VICTORIA – It’s probably not a good sign when a new government stumbles in its first day on the job.
The Liberal caucus, old hands and first-time MLAs, headed to the legislature for their first caucus meeting last week. They took the oath of office in the impressive red-carpeted chamber, posing for pictures and leaving with their official MLA lapel pins, an especially handy identifier until security guards learn to recognize their faces.
During a break, the media-shy Gordon Campbell held a press conference in his office. Asked about raises for MLAs by an alert Canadian Press reporter, he allowed that the things have changed.
Liberal MLAs took a five-per-cent pay cut in their base pay in 2002, a gesture that saved government about $300,000 a year. MLAs’ pay increases each year based on the consumer price index and average weekly wages. The Liberals turned those down as well.
But it’s a new legislature, Campbell said, and time to end the restraint.
Just don’t call it a pay increase. "They didn't get a pay raise," Campbell insisted. "It's a signal that this is a new legislature. They took a cut for four years."
Some reporters left the premier’s office thinking Liberal MLAs had got a five-per-cent raise.
But no. Reverse the five-per-cent rollback, and add in the annual increase the Liberals had forsaken, and the real increase is 10.1 per cent. Liberal MLAs were paid a base of $68,500. Now they’ll get an extra $135 a week – before taxes – or $75,400 a year.
And while Campbell might not consider that a raise, most of us would think a bigger cheque every two weeks equals a pay increase.
The catch-up had to come. New Democrats Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan didn’t join in the Liberals’ gesture. The prospect that the 33 New Democrat MLAs would be paid 10.1 per cent more than their Liberal counterparts is bizarre.
But it seemed a bumbling, catch us if you can way to get the information out. Why not a proper, informative release with the new pay rate, supported by the argument that the government can now afford to pay MLAs a bit more?
There are consequences to that position. Government workers who have accepted a wage freeze – or seen contracting out and wage cuts - would wonder if they too were due for big catch-up raises.
As the MLAs filed into the red-carpeted chamber, I wasn’t thinking about their rate of pay, and I’m sure they weren’t either.
It’s a big deal to be elected as the representative from your region. A big honor, a big responsibility and a big day.
And generally, the job represents a big sacrifice. MLAs – especially in smaller communities – are constantly on call. They are away from home for about one-quarter of the year. They abandon their career. The have zero job security, and a mediocre pension. And many take a big pay cut to serve.
Whatever the party, or the quirks of the individual, we owe them. And of all the shots at provincial politicians, the most unfair and ridiculous is the claim they are in it for the money. Some would make three times as much in another job; all of them are making large trade-offs. The pay is not bad, but I’m not sure it is enough for what we expect from these people.
I suppose a few MLAs were wondering that as well when they learned that Jeff Bray, the former Liberal MLA defeated by NDP leader Carole James, would be paid more than $90,000 in his new job as executive director of the Liberal caucus. It’s a rare job market where defeat means a 35-per-cent pay jump.
The Liberals did a poor job of presenting the MLAs’ pay raise.
But don’t let that affect your attitude towards your own representative. These people – NDP and Liberal – have taken on a tough job, and deserve full credit.
Footnote: Campbell got lots of cheering and applause when he strode in to the caucus meeting. But the 46 MLAs this time couldn’t make quite as much noise as the 77 elected in 2001. And not all the defeated Liberals share the enthusiasm for the Liberal campaign effort.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Government betrayed public in salmon-cancer scandal
VICTORIA - The B.C. government discovered in March that salmon from a fish farm were contaminated with malachite green, a cancer-causing fungicide.
By the time fisheries ministry tests found the problem, Stolt Sea Farms had already sent about 100 tonnes to stores and restaurants, in Canada, the U.S. and Asia.
But no one from the ministry, or the company, thought that was something you should know about as you shopped for groceries.
The provincial government notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. But although federal regulations ban the sale of food products with any malachite green contamination, the agency decided this was only a Class 2 health risk, which meant no public recall was needed. The Class 2 assessment means the agency decided that at worst eating the fish would "lead to temporary or non-life-threatening health consequences, or that the probability of serious adverse consequences is considered remote."
Stolt was told to try and get the salmon back. No one told you anything.
Ultimately about one-third of the fish made it on to people's plates, some 200,000 servings, laced with a carcinogen.
I accept the agency's analysis of the small health risk. While Canada and the U.S. don't allow any malachite green contamination, Japan allows five parts per billion, and the European Union two parts per billion. The highest contamination in the tested fish was 1.3 parts per billion. If you were Swiss, you could be eating more fungicide with every farmed salmon dinner. There was likely no harm done.
Unless you count the damage to the basic trust between citizen and government.
The provincial and federal governments knew that contaminated farmed salmon was on the market. But they chose not to tell you.
We tend to worry that the state will turn into Big Brother in active ways, peering into our lives, telling us what to do, limiting our freedoms.
But Big Brother can crush our basic right to control our lives simply by withholding information.
Lots of people would happily barbecue the contaminated salmon.
But others people spend money on bottled water, and shop out healthy foods. And those people were betrayed by governments that denied them the information they needed to make an informed choice. They ate food that they would never have knowingly consumed.
It's not in the public interest to keep this information secret. You benefit from the facts, and the chance to make your own decisions.
So why the secrecy?
The governments may have placed the interests of the company, or the industry, ahead of the consumer. The provincial Liberals may have recognized that an announcement that contaminated farmed salmon were on the market would hurt their election chances. (They lost every seat with a significant fish farming industry anyway.) And of course incompetence and bad judgment should never ruled out as a cause.
But the end result was that both governments knew people were buying salmon laced with a substance banned because it's a cancer risk.
And they didn't tell you.
I've been a booster of aquaculture. The science I've seen suggests that done right, and properly regulated, fish farms can provide jobs and produce a valuable commodity, without unreasonable consequences. (I expect a beating from Rafe Mair in our Monday morning radio session for that paragraph.)
But the actions of government, and the companies, have made the industry almost impossible to defend.
Stolt is part of the world's largest aquaculture company. Its managers and PR consultants should know that since 1982, and the Tylenol tampering deaths, the correct crisis response for any corporation has been clear. Acknowledge the issue. Tell people what you are doing about it. Err on the side of caution.
Stolt didn't the public. And it still hopes to sell the contaminated fish overseas.
But the real betrayal is by both governments. They knew contaminated fish were being sold, and chose not to tell you.
And that raises the obvious question - how often have governments put the interest of the industry ahead of the public?
Footnote: The industry faces other challenges, over sea lice and the spread of disease to wild stocks. Next week's cabinet shuffle will likely see a new minister on the file, and perhaps a hiving off of the fisheries component of the agriculture, food and fisheries ministry.
By the time fisheries ministry tests found the problem, Stolt Sea Farms had already sent about 100 tonnes to stores and restaurants, in Canada, the U.S. and Asia.
But no one from the ministry, or the company, thought that was something you should know about as you shopped for groceries.
The provincial government notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. But although federal regulations ban the sale of food products with any malachite green contamination, the agency decided this was only a Class 2 health risk, which meant no public recall was needed. The Class 2 assessment means the agency decided that at worst eating the fish would "lead to temporary or non-life-threatening health consequences, or that the probability of serious adverse consequences is considered remote."
Stolt was told to try and get the salmon back. No one told you anything.
Ultimately about one-third of the fish made it on to people's plates, some 200,000 servings, laced with a carcinogen.
I accept the agency's analysis of the small health risk. While Canada and the U.S. don't allow any malachite green contamination, Japan allows five parts per billion, and the European Union two parts per billion. The highest contamination in the tested fish was 1.3 parts per billion. If you were Swiss, you could be eating more fungicide with every farmed salmon dinner. There was likely no harm done.
Unless you count the damage to the basic trust between citizen and government.
The provincial and federal governments knew that contaminated farmed salmon was on the market. But they chose not to tell you.
We tend to worry that the state will turn into Big Brother in active ways, peering into our lives, telling us what to do, limiting our freedoms.
But Big Brother can crush our basic right to control our lives simply by withholding information.
Lots of people would happily barbecue the contaminated salmon.
But others people spend money on bottled water, and shop out healthy foods. And those people were betrayed by governments that denied them the information they needed to make an informed choice. They ate food that they would never have knowingly consumed.
It's not in the public interest to keep this information secret. You benefit from the facts, and the chance to make your own decisions.
So why the secrecy?
The governments may have placed the interests of the company, or the industry, ahead of the consumer. The provincial Liberals may have recognized that an announcement that contaminated farmed salmon were on the market would hurt their election chances. (They lost every seat with a significant fish farming industry anyway.) And of course incompetence and bad judgment should never ruled out as a cause.
But the end result was that both governments knew people were buying salmon laced with a substance banned because it's a cancer risk.
And they didn't tell you.
I've been a booster of aquaculture. The science I've seen suggests that done right, and properly regulated, fish farms can provide jobs and produce a valuable commodity, without unreasonable consequences. (I expect a beating from Rafe Mair in our Monday morning radio session for that paragraph.)
But the actions of government, and the companies, have made the industry almost impossible to defend.
Stolt is part of the world's largest aquaculture company. Its managers and PR consultants should know that since 1982, and the Tylenol tampering deaths, the correct crisis response for any corporation has been clear. Acknowledge the issue. Tell people what you are doing about it. Err on the side of caution.
Stolt didn't the public. And it still hopes to sell the contaminated fish overseas.
But the real betrayal is by both governments. They knew contaminated fish were being sold, and chose not to tell you.
And that raises the obvious question - how often have governments put the interest of the industry ahead of the public?
Footnote: The industry faces other challenges, over sea lice and the spread of disease to wild stocks. Next week's cabinet shuffle will likely see a new minister on the file, and perhaps a hiving off of the fisheries component of the agriculture, food and fisheries ministry.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Police complaints commissioner handcuffed by weak law
VICTORIA - Watch for an early showdown between Wally Oppal and Rich Coleman over the need for effective civilian oversight of police departments.
Police Complaints Commissioner Dirk Ryneveld has just delivered his report on 55 complaints against the Vancouver police department.
It's grim reading. A 14-month independent RCMP investigation substantiated nine cases of police misconduct.
That's not the worrying part. Nine cases aren't so bad, really, given the workload of the Vancouver police. Unacceptable, but not shocking.
What is shocking is the way the current provincial legislation lets a police force evade civilian oversight. The Vancouver department, its chief and the union have basically told the complaints commissioner to get lost, exploiting the weakness in the law.
The office of the police complaints commission was established in 1998, largely due to a review done by Oppal. Under the new system people who were unhappy with the police would still go first to their local department with concerns.
But if they felt their complaints had been ignored they could go to the commissioner and ask for a review.
Great theory, and one that is widely supported. We ask police to take on difficult assignments, and allow them great powers. It's reasonable and necessary that those powers be balanced with accountability.
But that is not the way the Vancouver police force sees it, according to Ryneveld's report. In the case of these complaints, officers -- with the support of Chief Jamie Graham -- refused to be interviewed by the RCMP investigators.
