
And police would have a reason to intervene before children were lost.
The age of consent was lowered from 18 almost two decades ago, a move that has proved damaging to children’s best interests. The solution is obvious and widely supported.
The federal government’s stubborn refusal to protect children is shameful.
Footnote: The age of consent in Canada was only lowered from 18 in 1987. The move to 14 was clearly too far, and the result has been increased exploitation of children. Liberal MPs need to hear directly from Canadians who think it’s wrong for men to have sex with children.
w
The excuses keep changing, as the federal Liberals twist and turn to avoid making one legal change that would save young girls from sexual exploitation.
For years people have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent, so grown men can’t claim that they have the right to have sex with 14-year-old girls.
And for years, Ottawa has come up with nothing but increasingly lame excuses.
We won’t let a 14-year-old drink, or drive a car, or vote. The reason is that they are children, without the maturity or judgment to consistently make sound decisions.
But Canada does think it’s fine for a 14-year-old to have sex with a man four times her age, and that it is a decision she’s fully capable of making. At an age when she should be thinking about her Grade 8 graduation, a girl is fair game for any man who can persuade her she’s in love, or dazzle her with praise and promises
Provinces, opposition parties, parents and police have been pleading with the federal government to raise the age of consent to 16 for at least nine years. With no success.
I’ve been writing about the issue for at least five years, and have watched - in genuine bafflement - the federal Liberals evade their responsibility.
Former justice minister Martin Cauchon said there wasn’t a clear provincial consensus on the change, so the government wouldn’t act. That was after every province but Saskatchewan and Quebec had supported raising the age to 16. The Liberals also said they were protecting cultural or ethnic groups with "different sexual mores," without identifying the cultures that have a valued tradition of sex with children, or why that is worth protecting.
Now the story has changed, and the supposed defence for inaction is downright insulting. Current Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says changing the age of consent could mean thousands of teenagers could be arrested each year for consensual sex with each other. Instead of protecting children, a new law would victimize them, says the justice minister.
It is patent rubbish. The U.S., Britain, Australia - Thailand, even - have higher ages of consent, without the problems Cotler predicts. Sex between individuals within two or three years of each other in age is exempted from prosecution, avoiding the issue entirely.
Yes, teens are going to be sexually active, no matter what parents or others think about their judgment. A survey of B.C. teens found nine per cent of 13-year-old girls and 14 per cent of boys had already had sex. That’s worrying, and points to other needs, like early, detailed sex education. But it’s no excuse for government inaction on the issue of adult predators.
Police have the common sense to recognize that if they find two 15-year-olds having sex in the park, that’s not a criminal matter. If they find a 15-year-old girl having sex with a 50-year-old man in a parked car, that likely is.
Changing the law would make a huge difference, giving police and parents a new tool to fight against adults who target children for sex or profit.
Parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter, an option that does not now exist.
Pimps and johns would both have to factor one more risk into the equation when they put young girls to work, or hired them for sex.
And police would have a reason to intervene before children were lost.
The age of consent was lowered from 18 almost two decades ago, a move that has proved damaging to children’s best interests. The solution is obvious and widely supported.
The federal government’s stubborn refusal to protect children is shameful.
Footnote: The age of consent in Canada was only lowered from 18 in 1987. The move to 14 was clearly too far, and the result has been increased exploitation of children. Liberal MPs need to hear directly from Canadians who think it’s wrong for men to have sex with children.
w
Monday, March 14, 2005
Why you should vote ‘yes’in May’s STV referendum
VICTORIA - Here's two quick, satisfying reasons for voting yes in the referendum on a new way of electing MLAs.
First, the NDP and Liberal party types are against the change, a sign that it would benefit people interested in good government, not party politics.
Second, ask yourself one simple question. Could the new single-transferable-vote system be any worse than the current model?
British Columbians get to vote May 17 on whether to switch to a new way of electing MLAs. If enough of us say yes - 60 per cent overall, and a majority in 60 per cent of ridings - the new system will be in place for the 2009 vote.
If you're happy with the current system, you can quit reading. But I can't imagine how you could be. Barely half the eligible voters cast ballots in the 2001 election. Our legislature is wildy unrepresentative - the 197,000 people who voted Green in 2001 have no one to speak for them. Voters complain that their MLAs seem more interested in serving their party than the communities that elected them. Debate is frequently ugly and mindlessly partisan. And B.C. has swung back and forth between two polarized parties for 30 years.
It seems incredible that anyone could argue that the current system is working so well that we shouldn't even consider whether there's a better way.
The question then becomes whether the single-transferable-vote system, recommended by a citizens' assembly of 160 average citizens, offers a better alternative.
Under the new system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on their population.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, condemning the rest to the rubbish heap. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference. When the votes are counted, the results reflect the rankings. (I explained the method in a previous column; it's at www.willcocks.blogspot.com.)
Why is that better?
Right now, you get one choice. If you care about which party forms government, then that drives your vote, and the candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance of being elected. Nomination contests - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under the new system, you have a number of choices. In a four-candidate riding, a Liberal supporter might rank three of the party's candidates as the 1, 2 and 3 choices. But if he admired an individual from another party, or felt its voice should be heard, that person might become his fourth choice. Your first choice might be for a probably doomed candidate, because you know your other choices will still count.
It should result in a diverse, representative legislature.
But that's not the only effect. Remember, voters will also rank candidates from the same party, and those rankings will determine who is elected. People who want to vote NDP, for example, now take whatever candidate the party offers. Under the new system party candidates will compete with each other for your support.
The ones who show the greatest understanding of local issues, the highest level of competence - and the willignness to work for local voters, and not the party - will be elected.
A more representative legislature, increased attention to voters' needs and less to the parties' needs, more power for MLAs, less for the party leader - those are pretty good selling points.
And then there's the legislature itself. It would be more diverse, in terms of the individuals involved and the number of parties represented. MLAs would have to be focused on the needs of their communities, and not just their party, if they hoped to be re-elected, and would be encouraged to speak out in support of local interests.
It's alarming to leap into something new (although STV is already proven in other jurisdictions).
But our current system serves us badly. This is a rare chance to try a positive change.
Footnote: More representative legislatures might mean more minority governments. But there's no evidence to suggest any risk of instability, especially in B.C. where the two main parties have strong core support. For more information, see the government information site at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info, or call 1-800-668-2800.
First, the NDP and Liberal party types are against the change, a sign that it would benefit people interested in good government, not party politics.
Second, ask yourself one simple question. Could the new single-transferable-vote system be any worse than the current model?
British Columbians get to vote May 17 on whether to switch to a new way of electing MLAs. If enough of us say yes - 60 per cent overall, and a majority in 60 per cent of ridings - the new system will be in place for the 2009 vote.
If you're happy with the current system, you can quit reading. But I can't imagine how you could be. Barely half the eligible voters cast ballots in the 2001 election. Our legislature is wildy unrepresentative - the 197,000 people who voted Green in 2001 have no one to speak for them. Voters complain that their MLAs seem more interested in serving their party than the communities that elected them. Debate is frequently ugly and mindlessly partisan. And B.C. has swung back and forth between two polarized parties for 30 years.
It seems incredible that anyone could argue that the current system is working so well that we shouldn't even consider whether there's a better way.
The question then becomes whether the single-transferable-vote system, recommended by a citizens' assembly of 160 average citizens, offers a better alternative.
Under the new system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on their population.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, condemning the rest to the rubbish heap. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference. When the votes are counted, the results reflect the rankings. (I explained the method in a previous column; it's at www.willcocks.blogspot.com.)
Why is that better?
Right now, you get one choice. If you care about which party forms government, then that drives your vote, and the candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance of being elected. Nomination contests - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under the new system, you have a number of choices. In a four-candidate riding, a Liberal supporter might rank three of the party's candidates as the 1, 2 and 3 choices. But if he admired an individual from another party, or felt its voice should be heard, that person might become his fourth choice. Your first choice might be for a probably doomed candidate, because you know your other choices will still count.
It should result in a diverse, representative legislature.
But that's not the only effect. Remember, voters will also rank candidates from the same party, and those rankings will determine who is elected. People who want to vote NDP, for example, now take whatever candidate the party offers. Under the new system party candidates will compete with each other for your support.
The ones who show the greatest understanding of local issues, the highest level of competence - and the willignness to work for local voters, and not the party - will be elected.
A more representative legislature, increased attention to voters' needs and less to the parties' needs, more power for MLAs, less for the party leader - those are pretty good selling points.
And then there's the legislature itself. It would be more diverse, in terms of the individuals involved and the number of parties represented. MLAs would have to be focused on the needs of their communities, and not just their party, if they hoped to be re-elected, and would be encouraged to speak out in support of local interests.
It's alarming to leap into something new (although STV is already proven in other jurisdictions).
But our current system serves us badly. This is a rare chance to try a positive change.
Footnote: More representative legislatures might mean more minority governments. But there's no evidence to suggest any risk of instability, especially in B.C. where the two main parties have strong core support. For more information, see the government information site at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info, or call 1-800-668-2800.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Everything you need to know about the STV referendum
VICTORIA - It would be lame to vote against a new way of electing MLAs just because you couldn’t understand it.
So here, in a few hundred words, is how the single-transferable-vote system works. The issue of whether it’s a good change or not - and I think it would be - can wait for another column.
First, the number of MLAs in thelegislature stays the same at 79. No change there.
But the number of ridings would fall to somewhere around 20 larger ridings. Each riding would be represented by two to seven MLAs. Two current sparsely populated northern ridings with 65,000 people, like Skeena and North Coast, might be combined into a riding with two MLAs. Four urban ridings, with 130,000 people, might be combined into a new riding with four MLAs.
Clear enough so far, right?
So the election rolls around.
Each party can nominate any number of candidates, up to the number of seats in a riding.
So in a four-seat riding, expect the Liberals and NDP to nominate four candidates. But the Greens might decide they just want to have one candidate run, or independents may emerge.
On election day you stride into the polling booth.
Al the candidates names are on the ballot - four Liberals, four New Democrats, Greens, Dr BCers, Marijuana Party, Libertarian.