It's part of a pattern. When the commissioner investigated the death of Jeffrey Berg after he was arrested by Vancouver police, the department stalled in providing critical evidence. When the Victoria police were asked to review the death of Robert Bagnell, after he was Tasered by the Vancouver police, they threatened to walk away from the investigation because of the lack of co-operation from the Vancouver department.
The government knows the law needs strengthening. In his first annual report, released more than a year ago, Ryneveld called for legislative changes to make the system work.
But even before that, the problems were evident. Ryneveld's predecessor resigned amid great controversy. Investigations have been tied up in procedural wrangling, undermining public confidence in the process, and the police. (The probe into police actions at the "Riot at the Hyatt" was stalled for five years because of costly legal battles.)
Ryneveld reported that the legislation governing the commission was "one of the main obstacles to effective performance of our duties."
"It is unclear, ambiguous and does not provide adequate remedies to the office of the police complaints commissioner to ensure effective civilian oversight," he wrote.
Ryneveld recommended the law be changed to make it clear that the commissioner can launch an independent fact-finding investigation if the initial internal police investigation appears flawed.
Without it, he added in his annual report, "the concept of civilian oversight is severely compromised."
And Ryneveld wanted the law changed to make it clear that he's an independent officer of the legislature, and not an employee of the solicitor general.
Coleman brushed off the concerns last year, without offering any arguments against the proposed changes.
But Oppal -- then still a Supreme Court justice -- backed Ryneveld's recommendations for change, agreeing they were needed to ensure effective civilian oversight of police.
And now both men will be in cabinet, quite possibly squaring off over this issue.
It's not just a Vancouver issue. Ryneveld notes in his latest report that other police forces across the province have co-operated with his office. But without clear and effective accountability provisions in the law, that co-operation will always be uncertain.
An effective complaint commission is important for police and the public. Both need confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the process.
Ryneveld has already made the case for change.
The latest investigation into the Vancouver police department is a strong case for change. The Liberals should be listening, and acting.
Footnote: Ryneveld's opinions aren't easily dismissed. He was a veteran Crown prosecutor in Victoria before taking a leave to help prosecute people accused of war crimes at The Hague. He has worked effectively with police officers through his career. He is not, in short, some unrealistic alarmist.
Police Complaints Commissioner Dirk Ryneveld has just delivered his report on 55 complaints against the Vancouver police department.
It's grim reading. A 14-month independent RCMP investigation substantiated nine cases of police misconduct.
That's not the worrying part. Nine cases aren't so bad, really, given the workload of the Vancouver police. Unacceptable, but not shocking.
What is shocking is the way the current provincial legislation lets a police force evade civilian oversight. The Vancouver department, its chief and the union have basically told the complaints commissioner to get lost, exploiting the weakness in the law.
The office of the police complaints commission was established in 1998, largely due to a review done by Oppal. Under the new system people who were unhappy with the police would still go first to their local department with concerns.
But if they felt their complaints had been ignored they could go to the commissioner and ask for a review.
Great theory, and one that is widely supported. We ask police to take on difficult assignments, and allow them great powers. It's reasonable and necessary that those powers be balanced with accountability.
But that is not the way the Vancouver police force sees it, according to Ryneveld's report. In the case of these complaints, officers -- with the support of Chief Jamie Graham -- refused to be interviewed by the RCMP investigators.
It's part of a pattern. When the commissioner investigated the death of Jeffrey Berg after he was arrested by Vancouver police, the department stalled in providing critical evidence. When the Victoria police were asked to review the death of Robert Bagnell, after he was Tasered by the Vancouver police, they threatened to walk away from the investigation because of the lack of co-operation from the Vancouver department.
The government knows the law needs strengthening. In his first annual report, released more than a year ago, Ryneveld called for legislative changes to make the system work.
But even before that, the problems were evident. Ryneveld's predecessor resigned amid great controversy. Investigations have been tied up in procedural wrangling, undermining public confidence in the process, and the police. (The probe into police actions at the "Riot at the Hyatt" was stalled for five years because of costly legal battles.)
Ryneveld reported that the legislation governing the commission was "one of the main obstacles to effective performance of our duties."
"It is unclear, ambiguous and does not provide adequate remedies to the office of the police complaints commissioner to ensure effective civilian oversight," he wrote.
Ryneveld recommended the law be changed to make it clear that the commissioner can launch an independent fact-finding investigation if the initial internal police investigation appears flawed.
Without it, he added in his annual report, "the concept of civilian oversight is severely compromised."
And Ryneveld wanted the law changed to make it clear that he's an independent officer of the legislature, and not an employee of the solicitor general.
Coleman brushed off the concerns last year, without offering any arguments against the proposed changes.
But Oppal -- then still a Supreme Court justice -- backed Ryneveld's recommendations for change, agreeing they were needed to ensure effective civilian oversight of police.
And now both men will be in cabinet, quite possibly squaring off over this issue.
It's not just a Vancouver issue. Ryneveld notes in his latest report that other police forces across the province have co-operated with his office. But without clear and effective accountability provisions in the law, that co-operation will always be uncertain.
An effective complaint commission is important for police and the public. Both need confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the process.
Ryneveld has already made the case for change.
The latest investigation into the Vancouver police department is a strong case for change. The Liberals should be listening, and acting.
Footnote: Ryneveld's opinions aren't easily dismissed. He was a veteran Crown prosecutor in Victoria before taking a leave to help prosecute people accused of war crimes at The Hague. He has worked effectively with police officers through his career. He is not, in short, some unrealistic alarmist.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Park fiasco symbol of Liberal failure on environment
VICTORIA - One court case, and you get a snapshot of everything that's wrong with the Liberals when it comes to environmental issues.
Water, Land and Air Protection Minister Bill Barisoff was prepared to spend $100,000 of your money, damage a provincial park - including habitat for a species at risk - and anger local residents.
And all because a nearby business owner wanted to save some money on developing his property.
Here are the facts, briefly. Grohman Narrows Provincial Park is just outside Nelson, small but beautiful, and home to several species-at-risk, including the painted turtle.
It has an entrance road from the highway, in place for more than 20 years.
Three years ago, a development company bought property across the highway from the park, intending to develop a repair shop for heavy trucks. But it needed to build an access road on to the highway. And the transportation ministry said that for safety's sake the two entrances - the garage and the park - needed to be directly across the highway from each other.
Bad news for the developer. Building an access driveway opposite the park's entrance would cost an extra $250,000, because he'd have to blow up some rocks.
So hey, he asked the water, air and land protection ministry, why don't you move your entrance about 30 metres to line up with where I want to build?
It never hurts to ask. And as a good neighbour, it's right the ministry checked to see what the consequences would be. It found the change would cost taxpayers $100,000, damage the park permanently and be bad news for those rare turtles. Construction could kill some, and they were at risk of being regularly crunched by cars if the entrance was moved closer to nesting habitat.
If this decision dealt with some project that promised hundreds of jobs, and had big community support, it might sill be a tough call.
But this was one developer looking to save money. Balance that against the cost to taxpayers, and the damage to the park, and the ministry's answer should have been 'sorry, we're not moving the entrance.'
Barisoff thought different, and in January he ordered the entrance moved.
Oh come on, said the West Kootenay Community Ecosociety. And off to they went to BC Supreme Court, making just the argument that ministry staff had warned about Barisoff about. The minister is bound by the Park Act, the society said, and that means he has to defend them, not damage them.
Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse saw it the same way. The act says the minister is the steward of parks, she noted, and he is only allowed to approve damaging development if it is meets some park need - like building a washroom, or trail.
And Barisoff violated the act by approving damage to help a developer. The entrance has to stay put, Sinclair Prowse ruled. The minister was not fulfilling his basic duties.
Barisoff, like predecessor Joyce Murray before him, is likable. But neither would be described as strong ministers, or passionate advocates for their ministry. Their appointments reflect Gordon Campbell's judgment about its importance.
I mean Campbell didn't even keep the environment ministry name after the last election, replacing it with the clunky - and less apt - ministry of water, land and air protection. (Environment, the ministry that dare not speak its name.)
It will be interesting to see if Campbell acknowledges that abandoning the obvious name was a mistake when he names his new cabinet. (More than half the voters opted for parties that promised to restore the environment ministry.)
There's no need for a zealot at the head of the ministry. But cabinet ministers are expected to fight their corner, even as they recognize the government's overall direction.
Developers have lots of advocates at the table.
Environment - not water, land and air protection - deserves its champion in cabinet.
Footnote: When the legislature finally resumes, likely in September, expect the NDP to be all over this case. Barisoff's decision, as well as violating his legal obligations as minister, is inexplicable. The willingness to spend $100,000 of taxpayers' money to help a developer cut its costs is only one factor; the ministry spent tens of thousands reaching its wrong decision.
Water, Land and Air Protection Minister Bill Barisoff was prepared to spend $100,000 of your money, damage a provincial park - including habitat for a species at risk - and anger local residents.
And all because a nearby business owner wanted to save some money on developing his property.
Here are the facts, briefly. Grohman Narrows Provincial Park is just outside Nelson, small but beautiful, and home to several species-at-risk, including the painted turtle.
It has an entrance road from the highway, in place for more than 20 years.
Three years ago, a development company bought property across the highway from the park, intending to develop a repair shop for heavy trucks. But it needed to build an access road on to the highway. And the transportation ministry said that for safety's sake the two entrances - the garage and the park - needed to be directly across the highway from each other.
Bad news for the developer. Building an access driveway opposite the park's entrance would cost an extra $250,000, because he'd have to blow up some rocks.
So hey, he asked the water, air and land protection ministry, why don't you move your entrance about 30 metres to line up with where I want to build?
It never hurts to ask. And as a good neighbour, it's right the ministry checked to see what the consequences would be. It found the change would cost taxpayers $100,000, damage the park permanently and be bad news for those rare turtles. Construction could kill some, and they were at risk of being regularly crunched by cars if the entrance was moved closer to nesting habitat.
If this decision dealt with some project that promised hundreds of jobs, and had big community support, it might sill be a tough call.
But this was one developer looking to save money. Balance that against the cost to taxpayers, and the damage to the park, and the ministry's answer should have been 'sorry, we're not moving the entrance.'
Barisoff thought different, and in January he ordered the entrance moved.
Oh come on, said the West Kootenay Community Ecosociety. And off to they went to BC Supreme Court, making just the argument that ministry staff had warned about Barisoff about. The minister is bound by the Park Act, the society said, and that means he has to defend them, not damage them.
Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse saw it the same way. The act says the minister is the steward of parks, she noted, and he is only allowed to approve damaging development if it is meets some park need - like building a washroom, or trail.
And Barisoff violated the act by approving damage to help a developer. The entrance has to stay put, Sinclair Prowse ruled. The minister was not fulfilling his basic duties.
Barisoff, like predecessor Joyce Murray before him, is likable. But neither would be described as strong ministers, or passionate advocates for their ministry. Their appointments reflect Gordon Campbell's judgment about its importance.
I mean Campbell didn't even keep the environment ministry name after the last election, replacing it with the clunky - and less apt - ministry of water, land and air protection. (Environment, the ministry that dare not speak its name.)
It will be interesting to see if Campbell acknowledges that abandoning the obvious name was a mistake when he names his new cabinet. (More than half the voters opted for parties that promised to restore the environment ministry.)
There's no need for a zealot at the head of the ministry. But cabinet ministers are expected to fight their corner, even as they recognize the government's overall direction.
Developers have lots of advocates at the table.
Environment - not water, land and air protection - deserves its champion in cabinet.
Footnote: When the legislature finally resumes, likely in September, expect the NDP to be all over this case. Barisoff's decision, as well as violating his legal obligations as minister, is inexplicable. The willingness to spend $100,000 of taxpayers' money to help a developer cut its costs is only one factor; the ministry spent tens of thousands reaching its wrong decision.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Grewal tapes will make your skin crawl
VICTORIA - I've watched enough crime movies to know that it's time for Ottawa politicians to start scheduling their meetings for grungy steam rooms.
That's the easiest way to make sure that nobody is wearing a wire, right?
The sleaze factor in federal politics keeps climbing. And before anybody in B.C. gets smug, remember that most of the players in the latest cringefest are locals. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, his silent MP wife Nina, Ujjal Dosanjh and Sudesh Kalia, the insurance salesman friend of both men, are all locals.
If you haven't been reading this stuff - and I don't blame you - here are the basics.
With the fate of the Martin government resting on a coming non-confidence vote, Grewal, the MP for Newton-North Delta, entered into negotiations with Dosanjh and Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy. The Grewals would abandon Stephen Harper and support the Liberals, if the terms were right. Perhaps a cabinet post for Gurmant, and the Senate for his wife.
Grewal was secretly taping the conversations, and now says he was running a sting. You can read them and decide what you think Grewal's real goal was. Audio files and transcripts are at www.gurmantgrewal.ca.
Dosanjh and the Liberals say the transcripts are inaccurate and the tapes doctored.
But a reasonable listener is left with the unavoidable sense that this was sleazy business, and the topic of all the discussions was coming up with an incentive - a cabinet post, or some plum - to ensure the Grewals would support the Liberals.
An immediate seat at the cabinet table would be tough, Dosanjh says in one transcript. "If that cannot happen right now, that will be done in two to four weeks. . . I'm sure rewards are there at some point, right. No-one can forget such gestures but they require a certain degree of deniability."
Deniability is a big deal for the Liberals, or at least the reason they keep using to put off Grewal's demands for a commitment. " You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal," says Dosanjh at one point. "That's very important. That's why this kinds of deals are not made in that fashion."
But people who take risks for the party are rewarded the Liberals promise. "Let me make it absolutely clear that we are a welcoming party. . . It is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it."
The Liberals blame Grewal. He showed up on their door, the Liberals say, and wanted to trade his vote for benefits - cabinet, a Senate seat, something of value.
Did they send him packing? No. He negotiated with Dosanjh, and Murphy, who speaks for the Big Guy, Ottawa-speak for Paul Martin. When Grewal asked repeatedly about a Senate seat, Murphy and Dosanjh didn't say sorry, we don't do things like that. They said it would be tough, because there are no vacancies right now.
And then there is Harper, who says he knew Grewal was wandering around wearing a wire. I didn't encourage or discourage him, says Harper. MPs have a right to make secret recordings of people they talk with, the man who would be prime minister.
Every Canadian has that legal right. But it's creepy that a political leader thinks it's acceptable or ethical behavior for an MP.
Martin looks just as bad. He knew about the Grewal negotiations. He knows about the tapes. But he still hasn't got around to listening to the words of his health minister and chief of staff, he says, apparently seized with a case of willful blindness. (And demonstrating again the Liberal devotion to deniability.)
It's unclear if any laws were broken.
But trust was. Voters expect their MPs to act on their behalf. But their interests never really came up in the talks, except as a possible excuse for Grewal to use in bolting the Conservatives.
Footnote: The laws around vote-buying are murky. But everyone involved should welcome an RCMP investigation of the case if they are as blameless as they claim. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have both asked for a police review.
That's the easiest way to make sure that nobody is wearing a wire, right?
The sleaze factor in federal politics keeps climbing. And before anybody in B.C. gets smug, remember that most of the players in the latest cringefest are locals. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, his silent MP wife Nina, Ujjal Dosanjh and Sudesh Kalia, the insurance salesman friend of both men, are all locals.
If you haven't been reading this stuff - and I don't blame you - here are the basics.
With the fate of the Martin government resting on a coming non-confidence vote, Grewal, the MP for Newton-North Delta, entered into negotiations with Dosanjh and Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy. The Grewals would abandon Stephen Harper and support the Liberals, if the terms were right. Perhaps a cabinet post for Gurmant, and the Senate for his wife.
Grewal was secretly taping the conversations, and now says he was running a sting. You can read them and decide what you think Grewal's real goal was. Audio files and transcripts are at www.gurmantgrewal.ca.
Dosanjh and the Liberals say the transcripts are inaccurate and the tapes doctored.
But a reasonable listener is left with the unavoidable sense that this was sleazy business, and the topic of all the discussions was coming up with an incentive - a cabinet post, or some plum - to ensure the Grewals would support the Liberals.
An immediate seat at the cabinet table would be tough, Dosanjh says in one transcript. "If that cannot happen right now, that will be done in two to four weeks. . . I'm sure rewards are there at some point, right. No-one can forget such gestures but they require a certain degree of deniability."
Deniability is a big deal for the Liberals, or at least the reason they keep using to put off Grewal's demands for a commitment. " You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal," says Dosanjh at one point. "That's very important. That's why this kinds of deals are not made in that fashion."
But people who take risks for the party are rewarded the Liberals promise. "Let me make it absolutely clear that we are a welcoming party. . . It is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it."
The Liberals blame Grewal. He showed up on their door, the Liberals say, and wanted to trade his vote for benefits - cabinet, a Senate seat, something of value.
Did they send him packing? No. He negotiated with Dosanjh, and Murphy, who speaks for the Big Guy, Ottawa-speak for Paul Martin. When Grewal asked repeatedly about a Senate seat, Murphy and Dosanjh didn't say sorry, we don't do things like that. They said it would be tough, because there are no vacancies right now.
And then there is Harper, who says he knew Grewal was wandering around wearing a wire. I didn't encourage or discourage him, says Harper. MPs have a right to make secret recordings of people they talk with, the man who would be prime minister.
Every Canadian has that legal right. But it's creepy that a political leader thinks it's acceptable or ethical behavior for an MP.
Martin looks just as bad. He knew about the Grewal negotiations. He knows about the tapes. But he still hasn't got around to listening to the words of his health minister and chief of staff, he says, apparently seized with a case of willful blindness. (And demonstrating again the Liberal devotion to deniability.)
It's unclear if any laws were broken.
But trust was. Voters expect their MPs to act on their behalf. But their interests never really came up in the talks, except as a possible excuse for Grewal to use in bolting the Conservatives.
Footnote: The laws around vote-buying are murky. But everyone involved should welcome an RCMP investigation of the case if they are as blameless as they claim. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have both asked for a police review.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Liberals, BCTF need to end feud
VICTORIA - My first reaction was to dismiss the BC Teachers' Federation defamation suit against Gordon Campbell as just the latest development in their tiresome feud.
But then I read the union's statement of claim, and its case looks pretty good. The union may not win, but it has a good chance of getting the issue before a judge, and the premier on the witness stand.
The teachers' federation is suing Campbell over comments he made five days before the election.
"Late last night British Columbians learned of a secret plan to hold a strike vote days after the provincial election," Campbell solemnly announced at the end of a long day of campaigning. "It's a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before provincial exams that would throw our school system into chaos. It's obvious that both the NDP and the BCTF have been trying to hide their true intentions. They have run a campaign of deceptions, half-truths and misinformation."
The Liberals had hit on school strikes as a 'wedge issue,' one that could be hammered between the New Democrats and their potential supporters. The Liberals made education an essential service, which means teachers have to maintain minimum service levels established by the Labour Relations Board if they go on strike. Carole James said teachers should have the right to strike, period.
It's a largely empty debate, since both parties would end disruptive job action. (The last two NDP governments legislated an end to school strikes.) But it was still a good political issue, and Campbell jumped all over it.
It may be he has proof to back up his accusations. But all we've seen as a local teachers' union newsletter reminding members of a scheduled meeting two days after the election on contract negotiations - their old one expired a year ago - including a discussion on when to hold a strike vote.
Worrying, perhaps, but short of a secret conspiracy to shut down schools just as thousands of Grade 12 students prepare for crucial provincial exams.
The BCTF says the charge damages the union's representation, one of the elements of defamation. It's hard to argue with that. And they say it's false, another key element. Under the law, the onus would be on Campbell to prove that had reason to believe the charges were true.
So union lawyers would get the chance to ask him about where he got the information, and who decided to raise the issue at the press conference. The court could order the Liberals to produce all their campaign planning materials that mentioned the BCTF. It would not be good for Campbell. (Yes, say some Liberals, but our lawyers could in turn grill the union leaders about their pro-NDP campaign and their job action plans. But all that all that likely means it that both parties end up looking bad, which only counts as a win if you've lost sight of the real goals.)
The BCTF and the Liberals have reason to loathe each other. The Liberals reneged on the teachers' contracts, negotiated in good faith. The BCTF has taken on the role of political opponent, campaigning for the Liberals' defeat. Neither party seems able to avoid poking the other with a sharp stick at every opportunity.
Both sides need to face reality.
The Liberals need to acknowledge that the BCTF is the bargaining agent for 43,000 teachers, who are rightly angry that hard-won contract agreements were broken by the government.
The BCTF needs to acknowledge that it's a union, not a co-manager of the education system. Its first job is to protect the interests of its member, and its positions on class size or student testing are driven by the duty to members, not the needs of children. That's simply a fact.
The two sides don't need to quit disliking each other.
But they should recognize they each have work to do together. It's time to start solving problems instead of fighting.
Footnote: The Liberal party, not taxpayers, is paying for Campbell's defence in the defamation suit. Meanwhile,
BCTF president Jinny Sims has written the premier to ask for a meeting on education issues. It should be a pretty unpleasant session, unless the lawsuit is settled.
But then I read the union's statement of claim, and its case looks pretty good. The union may not win, but it has a good chance of getting the issue before a judge, and the premier on the witness stand.
The teachers' federation is suing Campbell over comments he made five days before the election.
"Late last night British Columbians learned of a secret plan to hold a strike vote days after the provincial election," Campbell solemnly announced at the end of a long day of campaigning. "It's a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before provincial exams that would throw our school system into chaos. It's obvious that both the NDP and the BCTF have been trying to hide their true intentions. They have run a campaign of deceptions, half-truths and misinformation."