But you don’t have to mark an ‘X’ beside your single choice, consigning all the others to irrelevance. Instead you rank them - a 1 beside your first choice, 2 beside your next favorite, and so on. You can stop anytime. If you think one candidate is worthy and the rest are scoundrels, you can place a 1 beside her name and leave. If you want the maximum impact, you can rank everyone on the ballot. You can rank Liberal candidates 1,2,3 and 4, if the party is the most important factor in your decision; you can mix and match if you admire certain individuals, or want broader representation in the legislature.
The polls close. And things do become a little more complicated than the current system when it’s time to count the ballots. Right now, whoever gets the most votes wins.
The aim in the STV system is to ensure more faithful representation. The Green Party was supported by one in every eight people who voted in 2001; they ended up with no one speaking for them in the legislature. Many people believe it’s a problem for democracy when some voters feel silenced by the system.
Under the new system there’s an accepted mathematical formula for determining the number of votes needed to be elected.
Elections BC counts the ballots once, and anyone who has that number of first-place choices is elected. Simple.
But all the riding’s seats won’t be filled, so there’s a second count. The candidate who with the lowest support is dropped, but those ballots aren’t tossed away. Now Elections BC counts them again, this time looking at the second choice of those voters
In the same way, the ballots of people whose first choice was elected aren’t tossed, but are counted again. (Remember, four MLAs are being elected and everyone’s preference should be reflected in all four choices.)
OK, this next bit is a bit headache inducing. It would be unfair simply to move to the second choices of all those people. Their views have already been reflected in the legislature with the first canidate elected. So the next count includes their second choices, but on a discounted basis. If Joe Bloggs got twice as many first place votes as he needed to be elected, then all the second place choices of his supporters are counted, but at half their raw value, reflecting the success his supporters have already had in electing him as their MLA.
And so the process continues, until four MLAs have been elected. Each has been the first, or second,or third choice of enough people to emerge as their representative.
And that is how the system would work.
Footnote: It’s still a bit head-spinning, I know. For more detail, if that is your interest, visit www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. Of if you are simply seeking comfort, know that Ireland and other jursidictions have successfully used the system for decades. If you have issues, email me.
So here, in a few hundred words, is how the single-transferable-vote system works. The issue of whether it’s a good change or not - and I think it would be - can wait for another column.
First, the number of MLAs in thelegislature stays the same at 79. No change there.
But the number of ridings would fall to somewhere around 20 larger ridings. Each riding would be represented by two to seven MLAs. Two current sparsely populated northern ridings with 65,000 people, like Skeena and North Coast, might be combined into a riding with two MLAs. Four urban ridings, with 130,000 people, might be combined into a new riding with four MLAs.
Clear enough so far, right?
So the election rolls around.
Each party can nominate any number of candidates, up to the number of seats in a riding.
So in a four-seat riding, expect the Liberals and NDP to nominate four candidates. But the Greens might decide they just want to have one candidate run, or independents may emerge.
On election day you stride into the polling booth.
Al the candidates names are on the ballot - four Liberals, four New Democrats, Greens, Dr BCers, Marijuana Party, Libertarian.
But you don’t have to mark an ‘X’ beside your single choice, consigning all the others to irrelevance. Instead you rank them - a 1 beside your first choice, 2 beside your next favorite, and so on. You can stop anytime. If you think one candidate is worthy and the rest are scoundrels, you can place a 1 beside her name and leave. If you want the maximum impact, you can rank everyone on the ballot. You can rank Liberal candidates 1,2,3 and 4, if the party is the most important factor in your decision; you can mix and match if you admire certain individuals, or want broader representation in the legislature.
The polls close. And things do become a little more complicated than the current system when it’s time to count the ballots. Right now, whoever gets the most votes wins.
The aim in the STV system is to ensure more faithful representation. The Green Party was supported by one in every eight people who voted in 2001; they ended up with no one speaking for them in the legislature. Many people believe it’s a problem for democracy when some voters feel silenced by the system.
Under the new system there’s an accepted mathematical formula for determining the number of votes needed to be elected.
Elections BC counts the ballots once, and anyone who has that number of first-place choices is elected. Simple.
But all the riding’s seats won’t be filled, so there’s a second count. The candidate who with the lowest support is dropped, but those ballots aren’t tossed away. Now Elections BC counts them again, this time looking at the second choice of those voters
In the same way, the ballots of people whose first choice was elected aren’t tossed, but are counted again. (Remember, four MLAs are being elected and everyone’s preference should be reflected in all four choices.)
OK, this next bit is a bit headache inducing. It would be unfair simply to move to the second choices of all those people. Their views have already been reflected in the legislature with the first canidate elected. So the next count includes their second choices, but on a discounted basis. If Joe Bloggs got twice as many first place votes as he needed to be elected, then all the second place choices of his supporters are counted, but at half their raw value, reflecting the success his supporters have already had in electing him as their MLA.
And so the process continues, until four MLAs have been elected. Each has been the first, or second,or third choice of enough people to emerge as their representative.
And that is how the system would work.