The Liberals had hit on school strikes as a 'wedge issue,' one that could be hammered between the New Democrats and their potential supporters. The Liberals made education an essential service, which means teachers have to maintain minimum service levels established by the Labour Relations Board if they go on strike. Carole James said teachers should have the right to strike, period.
It's a largely empty debate, since both parties would end disruptive job action. (The last two NDP governments legislated an end to school strikes.) But it was still a good political issue, and Campbell jumped all over it.
It may be he has proof to back up his accusations. But all we've seen as a local teachers' union newsletter reminding members of a scheduled meeting two days after the election on contract negotiations - their old one expired a year ago - including a discussion on when to hold a strike vote.
Worrying, perhaps, but short of a secret conspiracy to shut down schools just as thousands of Grade 12 students prepare for crucial provincial exams.
The BCTF says the charge damages the union's representation, one of the elements of defamation. It's hard to argue with that. And they say it's false, another key element. Under the law, the onus would be on Campbell to prove that had reason to believe the charges were true.
So union lawyers would get the chance to ask him about where he got the information, and who decided to raise the issue at the press conference. The court could order the Liberals to produce all their campaign planning materials that mentioned the BCTF. It would not be good for Campbell. (Yes, say some Liberals, but our lawyers could in turn grill the union leaders about their pro-NDP campaign and their job action plans. But all that all that likely means it that both parties end up looking bad, which only counts as a win if you've lost sight of the real goals.)
The BCTF and the Liberals have reason to loathe each other. The Liberals reneged on the teachers' contracts, negotiated in good faith. The BCTF has taken on the role of political opponent, campaigning for the Liberals' defeat. Neither party seems able to avoid poking the other with a sharp stick at every opportunity.
Both sides need to face reality.
The Liberals need to acknowledge that the BCTF is the bargaining agent for 43,000 teachers, who are rightly angry that hard-won contract agreements were broken by the government.
The BCTF needs to acknowledge that it's a union, not a co-manager of the education system. Its first job is to protect the interests of its member, and its positions on class size or student testing are driven by the duty to members, not the needs of children. That's simply a fact.
The two sides don't need to quit disliking each other.
But they should recognize they each have work to do together. It's time to start solving problems instead of fighting.
Footnote: The Liberal party, not taxpayers, is paying for Campbell's defence in the defamation suit. Meanwhile,
BCTF president Jinny Sims has written the premier to ask for a meeting on education issues. It should be a pretty unpleasant session, unless the lawsuit is settled.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Please leaders, end the legislature zoo story
VICTORIA - It's encouraging to hear Gordon Campbell and Carole James talk about co-operating to make the legislature work better, especially for someone whose job involves sitting in the gallery.
The legislature - for all the grandness of the building, and the many fine people inside it - is often a depressing place, many days a genuine embarrassment. I cringe for the school teachers who bring their students to watch Question Period and see adults shouting abuse at each other, posturing and preaching what they know to be nonsense.
These are bright, compassionate people, elected in part because they were good at bringing people together. They'd never shout insults across the room at a community meeting, or mindlessly heckle a speaker
But somehow, inside this building, they lose their bearings.
James has made some useful proposals, including lengthening Question Period. That's the 15 minutes each day that draws much of the media and public attention. Now it's mainly a time for the Opposition to raise issues that they think will result in news stories that make the government look bad.
Not always, of course. There are real questions about real issues. But they are the exception. The opposition looks for the one or two big stories; the government ministers look to avoid answering.
A longer Question Period - B.C. has the shortest in Canada - might help. With 30 minutes, more MLAs would get the chance to raise issues that mattered to their constituents. Cabinet ministers would be less able to simply run out the clock with non-answers.
That's not the only useful reform. The Liberals borrowed an idea from Alberta and set up government caucus committees after the last election, backbencher-dominated groups that were supposed to keep an eye on policies in areas like health, and be watchdogs.
Some Liberal MLAs believe it worked, but it's impossible to tell. The meetings were behind closed doors. No one knew what they were doing (with the result that MLAs looked like they were doing nothing about some issues important to their community).
Campbell should follow through on a 2001 promise to give a bigger role to legislative committees, which have representatives from both parties. The health and education committees did some useful work over the last four years, although relatively little. But others, like the committee on aboriginal affairs haven't met since 2001.
What's needed is a change of mindset on both sides of the legislature. Voters didn't elect MLAs to come here and wage some sort of political war for four years. They want their MLAs to solve problems, and make things better. That does mean holding the government to account, but that can be done in way that is effective, yet civil. (As James showed through much of the election campaign.)
Campbell could send an important signal by consulting with James about who will be the new Speaker, the legislative referee. (Claude Richmond is expected to move to a ministry.) B.C. has an unfortunate tradition of Speakers who are seen as overly partisan.
There's lots of chance for structural reform.
But ultimately, it all comes down to people and how they behave. I rest my biggest hopes hopes on the new MLAs.
Almost half the MLAs who will sit down in the legislature in September - 12 Liberals, 25 New Democrats - will be new, untainted by past practices. They'll be shocked, I expect, when they sit through their first week of the session. And they can either say well, this is the way things work, I guess, or they can make it better.
The opposition can ask questions that seek information, instead of levelling accusations. Ministers can repond fully, tackling the issue head-on. Real information can be provided, and good decisions made.
It would be a leap - each party would have to trust the other. But the new NDP MLAs can treat ministers with respect; the new ministers can answer in the same way.
It might even be catching. Root for them.
Footnote: A Grade 4 teacher here in Victoria wrote the newspaper after taking her class to Question Period. The MLAs' behaviour showed the bullying, rudeness and abusiveness that schools are attempting to eliminate on the playground. Any student would have been sent from class if they acted like the MLAs, she added.
The legislature - for all the grandness of the building, and the many fine people inside it - is often a depressing place, many days a genuine embarrassment. I cringe for the school teachers who bring their students to watch Question Period and see adults shouting abuse at each other, posturing and preaching what they know to be nonsense.
These are bright, compassionate people, elected in part because they were good at bringing people together. They'd never shout insults across the room at a community meeting, or mindlessly heckle a speaker
But somehow, inside this building, they lose their bearings.
James has made some useful proposals, including lengthening Question Period. That's the 15 minutes each day that draws much of the media and public attention. Now it's mainly a time for the Opposition to raise issues that they think will result in news stories that make the government look bad.
Not always, of course. There are real questions about real issues. But they are the exception. The opposition looks for the one or two big stories; the government ministers look to avoid answering.
A longer Question Period - B.C. has the shortest in Canada - might help. With 30 minutes, more MLAs would get the chance to raise issues that mattered to their constituents. Cabinet ministers would be less able to simply run out the clock with non-answers.
That's not the only useful reform. The Liberals borrowed an idea from Alberta and set up government caucus committees after the last election, backbencher-dominated groups that were supposed to keep an eye on policies in areas like health, and be watchdogs.
Some Liberal MLAs believe it worked, but it's impossible to tell. The meetings were behind closed doors. No one knew what they were doing (with the result that MLAs looked like they were doing nothing about some issues important to their community).
Campbell should follow through on a 2001 promise to give a bigger role to legislative committees, which have representatives from both parties. The health and education committees did some useful work over the last four years, although relatively little. But others, like the committee on aboriginal affairs haven't met since 2001.
What's needed is a change of mindset on both sides of the legislature. Voters didn't elect MLAs to come here and wage some sort of political war for four years. They want their MLAs to solve problems, and make things better. That does mean holding the government to account, but that can be done in way that is effective, yet civil. (As James showed through much of the election campaign.)
Campbell could send an important signal by consulting with James about who will be the new Speaker, the legislative referee. (Claude Richmond is expected to move to a ministry.) B.C. has an unfortunate tradition of Speakers who are seen as overly partisan.
There's lots of chance for structural reform.
But ultimately, it all comes down to people and how they behave. I rest my biggest hopes hopes on the new MLAs.
Almost half the MLAs who will sit down in the legislature in September - 12 Liberals, 25 New Democrats - will be new, untainted by past practices. They'll be shocked, I expect, when they sit through their first week of the session. And they can either say well, this is the way things work, I guess, or they can make it better.
The opposition can ask questions that seek information, instead of levelling accusations. Ministers can repond fully, tackling the issue head-on. Real information can be provided, and good decisions made.
It would be a leap - each party would have to trust the other. But the new NDP MLAs can treat ministers with respect; the new ministers can answer in the same way.
It might even be catching. Root for them.
Footnote: A Grade 4 teacher here in Victoria wrote the newspaper after taking her class to Question Period. The MLAs' behaviour showed the bullying, rudeness and abusiveness that schools are attempting to eliminate on the playground. Any student would have been sent from class if they acted like the MLAs, she added.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Mountain Goats
I have been steadfast in just posting columns here.
But for anyone who likes truly great music - alt-country-rock-minimal - and superb writing, track down music by The Mountain Goats, which I gather is really one guy, John Darnielle. You'll be a little envious, and a lot amazed.
But for anyone who likes truly great music - alt-country-rock-minimal - and superb writing, track down music by The Mountain Goats, which I gather is really one guy, John Darnielle. You'll be a little envious, and a lot amazed.
Cabinet choices set the tone for next four years
VICTORIA - It's not easy picking a cabinet.
In the real world, if you need a grocery clerk, or political columnist, you put an ad in the paper and pick the applicant who will do the best job. It's still difficult, but at least you're fishing in a deep pool.
Gordon Campbell's choices are way more complex, and he doesn't get to advertise. If Campbell decides to stay with 27 ministers, he'll be offering cabinet posts to more than half of the 45 elected MLAs. And he'll know that a big chunk of the 18 people left out will be hurt, mad, and maybe vengeful.
The premier can't even pick the people he thinks will do the best job. The cabinet has to be balanced - by region, gender, first language, ideology.
That's not a bad thing. We want representative governments, and who knows if the premier is so great at guessing who will turn out to be an effective minister.
Still, the need for balance restricts Campbell. The last Liberal cabinet had nine women ministers, about one-third of the total. If Campbell wants to match it he will have to appoint nine of the 10 Liberal women elected, with limited attention to experience or potential.
The need for regional balance is just as restrictive. The Liberals' Kootenay caucus had four members, with two in cabinet. Only Bill Bennett survived the election, so he's guaranteed a cabinet spot - maybe as resorts' minister. (A good thing, especially because Bennett could be an aggressive defender of the interests of B.C.'s smaller communities.) Dennis MacKay - a low-profile MLA - might slip into cabinet as a Liberal survivor in the northwest.
Campbell's challenge includes leap-frogging the star candidates - Wally Oppal, Carole Taylor - over other MLAs. Oppal is an odds-on choice for attorney general, a job which will make the small 'l' liberal Oppal an odd partner with top cop Rich Coleman. Taylor could end up in any one of several ministries.
Some ministers should stay put. Stan Hagen wants to stay in children and families, and the ministry needs both his experience and some stability. It makes sense to leave the very competent Colin Hansen in finance.