Footnote: It’s still a bit head-spinning, I know. For more detail, if that is your interest, visit www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. Of if you are simply seeking comfort, know that Ireland and other jursidictions have successfully used the system for decades. If you have issues, email me.
BC missed great chance to create pine beetle fund
VICTORIA - The B.C. government had a great opportunity to help communities facing hard times because of the pine beetle infestation.
But it let the big chance slip away.
The Liberals’ pre-election budget did have some significant measures to help deal with the problem over the next few years.
But there was an extraordinary chance to do something much more significant, and lasting. As the Liberals put together the budget, they realized the province was on track to a surplus that could top $2.8 billion in the current fiscal year.
That’s a huge pool of money. Some of the surplus is the result of one-time factors, so care had to be taken in avoiding spending commitments that might not be supportable in the future.
But the opportunity for one-time investments was enormous, in health care, economic development - or a program to help forest communities cope with the coming crisis.
Instead, the government opted to use more than 80 per cent of the money to pay down the debt. About $2.3 billion will go off to the lenders; $450 million will go to meeting today’s needs in the province.
The forest ministry got $112 million extra out of the surplus. But $50 million of that, already announced, will go to help contractors and workers hurt by the province’s industry restructuring plan and tenure takebacks. Another $50 million will go to the big forest companies, because it’s costing more to compensate them than expected. That leaves $12 million for enhanced reforestation.
There’s another $89 million for reforestation in the plans for the next three years.
That’s all welcome.
But what a missed chance to take some of that surplus - say $300 million - and set up a special fund to provide targeted aid to those communities.
Everyone agrees that forest communites across the province will face tremendous challenges. The pine beetles are killing trees today, but that’s not having any significant negative economic impact. The trees still retain their commercial value for five to 10 years.
But in about 15 years, those treees - 80 per cent of the lodgepole pine in the province - will be dead and worthless. The next generation of trees, even with aggressive reforestation, won’t be ready for harvest for 20 more years. Communities will see the annual allowable cut reduced by up to 40 per cent for decades. Mills will close, jobs will be lost, and the face of communities will change.
Take the Quesnel area. The timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About three-quarters of the 12,000 jobs in the area are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of 300,000 lost jobs in the Lower Mainland.
There is other money in the budget which will help the communities. Mining and tourism get more support, and there are transportation and other infrastructure programs.
But those are province-wide programs. They don’t target communities facing the specific problems caused by the pine beetle infestation.
There are no easy answers. Even the current challenge of getting the wood harvested before it loses its value is proving difficult.
But both the Liberals and the NDP have agreed that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could improve infrastructure, offer retraining or promote tourism. And they could establish just how bad the situation will be, to allow proper planning by families, and by communities.
There’s still a chance for the legacy fund. But this year’s big surplus offered a great opportunity to providep money for the communities that will be affected. Instead, 80 per cent of the surplus went to paying down the debt, a response out of step with the priorities of most British Columbians.
The government had the chance to take a balanced approach, paying down debt and supporting forest communities facing the pine beetle crisis.
It missed an opportunity.
Footnote: One reason the province hesitated is that it wants a significant contribution from the federal government, and feared that Ottawa would back aay if B.C. seemed to be handling the problem on its own. The federal budget didn’t include any pine beetle funding. Industry Minister David Emerson, ex-Canfor CEO, has the federal responsibility.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
But it let the big chance slip away.
The Liberals’ pre-election budget did have some significant measures to help deal with the problem over the next few years.
But there was an extraordinary chance to do something much more significant, and lasting. As the Liberals put together the budget, they realized the province was on track to a surplus that could top $2.8 billion in the current fiscal year.
That’s a huge pool of money. Some of the surplus is the result of one-time factors, so care had to be taken in avoiding spending commitments that might not be supportable in the future.
But the opportunity for one-time investments was enormous, in health care, economic development - or a program to help forest communities cope with the coming crisis.
Instead, the government opted to use more than 80 per cent of the money to pay down the debt. About $2.3 billion will go off to the lenders; $450 million will go to meeting today’s needs in the province.
The forest ministry got $112 million extra out of the surplus. But $50 million of that, already announced, will go to help contractors and workers hurt by the province’s industry restructuring plan and tenure takebacks. Another $50 million will go to the big forest companies, because it’s costing more to compensate them than expected. That leaves $12 million for enhanced reforestation.
There’s another $89 million for reforestation in the plans for the next three years.
That’s all welcome.
But what a missed chance to take some of that surplus - say $300 million - and set up a special fund to provide targeted aid to those communities.
Everyone agrees that forest communites across the province will face tremendous challenges. The pine beetles are killing trees today, but that’s not having any significant negative economic impact. The trees still retain their commercial value for five to 10 years.
But in about 15 years, those treees - 80 per cent of the lodgepole pine in the province - will be dead and worthless. The next generation of trees, even with aggressive reforestation, won’t be ready for harvest for 20 more years. Communities will see the annual allowable cut reduced by up to 40 per cent for decades. Mills will close, jobs will be lost, and the face of communities will change.
Take the Quesnel area. The timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About three-quarters of the 12,000 jobs in the area are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of 300,000 lost jobs in the Lower Mainland.