Things get trickier in health and education, and most prospective solutions reinforce the rising star of Tom Christensen, currently the education minister. Christensen could stay put, replace Shirley Bond in health or even become attorney general if Campbell chooses.
That still leaves many slots to fill. John van Dongen and Mike de Jong are both likely due for a change after four years in the same ministry. (Van Dongen has become a symbol of Liberal difficulties in managing the aquaculture file.) But replacements will be difficult to find, especially after the defeat of junior forest minister Roger Harris.
Graham Bruce's defeat leaves Campbell without a labour minister - and more significantly, without a House leader. Kamloops MLA Claude Richmond doesn't want to be Speaker any more. Both jobs are important in setting the tone for the new legislature - confrontational or co-operative - and protecting the Liberals' interests.
And there's always the chance that Campbell could opt for bolder change. A majority of British Columbians voted for parties that promised to bring back the environment ministry. Why not do what the people want, and name a senior minister to the post to establish more credibility on the environment front? Other ministries could be restructured, perhaps giving Barry Penner a role in energy policy.
Campbell will probably announce his cabinet around June 8. His choices will signal what kind of government British Columbians can expect for the next four years, and what the Liberals have learned from this election.
And Carole James will unveil her shadow cabinet a few days later, a signal of her direction. James says she has taken the NDP toward the centre; her appointments to key critic jobs will tell the tale.
The 2009 campaign starts in the next two weeks.
Footnote: Eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat, leaving Campbell lots of room for newcomers. But not enough, probably. It will sting to be part of the minority left out of cabinet. James faces the same issues in deciding on the roles for Glen Clark uber-loyalist Harry Lali and others of the old guard.
In the real world, if you need a grocery clerk, or political columnist, you put an ad in the paper and pick the applicant who will do the best job. It's still difficult, but at least you're fishing in a deep pool.
Gordon Campbell's choices are way more complex, and he doesn't get to advertise. If Campbell decides to stay with 27 ministers, he'll be offering cabinet posts to more than half of the 45 elected MLAs. And he'll know that a big chunk of the 18 people left out will be hurt, mad, and maybe vengeful.
The premier can't even pick the people he thinks will do the best job. The cabinet has to be balanced - by region, gender, first language, ideology.
That's not a bad thing. We want representative governments, and who knows if the premier is so great at guessing who will turn out to be an effective minister.
Still, the need for balance restricts Campbell. The last Liberal cabinet had nine women ministers, about one-third of the total. If Campbell wants to match it he will have to appoint nine of the 10 Liberal women elected, with limited attention to experience or potential.
The need for regional balance is just as restrictive. The Liberals' Kootenay caucus had four members, with two in cabinet. Only Bill Bennett survived the election, so he's guaranteed a cabinet spot - maybe as resorts' minister. (A good thing, especially because Bennett could be an aggressive defender of the interests of B.C.'s smaller communities.) Dennis MacKay - a low-profile MLA - might slip into cabinet as a Liberal survivor in the northwest.
Campbell's challenge includes leap-frogging the star candidates - Wally Oppal, Carole Taylor - over other MLAs. Oppal is an odds-on choice for attorney general, a job which will make the small 'l' liberal Oppal an odd partner with top cop Rich Coleman. Taylor could end up in any one of several ministries.
Some ministers should stay put. Stan Hagen wants to stay in children and families, and the ministry needs both his experience and some stability. It makes sense to leave the very competent Colin Hansen in finance.
Things get trickier in health and education, and most prospective solutions reinforce the rising star of Tom Christensen, currently the education minister. Christensen could stay put, replace Shirley Bond in health or even become attorney general if Campbell chooses.
That still leaves many slots to fill. John van Dongen and Mike de Jong are both likely due for a change after four years in the same ministry. (Van Dongen has become a symbol of Liberal difficulties in managing the aquaculture file.) But replacements will be difficult to find, especially after the defeat of junior forest minister Roger Harris.
Graham Bruce's defeat leaves Campbell without a labour minister - and more significantly, without a House leader. Kamloops MLA Claude Richmond doesn't want to be Speaker any more. Both jobs are important in setting the tone for the new legislature - confrontational or co-operative - and protecting the Liberals' interests.
And there's always the chance that Campbell could opt for bolder change. A majority of British Columbians voted for parties that promised to bring back the environment ministry. Why not do what the people want, and name a senior minister to the post to establish more credibility on the environment front? Other ministries could be restructured, perhaps giving Barry Penner a role in energy policy.
Campbell will probably announce his cabinet around June 8. His choices will signal what kind of government British Columbians can expect for the next four years, and what the Liberals have learned from this election.
And Carole James will unveil her shadow cabinet a few days later, a signal of her direction. James says she has taken the NDP toward the centre; her appointments to key critic jobs will tell the tale.
The 2009 campaign starts in the next two weeks.
Footnote: Eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat, leaving Campbell lots of room for newcomers. But not enough, probably. It will sting to be part of the minority left out of cabinet. James faces the same issues in deciding on the roles for Glen Clark uber-loyalist Harry Lali and others of the old guard.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Columbia Basin Trust stumbles show need for public alertness
VICTORIA - You should care about problems at the Columbia Basin Trust, both because it's your money and because they show the need for public scrutiny of economic development funds promised in the Liberal campaign.
The trust is beloved in the Kootenays, where it's seen as belated economic justice.
The 1961 Columbia Treaty with the U.S. saw B.C. agree to build dams on the river system to help the Americans produce more power downstream. B.C. got cash in the deal; communities in the way got flooded out.
People in the region kept demanding a share of the benefits, and in 1995 - after the treaty came up for renewal - the NDP government agreed. It set up the trust, which now manages more than $460 million in assets. Earnings flow to a range of community projects.
But all is not well, with the damning finance ministry review only the latest problem. Liberal MLA Barry Penner asked for the review, citing questions about the relationship between Ken Epp, the CEO of trust subsidiary Columbia Basin Trust Energy, and ZE PowerGroup Inc. of Vancouver.
Epp is a part-time CEO, who billed about $600,000 over a three-year period. Among his other consulting clients is ZE Power, which received about $2 million worth of contract work from CBTE during the same period.
The trust's directors, appointed by the province, are showing an alarming lack of concern and openness.
Visit the trust's web site and there's a release from chair Josh Smienk saying that he's "very pleased" that the finance ministry audit didn't find any "actual conflict of interest" on the part of Epp. The subsidiary met all applicable legal requirements, Smienk proclaims. That is true, and it's important.
But the trust's response is wildly unsatisfactory, considering what else the review found.
Epp was in "a perceived and potential conflict of interest," the ministry review reported. "We believe that Mr. Epp has not completely complied with CBTE's Conflict of Interest Guidelines and we also believe that these guidelines do not go far enough to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest," it said.
Minimum legal requirements were met, but not "the higher standards that are expected of a person serving the public to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest."
The review also called criticized spending practices, including spending money without any approved budget. "Controls were not in place to provide assurances of fairness and value for money for the contracts examined and it was difficult to determine whether these contracts were approved," the report found. "With CBTE's low staffing levels and the perceived conflict of interest of the CEO, it is difficult to effectively manage contracts."
It is not a report that should make board members - or the public - "very pleased."
These are only the latest problems for the trust. In March the board said it wasn't renewing the contract of trust CEO Don Johnston, with no explanation. Interviews for a replacement don't start until next month.
And last year the directors had to cancel a plan to sell the corporation's power-generation business to BC Hydro. The board approved a deal to sell its 50-per-cent interest in four power plants to BC Hydro for $260 million, planning to invest the money.
But the public, still edgy because the Liberals shifted power on the board from local representatives to provincial appointments, hated the idea, and the board retreated. (The plan probably made sense.)
The trust is politically sensitive, and none of the parties wanted it raised as a campaign issue. But expect it to get political attention once the legislature returns.
Meanwhile, the problems should inspire more alertness across the province.
The Liberals have already created the $85-million Northern Development Initiative. During the campaign they promised an extra $50 million for that fund, and $50-million economic development trusts for the southern Interior and and the Vancouver Island/Coast region.
All good ideas. But the trust issues highlight the need for public scrutiny.
Footnote: The new trusts - like the Northern Development Initiative - are likely to be governed by boards of regional and provincial politicians. The legislation setting them up will be in place this year, but if the NDI is an indication it will be well into 2006 before any money flows.
The trust is beloved in the Kootenays, where it's seen as belated economic justice.
The 1961 Columbia Treaty with the U.S. saw B.C. agree to build dams on the river system to help the Americans produce more power downstream. B.C. got cash in the deal; communities in the way got flooded out.
People in the region kept demanding a share of the benefits, and in 1995 - after the treaty came up for renewal - the NDP government agreed. It set up the trust, which now manages more than $460 million in assets. Earnings flow to a range of community projects.
But all is not well, with the damning finance ministry review only the latest problem. Liberal MLA Barry Penner asked for the review, citing questions about the relationship between Ken Epp, the CEO of trust subsidiary Columbia Basin Trust Energy, and ZE PowerGroup Inc. of Vancouver.
Epp is a part-time CEO, who billed about $600,000 over a three-year period. Among his other consulting clients is ZE Power, which received about $2 million worth of contract work from CBTE during the same period.
The trust's directors, appointed by the province, are showing an alarming lack of concern and openness.
Visit the trust's web site and there's a release from chair Josh Smienk saying that he's "very pleased" that the finance ministry audit didn't find any "actual conflict of interest" on the part of Epp. The subsidiary met all applicable legal requirements, Smienk proclaims. That is true, and it's important.
But the trust's response is wildly unsatisfactory, considering what else the review found.
Epp was in "a perceived and potential conflict of interest," the ministry review reported. "We believe that Mr. Epp has not completely complied with CBTE's Conflict of Interest Guidelines and we also believe that these guidelines do not go far enough to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest," it said.
Minimum legal requirements were met, but not "the higher standards that are expected of a person serving the public to avoid and manage the risk of conflict of interest."
The review also called criticized spending practices, including spending money without any approved budget. "Controls were not in place to provide assurances of fairness and value for money for the contracts examined and it was difficult to determine whether these contracts were approved," the report found. "With CBTE's low staffing levels and the perceived conflict of interest of the CEO, it is difficult to effectively manage contracts."
It is not a report that should make board members - or the public - "very pleased."
These are only the latest problems for the trust. In March the board said it wasn't renewing the contract of trust CEO Don Johnston, with no explanation. Interviews for a replacement don't start until next month.
And last year the directors had to cancel a plan to sell the corporation's power-generation business to BC Hydro. The board approved a deal to sell its 50-per-cent interest in four power plants to BC Hydro for $260 million, planning to invest the money.
But the public, still edgy because the Liberals shifted power on the board from local representatives to provincial appointments, hated the idea, and the board retreated. (The plan probably made sense.)
The trust is politically sensitive, and none of the parties wanted it raised as a campaign issue. But expect it to get political attention once the legislature returns.
Meanwhile, the problems should inspire more alertness across the province.
The Liberals have already created the $85-million Northern Development Initiative. During the campaign they promised an extra $50 million for that fund, and $50-million economic development trusts for the southern Interior and and the Vancouver Island/Coast region.
All good ideas. But the trust issues highlight the need for public scrutiny.
Footnote: The new trusts - like the Northern Development Initiative - are likely to be governed by boards of regional and provincial politicians. The legislation setting them up will be in place this year, but if the NDI is an indication it will be well into 2006 before any money flows.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Non-confidence defeat should end the Ottawa sideshow
VICTORIA - The bizarre soap opera in Ottawa isn't just embarrassing, it's hurting Canadians.
The Liberal government survived a non-confidence motion Thursday by the narrowest margin in Canadian history. MPs were split evenly on whether the government should fall, and the deciding vote to keep it alive was cast by Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal MP.
The spectacle has been dismaying.
The Liberals, facing defeat, stalled desperately to avoid facing this test. They lined up NDP support by promising to add $4.6 billion in social spending and to cancel promised corporate tax cuts. This week they persuaded Belinda Stronach to abandon the Conservatives - and jilt lover Peter Mackay, the deputy Conservative leader - and take a senior cabinet post in the Liberal government.
If she hadn't jumped, British Columbians would be heading into another election campaign today.
Meanwhile, sick MPs - including Independent Chuck Cadman of Surrey, weak from cancer treatment - were dragging themselves into the House of Commons for the vote. (Cadman cast a critical vote to save the government. His constituents
don't want another election right now, he said.)
What's striking is the desperation on all sides. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has made bringing down the Liberals his over-riding priority, sacrificing any attempt at making Parliament work in the meantime.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has been busy buying the support of MPs, promising Stronach her cabinet post, the NDP billions of new spending and courting Independent MP David Kilgour with promises of increased aid for dying refugees in the Sudan. Think about that for a second. People are dying in a war zone, but Canada's help depends on how badly the governing party needs to stay in power.
And all this is playing out as the Gomery Inquiry hears evidence that taxpayers were routinely ripped off in the sponsorship scandal, and that some of the money ended up in the hands of Liberal operatives.
The last month has seen just about every desperate, discouraging political moves that you could imagine.
What Canadians haven't seen is a working Parliament, or one that is focused on their interests. The Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois have made toppling the government their over-arching goal; the Liberals have placed clinging to power
above all else. (Only the New Democrats have demonstrably worked towards practical goals, by shaking down Martin for more spending in the budget.)
Provinces have been lining up to extract promises of cash from an obliging Martin, who figures that opposition MPs from those regions will be reluctant to topple the government before the spending legislation has passed. B.C. will likely add its demands now that the election campaign is over.
It's a mess, and there are only two ways out.
Martin could give up, and call an election. Instead he wants to wait until Gomery reports - and the Liberals have a chance to improve their standing in the polls. As prime minister, if he can get the votes in Parliament, that's his right.
Or Harper could accept the verdict, give up on forcing a non-confidence motion until it would clearly be successful and get back to the normal work of the House.
The second option makes the most sense. The Martin government is wounded, and fragile, and clinging to power. But it has demonstrated the support of Parliament - thanks to some dubious dealing - so it can survive.
And at this point, forcing an election seems politically reckless. Canadians are angry and disillusioned, and any election would be wildly unpredictable. Harper is as likely to be punished as rewarded.
Martin has promised an election within 30 days of receiving the Gomery report. Unless new outrages emerge, or the situation in Parliament changes, Harper and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe should settle for that. It doesn't really matter who
is to blame. What Canadians are looking for now is an end to destructive squabbling.
It's time for Parliament to get back to work.
Footnote: The Stronach defection added the crowning touch to this soap opera. She apparently dumped the Conservative party and Mackay at the same time, sending him back to his family home for a few days to mend a broken heart. His
interviews from there were sad and touching, and added a weird twist to the whole affair.
The Liberal government survived a non-confidence motion Thursday by the narrowest margin in Canadian history. MPs were split evenly on whether the government should fall, and the deciding vote to keep it alive was cast by Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal MP.
The spectacle has been dismaying.
The Liberals, facing defeat, stalled desperately to avoid facing this test. They lined up NDP support by promising to add $4.6 billion in social spending and to cancel promised corporate tax cuts. This week they persuaded Belinda Stronach to abandon the Conservatives - and jilt lover Peter Mackay, the deputy Conservative leader - and take a senior cabinet post in the Liberal government.
If she hadn't jumped, British Columbians would be heading into another election campaign today.
Meanwhile, sick MPs - including Independent Chuck Cadman of Surrey, weak from cancer treatment - were dragging themselves into the House of Commons for the vote. (Cadman cast a critical vote to save the government. His constituents
don't want another election right now, he said.)
What's striking is the desperation on all sides. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has made bringing down the Liberals his over-riding priority, sacrificing any attempt at making Parliament work in the meantime.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has been busy buying the support of MPs, promising Stronach her cabinet post, the NDP billions of new spending and courting Independent MP David Kilgour with promises of increased aid for dying refugees in the Sudan. Think about that for a second. People are dying in a war zone, but Canada's help depends on how badly the governing party needs to stay in power.
And all this is playing out as the Gomery Inquiry hears evidence that taxpayers were routinely ripped off in the sponsorship scandal, and that some of the money ended up in the hands of Liberal operatives.
The last month has seen just about every desperate, discouraging political moves that you could imagine.
What Canadians haven't seen is a working Parliament, or one that is focused on their interests. The Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois have made toppling the government their over-arching goal; the Liberals have placed clinging to power
above all else. (Only the New Democrats have demonstrably worked towards practical goals, by shaking down Martin for more spending in the budget.)
Provinces have been lining up to extract promises of cash from an obliging Martin, who figures that opposition MPs from those regions will be reluctant to topple the government before the spending legislation has passed. B.C. will likely add its demands now that the election campaign is over.
It's a mess, and there are only two ways out.
Martin could give up, and call an election. Instead he wants to wait until Gomery reports - and the Liberals have a chance to improve their standing in the polls. As prime minister, if he can get the votes in Parliament, that's his right.
Or Harper could accept the verdict, give up on forcing a non-confidence motion until it would clearly be successful and get back to the normal work of the House.
The second option makes the most sense. The Martin government is wounded, and fragile, and clinging to power. But it has demonstrated the support of Parliament - thanks to some dubious dealing - so it can survive.
And at this point, forcing an election seems politically reckless. Canadians are angry and disillusioned, and any election would be wildly unpredictable. Harper is as likely to be punished as rewarded.
Martin has promised an election within 30 days of receiving the Gomery report. Unless new outrages emerge, or the situation in Parliament changes, Harper and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe should settle for that. It doesn't really matter who
is to blame. What Canadians are looking for now is an end to destructive squabbling.
It's time for Parliament to get back to work.
Footnote: The Stronach defection added the crowning touch to this soap opera. She apparently dumped the Conservative party and Mackay at the same time, sending him back to his family home for a few days to mend a broken heart. His
interviews from there were sad and touching, and added a weird twist to the whole affair.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Next steps for STV, Greens and a look at the rural-urban divide
VICTORIA - Random notes from the confused day after the election.
First, there's a big political opportunity waiting for the party that acknowledges the public will and backs a switch to the single transferable vote system.
A majority of voters in 77 of the 79 ridings said 'yes' to STV, far beyond the required 60 per cent of ridings. Overall, 57 per cent of voters backed the change, just short of the 60-per-cent support threshold set by the government.
The threshold is not unreasonable.
But the referendum result is a clear indication of the public's desire to move to the new system, and the collective belief that it would deliver better, more democratic governments.
And it represents much more popular support than any political party has been able to win in B.C. for decades.
Both the NDP and the Liberals might like to ignore the referendum. Neither is keen on a change which reduces the power of parties and increases the chance that more independents and small party candidates would be elected.
But it would be wrong for them to ignore the will of the people, and foolish to ignore a great political opportunity to back something that has been proven popular with a majority of voters.
The leaders may recognize that. Gordon Campbell said STV isn't dead. "I think we should bring that to the legislature, to all members of the legislature and review where we may go from there, because there is clearly some hunger to see an improvement," he said. Carole James said she voted against STV, but backs an alternate form of proportional representation.
Campbell is on the right track. A caller to radio talk show suggested a simple, clean solution - bring the issue to the legislature, and allow a true free vote by MLAs. If they chose to represent their constituents, than 77 of them will vote yes, reflecting the referendum results. If they choose not to follow the wishes of the people who elected them, they can explain why.
Second, it is time for the Green Party to take a look at its future. Adriane Carr ran a focused, effective campaign in her riding, did well in both debates and got wide media coverage. But she still came third, with 26 per cent of the vote. (Victoria Green Ariel Lade offered himself up as a paper candidate in Peace River South halfway through the campaign, and never set foot in the riding. He got 9.4 per cent of the vote there.)
More significantly, despite four years in which to build, the Greens' share of the popular vote fell from 12 per cent to nine per cent. (Meaning they might be left out of the next leaders TV debate, as 10-per-cent support was one of the thresholds to be met.)
That still represents a lot of voters. But the Greens are mired on the fringe, farther from electing an MLA than they were four years ago. They need to make changes.
And finally, it's worth noting that the political divide between the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province is there, but less gaping than some had feared. The Liberals were strong in Vancouver and its affiliated sprawl, taking 27 seats to the NDP's 16. But they also prevailed in the rest of the province, 19 to 17.
It's a balanced outcome, one that means voters in every region can take concerns to MLAs from both sides of the house. If a government MLA is slow to act, there is an opposition representative available.
The Liberals' weaker showing in the region will likely mean new cabinet ministers. Bill Bennett, the only Liberal survivor in the Kootenays, will likely get a post. One of the MLAs from the Cariboo and the Bulkley Valley will likely replace the defeated Roger Harris as a regional cabinet representative.
Footnote: It's clear that Green voters could have delivered victory to the NDP or Liberals in 10 close races if they had changed their votes. But it's not at all clear which of the other two parties those voters might have moved to if they had opted to vote strategically. Green voters increasingly come from both sides of the political spectrum.
First, there's a big political opportunity waiting for the party that acknowledges the public will and backs a switch to the single transferable vote system.
A majority of voters in 77 of the 79 ridings said 'yes' to STV, far beyond the required 60 per cent of ridings. Overall, 57 per cent of voters backed the change, just short of the 60-per-cent support threshold set by the government.
The threshold is not unreasonable.
But the referendum result is a clear indication of the public's desire to move to the new system, and the collective belief that it would deliver better, more democratic governments.
And it represents much more popular support than any political party has been able to win in B.C. for decades.
Both the NDP and the Liberals might like to ignore the referendum. Neither is keen on a change which reduces the power of parties and increases the chance that more independents and small party candidates would be elected.
But it would be wrong for them to ignore the will of the people, and foolish to ignore a great political opportunity to back something that has been proven popular with a majority of voters.