There is other money in the budget which will help the communities. Mining and tourism get more support, and there are transportation and other infrastructure programs.
But those are province-wide programs. They don’t target communities facing the specific problems caused by the pine beetle infestation.
There are no easy answers. Even the current challenge of getting the wood harvested before it loses its value is proving difficult.
But both the Liberals and the NDP have agreed that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could improve infrastructure, offer retraining or promote tourism. And they could establish just how bad the situation will be, to allow proper planning by families, and by communities.
There’s still a chance for the legacy fund. But this year’s big surplus offered a great opportunity to providep money for the communities that will be affected. Instead, 80 per cent of the surplus went to paying down the debt, a response out of step with the priorities of most British Columbians.
The government had the chance to take a balanced approach, paying down debt and supporting forest communities facing the pine beetle crisis.
It missed an opportunity.
Footnote: One reason the province hesitated is that it wants a significant contribution from the federal government, and feared that Ottawa would back aay if B.C. seemed to be handling the problem on its own. The federal budget didn’t include any pine beetle funding. Industry Minister David Emerson, ex-Canfor CEO, has the federal responsibility.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Thursday, March 03, 2005
A U.S. wine boycott, weird answers and bashing Baucus
VICTORIA - Notes from the front: A U.S. wine boycott, weirdness in the house and that pesky Montana Senator Max Baucus.
Forest Minister Mike de Jong’s suggestion that B.C. liquor stores stop selling American wine as one way of fighting back in the softwood dispute makes sense.
De Jong sounded discouraged after a day of Washington meetings with U.S. politicians revealed that the softwood dispute isn’t on their radar screen.
It’s not that they’ve decided U.S. lumber producers are right. The whole thing is just a non-issue for them. it doesn’t matter politically, and there’s no reason for them to pay attention.
Maybe Canada has done a lousy job of pressing the issue. But so far American politicians have no reason to care whether Canadian lumber exports are being blocked. (Canada has funded a lobby group to push the idea that the duties are pushing up U.S. housing costs. It’s hasn’t worked.)
Canada is finally raising the threat of retaliation, asking the WTO for permission to impose $4 billion in retaliatory duties on U.S. imports. But that process is slow - Canadian companies get a chance to argue against any duties that will hurt their businesses - and could take a year. Given the U.S. perception that Ottawa has trouble actually making decisions, it’s a distant threat.
But telling the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying U.S. wine is a simple, quick response. American producers - mostly Californian, but some in Washington and Oregon, would lose about $60 million a year in sales.
That’s not much. But it would be enough to get their attention. And if B.C. effectively explained the reasons for the decision, U.S. producers would be on the phone to their lobbyists and politicians to get this fixed.
This dispute is ultimately about political pressure. The U.S. lumber industry has a big incentive to pressure politicians to keep the duties in place. There’s no pressure coming from Americans who want them lifted.
Replacing some of that Washington State chardonnay on liquor store shelves with a nice Chilean white would be a small step towards creating that pressure.
The legislature is a mysterious place. The NDP used Question Period to ask Sustainable Respurces Minister George Abbott about a report to cabinet from the BC Cattlemen’s Association. The report, dated Feb. 24, complained the cattle industry has lost ground in terms of acccess to Crown land. It blamed the government for putting the forest industry ahead of other users, said staff cuts and poor communication have meant issues aren’t addressed and complained that the government has shut down consultation with the industry on critical issues.
Abbott responded, sort of, slagging the NDP record and offering up some general lines about the importance of the catle industry, tossing in a puzzling reference to the pine beetle. Outside the legislature, his answers also seemed a little off the mark.
Finally, light shone. Have you seen the report to cabinet, the minister was asked? Well, no, he said.
Then why not say that in the house, and promise to get an answer?
“I think there’s a reason why it’s called Question Period, and I wanted to give a very good answer to the question that they provided,” Abbott said. With or without any idea of the ranchers’ concerns.
Things got a bit rude, but Montana Senator Max ‘Blame Canada’ Baucus earned his rough ride when he showed up in Fernie as part of his campaign against a potential coal mine near the U.S. border. MLA Bill Bennett led the charge; New Democrats quickly said they don’t like Baucus either.
Dialogue is always welcome. But Baucus has led the fight to close the border to softwood and Canadian cattle, and never found it necessary to come up here to get any information until it suited him to grandstand on the coal issue. He deserved to hear how angry many British Columbians are with his position.
Footnote: De Jong was enthusiastic about his meeting with new ambassador Frank McKenna, in the former New Brunswick premier’s first day on the job. McKenna understands the issue, and politics. He has already cleverly - though dubiously - linked Canada’s rejection of the U.S. missile defence plan to anger over the softwood dispute.
Forest Minister Mike de Jong’s suggestion that B.C. liquor stores stop selling American wine as one way of fighting back in the softwood dispute makes sense.
De Jong sounded discouraged after a day of Washington meetings with U.S. politicians revealed that the softwood dispute isn’t on their radar screen.
It’s not that they’ve decided U.S. lumber producers are right. The whole thing is just a non-issue for them. it doesn’t matter politically, and there’s no reason for them to pay attention.