The leaders may recognize that. Gordon Campbell said STV isn't dead. "I think we should bring that to the legislature, to all members of the legislature and review where we may go from there, because there is clearly some hunger to see an improvement," he said. Carole James said she voted against STV, but backs an alternate form of proportional representation.
Campbell is on the right track. A caller to radio talk show suggested a simple, clean solution - bring the issue to the legislature, and allow a true free vote by MLAs. If they chose to represent their constituents, than 77 of them will vote yes, reflecting the referendum results. If they choose not to follow the wishes of the people who elected them, they can explain why.
Second, it is time for the Green Party to take a look at its future. Adriane Carr ran a focused, effective campaign in her riding, did well in both debates and got wide media coverage. But she still came third, with 26 per cent of the vote. (Victoria Green Ariel Lade offered himself up as a paper candidate in Peace River South halfway through the campaign, and never set foot in the riding. He got 9.4 per cent of the vote there.)
More significantly, despite four years in which to build, the Greens' share of the popular vote fell from 12 per cent to nine per cent. (Meaning they might be left out of the next leaders TV debate, as 10-per-cent support was one of the thresholds to be met.)
That still represents a lot of voters. But the Greens are mired on the fringe, farther from electing an MLA than they were four years ago. They need to make changes.
And finally, it's worth noting that the political divide between the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province is there, but less gaping than some had feared. The Liberals were strong in Vancouver and its affiliated sprawl, taking 27 seats to the NDP's 16. But they also prevailed in the rest of the province, 19 to 17.
It's a balanced outcome, one that means voters in every region can take concerns to MLAs from both sides of the house. If a government MLA is slow to act, there is an opposition representative available.
The Liberals' weaker showing in the region will likely mean new cabinet ministers. Bill Bennett, the only Liberal survivor in the Kootenays, will likely get a post. One of the MLAs from the Cariboo and the Bulkley Valley will likely replace the defeated Roger Harris as a regional cabinet representative.
Footnote: It's clear that Green voters could have delivered victory to the NDP or Liberals in 10 close races if they had changed their votes. But it's not at all clear which of the other two parties those voters might have moved to if they had opted to vote strategically. Green voters increasingly come from both sides of the political spectrum.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Campbell bruised, public well-served by election
VICTORIA - Heave a sigh of relief. You have an opposition.
Left or right or in-between, you're better served by a legislature that includes an effective opposition, with representatives from all regions.
And that's what voters delivered. Recounts in a half-dozen close races could change the outcome, but right now it looks like the Liberals won a strong majority, with about 46 seats of the 79 seats.
But they will face about 33 opposition MLAs, not just two, with an adequately funded research and support staff. It will make the legislature a very different place.
And a more difficult one for Gordon Campbell, who has had no experience in facing an opposition across the chamber's red carpet. The election campaign - when the premier chose only to meet Liberal supporters, in closed settings - reinforced the public impression that Campbell is not much interested in people with different views.
That's only one of several headaches Campbell faces.
For starters, he has to put together a new cabinet, never an easy task. There's room for new faces, since eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat. (An alarming development for the Liberals, with Graham Bruce and Roger Harris both serious losses.) But some of the best jobs are likely already committed to new stars like Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor. Some will have to be allocated based on the need for regional representation (good news for Bill Bennett, the only Liberal from the southeast). And some of the people left out of the new cabinet will be unhappy.
Campbell may face much bigger problems, depending on how Liberals assess his performance in this campaign. In some ways you can't fault the outcome. The Liberals have a comfortable majority, and Campbell is the first B.C. premier re-elected in more than two decades.
But Campbell's campaign was criticized for its slow pace and defensive approach. He was generally seen as losing the televised leaders' debate, although he did better in the radio encounter. And despite some major advantages - a strong economy, popular budget, and the machinery of government - the Liberals lost some 30 seats, the NDP surged to within a few points of its record high popular support of 46 per cent and the Liberal lead shrunk during the four-week campaign.
All of that - combined with memories of Campbell's losing 1996 campaign - will raise questions about whether he should lead the party into what could be a much closer election in 2009. Once those questions have been raised, potential leadership candidates begin thinking about their prospects and plans, a problem for any party.
Campbell has to show that he can learn from the election, moderate his approach and govern in a way that acknowledges fewer than half of the voters backed the party.
Carole James comes out of the campaign having gained important ground. She proved an effective campaigner, and convinced voters that the party has moved to the middle. Not all New Democrats think that's a good idea, but James' performance has given her greater ability to shut down internal attacks.
James - like Campbell - also saw some of key candidates elected. For the NDP, it was Gregor Robertson, Corky Evans, Rob Fleming and Nicholas Simons.
The big winners are the voters, who gain a legislature with a real opposition.
Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan made a valiant effort, despite being hampered by the Liberal refusal to recognize the existence of an official Opposition. But for the last four years we haven't really had an opposition.
That's especially true in terms of regional issues. Liberal MLAs didn't vigorously raise concerns from their community, so they just never made it on to the agenda. (Surrey Memorial Hospital has been under pressure for at least five years. Until Jagrup Brar was elected, the issue was not a political priority. His efforts helped get him re-elected, along with three other New Democrats in Surrey ridings.)
The public has been well-served by this election.
Footnote: STV will get a separate column, but it appears the referendum has created a problem for Campbell. Ninety- per cent of ridings voted for change, but the provincial total vote will fall just short of the 60-per-cent support required. It leaves the government open to criticism whichever course of action it chooses.
Left or right or in-between, you're better served by a legislature that includes an effective opposition, with representatives from all regions.
And that's what voters delivered. Recounts in a half-dozen close races could change the outcome, but right now it looks like the Liberals won a strong majority, with about 46 seats of the 79 seats.
But they will face about 33 opposition MLAs, not just two, with an adequately funded research and support staff. It will make the legislature a very different place.
And a more difficult one for Gordon Campbell, who has had no experience in facing an opposition across the chamber's red carpet. The election campaign - when the premier chose only to meet Liberal supporters, in closed settings - reinforced the public impression that Campbell is not much interested in people with different views.
That's only one of several headaches Campbell faces.
For starters, he has to put together a new cabinet, never an easy task. There's room for new faces, since eight cabinet ministers went down to defeat. (An alarming development for the Liberals, with Graham Bruce and Roger Harris both serious losses.) But some of the best jobs are likely already committed to new stars like Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor. Some will have to be allocated based on the need for regional representation (good news for Bill Bennett, the only Liberal from the southeast). And some of the people left out of the new cabinet will be unhappy.
Campbell may face much bigger problems, depending on how Liberals assess his performance in this campaign. In some ways you can't fault the outcome. The Liberals have a comfortable majority, and Campbell is the first B.C. premier re-elected in more than two decades.
But Campbell's campaign was criticized for its slow pace and defensive approach. He was generally seen as losing the televised leaders' debate, although he did better in the radio encounter. And despite some major advantages - a strong economy, popular budget, and the machinery of government - the Liberals lost some 30 seats, the NDP surged to within a few points of its record high popular support of 46 per cent and the Liberal lead shrunk during the four-week campaign.
All of that - combined with memories of Campbell's losing 1996 campaign - will raise questions about whether he should lead the party into what could be a much closer election in 2009. Once those questions have been raised, potential leadership candidates begin thinking about their prospects and plans, a problem for any party.
Campbell has to show that he can learn from the election, moderate his approach and govern in a way that acknowledges fewer than half of the voters backed the party.
Carole James comes out of the campaign having gained important ground. She proved an effective campaigner, and convinced voters that the party has moved to the middle. Not all New Democrats think that's a good idea, but James' performance has given her greater ability to shut down internal attacks.
James - like Campbell - also saw some of key candidates elected. For the NDP, it was Gregor Robertson, Corky Evans, Rob Fleming and Nicholas Simons.
The big winners are the voters, who gain a legislature with a real opposition.
Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan made a valiant effort, despite being hampered by the Liberal refusal to recognize the existence of an official Opposition. But for the last four years we haven't really had an opposition.
That's especially true in terms of regional issues. Liberal MLAs didn't vigorously raise concerns from their community, so they just never made it on to the agenda. (Surrey Memorial Hospital has been under pressure for at least five years. Until Jagrup Brar was elected, the issue was not a political priority. His efforts helped get him re-elected, along with three other New Democrats in Surrey ridings.)
The public has been well-served by this election.
Footnote: STV will get a separate column, but it appears the referendum has created a problem for Campbell. Ninety- per cent of ridings voted for change, but the provincial total vote will fall just short of the 60-per-cent support required. It leaves the government open to criticism whichever course of action it chooses.
Campaign showed it's time for political spending controls
VICTORIA - You'll probably know the results of the election by the time you read this column.
But deadlines being what they are, I'm writing it just before heading off to vote at the local school.
Which makes it a good time to look at some of the bigger issues raised by this campaign that demand attention before the next election, including the increasing influence of big money, and the role of groups like the BC Teachers' Federation.
The mini-scandal over Liberal fund-raising practices only lasted a week. The party admitted wrongly taking money from charities and municipalities, and refunded the cash. Some defenders noted that all parties in power raise money in similar ways, including selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But that shouldn't be the end of the matter. The fact is the practice is wrong, and damaging to democracy. The underlying message of many party fund-raising efforts is that participants pay money - to go to a dinner, or a private reception, or a golf tournament - for a chance to get access to cabinet ministers and government officials.
Even if they just write a cheque, it is reasonable to believe that donors expect recognition. (Union donors, corporate donors, big individual donors - this isn't a left-right issue.)
Politicians deny that someone who donates $200,000 to a party, or $10,000 to a local campaign, is treated any differently than any other citizen.
But most people, possessed of common sense and life experience, don't believe it. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune, my grandmother always said.
So people think a big donor might get a phone call to government returned a little more quickly. Almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government," according to a 2000 survey. Some of the B.C. towns that paid to attend Liberal fundraisers said they wrote the cheques becuase it bought them a chance to lobby for local projects. Their assumption was that if you didn't pay the party, you didn't have as good a chance of getting even worthwhile plans approved.
It's the kind of fundamental problem that undermines democracy, convincing people that governments serve their financial supporters - union or corporate - ahead of the public.
The problem is easy to fix. Quebec, Manitoba and the federal government have all banned donations from unions, corporations and other organizations, and limited the size of individual donations.
The parties would likely have to get some sort of public subsidy to replace some of the lost revenue. But changing the system also would give us a chance to reduce the role of money in politics overall.
Spending on this campaign, when all the bills are in, will probably top $20 million. That's too much. Big money drives out volunteers, and replaces them with paid professionals, reducing community involvement. Ad budgets and campaign war rooms become more important than ideas or issues. And candidates and parties without a rich donor base are shut out.
At the same time, we should be taking another look at the role of outside interest groups - like the BC Teachers' Federation, or the BC Business Council - in election campaigns.
The groups now have to register, and report their spending. (Efforts to set spending limits have been successfully challenged on freedom of speech grounds.)