Maybe Canada has done a lousy job of pressing the issue. But so far American politicians have no reason to care whether Canadian lumber exports are being blocked. (Canada has funded a lobby group to push the idea that the duties are pushing up U.S. housing costs. It’s hasn’t worked.)
Canada is finally raising the threat of retaliation, asking the WTO for permission to impose $4 billion in retaliatory duties on U.S. imports. But that process is slow - Canadian companies get a chance to argue against any duties that will hurt their businesses - and could take a year. Given the U.S. perception that Ottawa has trouble actually making decisions, it’s a distant threat.
But telling the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying U.S. wine is a simple, quick response. American producers - mostly Californian, but some in Washington and Oregon, would lose about $60 million a year in sales.
That’s not much. But it would be enough to get their attention. And if B.C. effectively explained the reasons for the decision, U.S. producers would be on the phone to their lobbyists and politicians to get this fixed.
This dispute is ultimately about political pressure. The U.S. lumber industry has a big incentive to pressure politicians to keep the duties in place. There’s no pressure coming from Americans who want them lifted.
Replacing some of that Washington State chardonnay on liquor store shelves with a nice Chilean white would be a small step towards creating that pressure.
The legislature is a mysterious place. The NDP used Question Period to ask Sustainable Respurces Minister George Abbott about a report to cabinet from the BC Cattlemen’s Association. The report, dated Feb. 24, complained the cattle industry has lost ground in terms of acccess to Crown land. It blamed the government for putting the forest industry ahead of other users, said staff cuts and poor communication have meant issues aren’t addressed and complained that the government has shut down consultation with the industry on critical issues.
Abbott responded, sort of, slagging the NDP record and offering up some general lines about the importance of the catle industry, tossing in a puzzling reference to the pine beetle. Outside the legislature, his answers also seemed a little off the mark.
Finally, light shone. Have you seen the report to cabinet, the minister was asked? Well, no, he said.
Then why not say that in the house, and promise to get an answer?
“I think there’s a reason why it’s called Question Period, and I wanted to give a very good answer to the question that they provided,” Abbott said. With or without any idea of the ranchers’ concerns.
Things got a bit rude, but Montana Senator Max ‘Blame Canada’ Baucus earned his rough ride when he showed up in Fernie as part of his campaign against a potential coal mine near the U.S. border. MLA Bill Bennett led the charge; New Democrats quickly said they don’t like Baucus either.
Dialogue is always welcome. But Baucus has led the fight to close the border to softwood and Canadian cattle, and never found it necessary to come up here to get any information until it suited him to grandstand on the coal issue. He deserved to hear how angry many British Columbians are with his position.
Footnote: De Jong was enthusiastic about his meeting with new ambassador Frank McKenna, in the former New Brunswick premier’s first day on the job. McKenna understands the issue, and politics. He has already cleverly - though dubiously - linked Canada’s rejection of the U.S. missile defence plan to anger over the softwood dispute.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Nothing wrong with teachers' union ads, but they may backfire
VICTORIA - It’s hard to share Liberal outrage that the BC Teachers’ Federation dared to use children in an television ad slagging the Liberals’ education record.
Backbencher Lorne Mayencourt leapt to his feet in Question Period this week, voice raised in indignation at the ads (which he hadn’t seen).
"Carole James and the BCTF have weaseled their way into our school system and are shamelessly exploiting nine-year-old children in their efforts to launch an American-style negative campaign," Mayencourt raged.
The union kicked off their current ad campaign with a commercial during the Oscars that gave Gordon Campbell an award for most devastating performance for closing schools and doubling post-secondary tuition.
The new ad, which had Mayencourt so worked up, uses real students and highlights their concerns about the school system under the Liberals. There’s a kindergarten student who rides the bus because a local school closed, a Langley student who says he no longer has special needs support, a Nanaimo student who says learning is difficult in a class of 35 children You get the idea.
The claim that the BCTF is exploiting children is a bit rich. The premier and education minister - like politicians everywhere - are always popping into schools when they need a good photo op for a new announcement. Nothing says caring like a photo showing you reading to a class of fresh-faced eight-year-olds.
And there’s nothing wrong with the visits, despite what Mayencourt says about politicians weasling their way into schools.
On one level, the Liberals likely welcome the BCTF ads. One of the Campbell party’s early election campaign themes is that James and the New Democrats are captives of the big public sector unions. If elected, an NDP government would put their interests first, the claim goes. Money going into the education system, for example, would improve the lot of teachers. not students.
The BCTF’s active support of the NDP campaign is going to reinforce that message with some voters. (The federation is reported to have $5 million set aside for poltiical advocacy.)
And the fact is that the union’s first obligation is to advance the interest of its members. That’s the reason it exists.
But at the same time the ads will raise legitimate questions about what has happened in the school system under the Liberals.
Education Minister Tom Christensen answered Mayencourt’s question by noting the education budget was being increased this year by $150 million, the largest jump in history.
But even with the increase, the money going to school districts will have increased by a total of 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.
Yes, the Liberals say, but the number of students has gone down, so school districts should expect less money.
That's only partly true. A drop in students doesn't translate into an equal drop in costs - if there are 10 fewer children in a school the heating bill and maintenance costs stay the same.
The real increase in per pupil funding - after the $150 million increase - will be about 3.5 per cent over four years. The reality is that has meant tough decisions on where to cut spending in school districts across the province.
Teachers have a right to be angry at the government. The Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers’ agreement of clauses governing maximum class sizes and other clauses that set staffing level. The union had bargained those provisions, and presumably given in other areas to get them.
And the government has been consistently confrontational, treating the BCTF as an enemy.
But sympathetic or not, most parents are going to believe that issues like class size are best decided by elected officials - MLAs and school trustees - not set in union contracts.
The ads’ effectiveness remains to be seen. The notion that they are in some way offensive is bogus.
Footnote: The impact of third party ads of all kinds during this long unofficial campaign should get a through review after the election. Business groups plan to support the Liberals; unions the NDP. My guess is that the campaigns could do more harm than good for both sides in reaching undecided voters.
Backbencher Lorne Mayencourt leapt to his feet in Question Period this week, voice raised in indignation at the ads (which he hadn’t seen).
"Carole James and the BCTF have weaseled their way into our school system and are shamelessly exploiting nine-year-old children in their efforts to launch an American-style negative campaign," Mayencourt raged.
The union kicked off their current ad campaign with a commercial during the Oscars that gave Gordon Campbell an award for most devastating performance for closing schools and doubling post-secondary tuition.
The new ad, which had Mayencourt so worked up, uses real students and highlights their concerns about the school system under the Liberals. There’s a kindergarten student who rides the bus because a local school closed, a Langley student who says he no longer has special needs support, a Nanaimo student who says learning is difficult in a class of 35 children You get the idea.
The claim that the BCTF is exploiting children is a bit rich. The premier and education minister - like politicians everywhere - are always popping into schools when they need a good photo op for a new announcement. Nothing says caring like a photo showing you reading to a class of fresh-faced eight-year-olds.
And there’s nothing wrong with the visits, despite what Mayencourt says about politicians weasling their way into schools.
On one level, the Liberals likely welcome the BCTF ads. One of the Campbell party’s early election campaign themes is that James and the New Democrats are captives of the big public sector unions. If elected, an NDP government would put their interests first, the claim goes. Money going into the education system, for example, would improve the lot of teachers. not students.
The BCTF’s active support of the NDP campaign is going to reinforce that message with some voters. (The federation is reported to have $5 million set aside for poltiical advocacy.)
And the fact is that the union’s first obligation is to advance the interest of its members. That’s the reason it exists.
But at the same time the ads will raise legitimate questions about what has happened in the school system under the Liberals.
Education Minister Tom Christensen answered Mayencourt’s question by noting the education budget was being increased this year by $150 million, the largest jump in history.
But even with the increase, the money going to school districts will have increased by a total of 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.
Yes, the Liberals say, but the number of students has gone down, so school districts should expect less money.
That's only partly true. A drop in students doesn't translate into an equal drop in costs - if there are 10 fewer children in a school the heating bill and maintenance costs stay the same.
The real increase in per pupil funding - after the $150 million increase - will be about 3.5 per cent over four years. The reality is that has meant tough decisions on where to cut spending in school districts across the province.
Teachers have a right to be angry at the government. The Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers’ agreement of clauses governing maximum class sizes and other clauses that set staffing level. The union had bargained those provisions, and presumably given in other areas to get them.
And the government has been consistently confrontational, treating the BCTF as an enemy.
But sympathetic or not, most parents are going to believe that issues like class size are best decided by elected officials - MLAs and school trustees - not set in union contracts.
The ads’ effectiveness remains to be seen. The notion that they are in some way offensive is bogus.
Footnote: The impact of third party ads of all kinds during this long unofficial campaign should get a through review after the election. Business groups plan to support the Liberals; unions the NDP. My guess is that the campaigns could do more harm than good for both sides in reaching undecided voters.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Liberals fare best in poll, but worries for both parties
VICTORIA - The Liberals should be happiest with the latest poll results.
The Mustel Group poll found the Liberals had the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, with the NDP standing at 40 per cent.
It's not a big lead, and pollster Evi Mustel noted that a six-point gap can close very quickly in B.C. politics.
But with less than three months until the election, any lead is good news for the governing party. It is the one getting the closest scrutiny at this stage of the race, and the party in power is most likely to have made voters angry in some way.
That's not the only comfort the Liberals can take. Barely half those surveyed thought Gordon Campbell was doing a poor job as premier.
That may not sound like a great performance rating, but for the last three years Campbell's disapproval rating has been consistently higher. He's still getting failing grades from 51 per cent of British Columbians, but in relative terms that's not so bad.
Which is helpful for the Liberals, who are intent on making Campbell the centrepiece of their campaign despite his personal popularity problems.
The New Democrats can find some comfort in the poll as well. Forty per cent is a solid base for them to build on, and a remarkable comeback when you consider how desperately eager voters were to kick them out four years ago.
And the New Democrats are pleased to see the Green Party stalled at 10 per cent, a level low enough to convince most voters that the Greens won't be a viable alternative in May. (Just as the Liberals are delighted that no right-wing alternative has been able to attract more than token support.)
There's worrying details for both parties in the poll.
NDP leader Carole James continues to be an unknown quantity for most British Columbians. Among people with an opinion, 61 per cent approved of the job James as doing as leader, while 39 per cent disapprove.
But almost half of those surveyed haven't formed an opinion of James' work.
That hasn't been a big problem so far; it may have even helped the New Democrat cause. People weren't in a position to compare the two leaders, so instead they simply judged Campbell. Their views may change when it becomes a choice between two known candidates.
James' fuzzy image, after almost a year, also gives the Liberals a chance to define her in their terms. The Liberals are working hard to paint James as the daughter of the last NDP government, and a captive of the big public sector unions. The longer people go without having formed their own opinion of her competence, the more chance the attacks have of working.
Based on the poll results, an election held today would probably produce a legislature with about 45 Liberals, and 35 New Democrats. (That forecast is confirmed by the UBC Election Stock Market, the only election prediction project that requires participants to stake money on their opinions.)
The election isn't being held today, of course. The poll was taken just before the budget was introduced, to generally positive response. That should produce a boost for the Liberals in the next survey.
But it was also taken before problems in the health system once again became a major issue. The Liberals were criticized for their failure to add any long-term care beds for seniors - they had promised 5,000 by 2006 - and were forced to intervene in the Fraser Health Authority in the face of mounting problems at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
Health is the kind of issue that can produce a big swing in poll results. It is consistently - usually by a three-to-one margin - the most important issue for British Columbians. And it's one that is generally seen as a Liberal weakness.
All of which means that the poll is interesting, but the race is still to be run, and the outcome uncertain.
Footnote: Most of the Liberal gains in this poll came from male voters outside the Lower Mainland, likely because they have seen an improving economy. One-third of Liberal supporters said they favored the party because they prefer its economic policies. One-quarter of NDP supporters said they were onside because they don't like the Liberals.
The Mustel Group poll found the Liberals had the support of 46 per cent of decided voters, with the NDP standing at 40 per cent.
It's not a big lead, and pollster Evi Mustel noted that a six-point gap can close very quickly in B.C. politics.
But with less than three months until the election, any lead is good news for the governing party. It is the one getting the closest scrutiny at this stage of the race, and the party in power is most likely to have made voters angry in some way.
That's not the only comfort the Liberals can take. Barely half those surveyed thought Gordon Campbell was doing a poor job as premier.
That may not sound like a great performance rating, but for the last three years Campbell's disapproval rating has been consistently higher. He's still getting failing grades from 51 per cent of British Columbians, but in relative terms that's not so bad.
Which is helpful for the Liberals, who are intent on making Campbell the centrepiece of their campaign despite his personal popularity problems.
The New Democrats can find some comfort in the poll as well. Forty per cent is a solid base for them to build on, and a remarkable comeback when you consider how desperately eager voters were to kick them out four years ago.
And the New Democrats are pleased to see the Green Party stalled at 10 per cent, a level low enough to convince most voters that the Greens won't be a viable alternative in May. (Just as the Liberals are delighted that no right-wing alternative has been able to attract more than token support.)
There's worrying details for both parties in the poll.
NDP leader Carole James continues to be an unknown quantity for most British Columbians. Among people with an opinion, 61 per cent approved of the job James as doing as leader, while 39 per cent disapprove.
But almost half of those surveyed haven't formed an opinion of James' work.
That hasn't been a big problem so far; it may have even helped the New Democrat cause. People weren't in a position to compare the two leaders, so instead they simply judged Campbell. Their views may change when it becomes a choice between two known candidates.
James' fuzzy image, after almost a year, also gives the Liberals a chance to define her in their terms. The Liberals are working hard to paint James as the daughter of the last NDP government, and a captive of the big public sector unions. The longer people go without having formed their own opinion of her competence, the more chance the attacks have of working.
Based on the poll results, an election held today would probably produce a legislature with about 45 Liberals, and 35 New Democrats. (That forecast is confirmed by the UBC Election Stock Market, the only election prediction project that requires participants to stake money on their opinions.)
The election isn't being held today, of course. The poll was taken just before the budget was introduced, to generally positive response. That should produce a boost for the Liberals in the next survey.
But it was also taken before problems in the health system once again became a major issue. The Liberals were criticized for their failure to add any long-term care beds for seniors - they had promised 5,000 by 2006 - and were forced to intervene in the Fraser Health Authority in the face of mounting problems at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
Health is the kind of issue that can produce a big swing in poll results. It is consistently - usually by a three-to-one margin - the most important issue for British Columbians. And it's one that is generally seen as a Liberal weakness.
All of which means that the poll is interesting, but the race is still to be run, and the outcome uncertain.
Footnote: Most of the Liberal gains in this poll came from male voters outside the Lower Mainland, likely because they have seen an improving economy. One-third of Liberal supporters said they favored the party because they prefer its economic policies. One-quarter of NDP supporters said they were onside because they don't like the Liberals.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Budget misses pine beetle aid, other B.C. needs
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