It may be that the problem will sort itself out. The BCTF's aggressive, and inept, role in this campaign has probably hurt the NDP more than it has helped the party, and there's little evidence that the outside interventions have helped either of the main parties significantly.
But it's still time to look at whether the increasing involvement of third party lobby groups is distorting the process, and more importantly to tackle the wide perception that big money matters more than the public will in our political system.
Footnote: Any action will likely take public pressure. The NDP and Greens have both called for a ban on corporate and union donations, but the Liberals support the current system. Change is unlikely over the next four years unless the public - perhaps given a little push by the Gomery Inquiry - demands action.
But deadlines being what they are, I'm writing it just before heading off to vote at the local school.
Which makes it a good time to look at some of the bigger issues raised by this campaign that demand attention before the next election, including the increasing influence of big money, and the role of groups like the BC Teachers' Federation.
The mini-scandal over Liberal fund-raising practices only lasted a week. The party admitted wrongly taking money from charities and municipalities, and refunded the cash. Some defenders noted that all parties in power raise money in similar ways, including selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But that shouldn't be the end of the matter. The fact is the practice is wrong, and damaging to democracy. The underlying message of many party fund-raising efforts is that participants pay money - to go to a dinner, or a private reception, or a golf tournament - for a chance to get access to cabinet ministers and government officials.
Even if they just write a cheque, it is reasonable to believe that donors expect recognition. (Union donors, corporate donors, big individual donors - this isn't a left-right issue.)
Politicians deny that someone who donates $200,000 to a party, or $10,000 to a local campaign, is treated any differently than any other citizen.
But most people, possessed of common sense and life experience, don't believe it. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune, my grandmother always said.
So people think a big donor might get a phone call to government returned a little more quickly. Almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government," according to a 2000 survey. Some of the B.C. towns that paid to attend Liberal fundraisers said they wrote the cheques becuase it bought them a chance to lobby for local projects. Their assumption was that if you didn't pay the party, you didn't have as good a chance of getting even worthwhile plans approved.
It's the kind of fundamental problem that undermines democracy, convincing people that governments serve their financial supporters - union or corporate - ahead of the public.
The problem is easy to fix. Quebec, Manitoba and the federal government have all banned donations from unions, corporations and other organizations, and limited the size of individual donations.
The parties would likely have to get some sort of public subsidy to replace some of the lost revenue. But changing the system also would give us a chance to reduce the role of money in politics overall.
Spending on this campaign, when all the bills are in, will probably top $20 million. That's too much. Big money drives out volunteers, and replaces them with paid professionals, reducing community involvement. Ad budgets and campaign war rooms become more important than ideas or issues. And candidates and parties without a rich donor base are shut out.
At the same time, we should be taking another look at the role of outside interest groups - like the BC Teachers' Federation, or the BC Business Council - in election campaigns.
The groups now have to register, and report their spending. (Efforts to set spending limits have been successfully challenged on freedom of speech grounds.)
It may be that the problem will sort itself out. The BCTF's aggressive, and inept, role in this campaign has probably hurt the NDP more than it has helped the party, and there's little evidence that the outside interventions have helped either of the main parties significantly.
But it's still time to look at whether the increasing involvement of third party lobby groups is distorting the process, and more importantly to tackle the wide perception that big money matters more than the public will in our political system.
Footnote: Any action will likely take public pressure. The NDP and Greens have both called for a ban on corporate and union donations, but the Liberals support the current system. Change is unlikely over the next four years unless the public - perhaps given a little push by the Gomery Inquiry - demands action.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Teachers union gives Campbell his best campaign shots
VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell should send some sort of gift over to the BC Teachers' Federation.
The teachers' union has handed Campbell two of his most effective campaign moments. In the radio debate, he picked on three-term BCTF president David Chudnovsky, now running for the NDP. Do voters really want to see Chudnovsky at the cabinet table, deciding on the next teachers' contract, Campbell asked?
And then - five days before the vote - the BCTF makes the news, talking about a meeting two days after the election, when they will discuss a strike vote.
Campbell was all over it. "It's a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before provincial exams, that would would throw our school system into chaos," he said. Inaccurate and hysterical, but still politically effective.
The whole issue is fake. No government - left, right or in between - would allow schools to be closed by a strike for more than 10 days. Parents go crazy, because their children aren't learning and there is no one to take care of them (not necessarily in that order). Employers complain about the economic disruption.
But even if all governments end labour disputes that close schools. the Liberal and NDP responses to the issue still help define them.
The Liberals have made education an essential service. Teachers can strike, but the Labour Relations Board will decide what level of service must be provided, and how many people have to show up at work.
It's not really a protection against disruption. The labour board may rule that the essential elements of education can be provided in three hours a day. Two school districts have moved to four-day school weeks to save money since the last election, so the employer can't argue that a full school week is needed.
Carole James claims she would allow teachers the right to strike, but everyone assumes that she's not serious. An NDP government isn't going to look the other way if schools across the province are closed for months.
The real problem is that the current approach means there is never enough pressure on the parties to encourage bargaining. If the NDP is in power, the teachers' union figures it will do well when a strike is ended with an imposed contract, or backroom deal. If the Liberals are in power, the employer waits out the strike, counting on a good break from the government. It's a consistent incentive for one side to reject compromise.
Neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have offered a sensible solution. The Liberals have a useful report from Don Wright that proposes replacing the phony right to strike with mediation, followed by final offer selection. (Both sides submit their best offer, an independent arbitrator picks one in its entirety, and that's the new deal. Major league baseball uses it to resolve salary disputes.)
But the Liberals haven't taken a position on the recommendations, which were released in December. And James hasn't offered any solution for resolving disputes.
They both get low grades.
But the teachers' union managers, they get an 'F.' The BCTF wants the Liberals defeated, and teachers have a right to be angry with the government. They negotiated contracts in good faith, and signed agreements with the province. And the Liberals decided government is above the law, and the contracts can be ignored.
Yet the teachers' union - through ineptitude, apparently - provided Campbell and the Liberals with a last-minute boost, in a close race.
It's a toss-up between the parties on the real education issues. The Liberals have not provided enough money to maintain the same level of educational quality that students had four years ago. That's a major failing.
The NDP would provide more money. But it would let teachers bargain issues like class size and staffing requirements, which should be decided based as matters of educational effectiveness, not labour relations.
Those are the issues that we should be debating.
Footnote: The significance of the BCTF meeting was exaggerated; unions routinely consider their next steps in negotiations. But that doesn't let the union off the hook. The teachers' federation has chosen to enter the political fray. That means competence is required, and wounding your allies is a sign of ineptitude .
The teachers' union has handed Campbell two of his most effective campaign moments. In the radio debate, he picked on three-term BCTF president David Chudnovsky, now running for the NDP. Do voters really want to see Chudnovsky at the cabinet table, deciding on the next teachers' contract, Campbell asked?
And then - five days before the vote - the BCTF makes the news, talking about a meeting two days after the election, when they will discuss a strike vote.
Campbell was all over it. "It's a duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before provincial exams, that would would throw our school system into chaos," he said. Inaccurate and hysterical, but still politically effective.
The whole issue is fake. No government - left, right or in between - would allow schools to be closed by a strike for more than 10 days. Parents go crazy, because their children aren't learning and there is no one to take care of them (not necessarily in that order). Employers complain about the economic disruption.
But even if all governments end labour disputes that close schools. the Liberal and NDP responses to the issue still help define them.
The Liberals have made education an essential service. Teachers can strike, but the Labour Relations Board will decide what level of service must be provided, and how many people have to show up at work.
It's not really a protection against disruption. The labour board may rule that the essential elements of education can be provided in three hours a day. Two school districts have moved to four-day school weeks to save money since the last election, so the employer can't argue that a full school week is needed.
Carole James claims she would allow teachers the right to strike, but everyone assumes that she's not serious. An NDP government isn't going to look the other way if schools across the province are closed for months.
The real problem is that the current approach means there is never enough pressure on the parties to encourage bargaining. If the NDP is in power, the teachers' union figures it will do well when a strike is ended with an imposed contract, or backroom deal. If the Liberals are in power, the employer waits out the strike, counting on a good break from the government. It's a consistent incentive for one side to reject compromise.
Neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have offered a sensible solution. The Liberals have a useful report from Don Wright that proposes replacing the phony right to strike with mediation, followed by final offer selection. (Both sides submit their best offer, an independent arbitrator picks one in its entirety, and that's the new deal. Major league baseball uses it to resolve salary disputes.)
But the Liberals haven't taken a position on the recommendations, which were released in December. And James hasn't offered any solution for resolving disputes.
They both get low grades.
But the teachers' union managers, they get an 'F.' The BCTF wants the Liberals defeated, and teachers have a right to be angry with the government. They negotiated contracts in good faith, and signed agreements with the province. And the Liberals decided government is above the law, and the contracts can be ignored.
Yet the teachers' union - through ineptitude, apparently - provided Campbell and the Liberals with a last-minute boost, in a close race.
It's a toss-up between the parties on the real education issues. The Liberals have not provided enough money to maintain the same level of educational quality that students had four years ago. That's a major failing.
The NDP would provide more money. But it would let teachers bargain issues like class size and staffing requirements, which should be decided based as matters of educational effectiveness, not labour relations.
Those are the issues that we should be debating.
Footnote: The significance of the BCTF meeting was exaggerated; unions routinely consider their next steps in negotiations. But that doesn't let the union off the hook. The teachers' federation has chosen to enter the political fray. That means competence is required, and wounding your allies is a sign of ineptitude .
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Why you should yes for STV on Tuesday
VICTORIA - Elections are precious opportunities, despite all the flaws in our political process.
You get to help choose the party with the best policies, or leader, or the local candidate who will work most effectively for your community'.
This election is even more precious. You have a rare - maybe once in a lifetime - chance to improve our system by voting for a new, and better, way of electing MLAs and governments. If enough of us say yes to the single-transferable-vote system, it will be used for the 2009 election, bringing more representative, diverse legislatures and more responsive MLAs.
Under the new system there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs would be unchanged.
On election day you would no longer mark an 'X' beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes are counted, the election results reflect the overall rankings. (Opponents make much of the complexity of counting the ballots. The method is admirably explained at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. But really all you need to know is that it has been used in countries like Australia for a century, and works.)
Today, most B.C. voters face one decision - do they want the Liberals, or the NDP, to form the next government. That drives their vote, and the local candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance. Nomination contests for the two main parties - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under STV, voters have options, because they are helping elect more than one MLA. In a five-member 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. There is a chance for independent candidates, or ones who champion important local issues.
The result will be a more diverse, representative legislature, with fewer wasted or reluctant votes for the less offensive party.
That's not the only benefit.
It's significant that voters under the system voters would rank candidates from within the same party. That means a party label isn't enough. Liberal candidates, NDP candidates, they will all be competing with each other for your support. Their re-election won't depend on keeping the party happy, but on representing the community effectively. Candidates who put the party interests ahead of the interests of the people they represent will be punished by voters.
Overall, the system is expected to weaken political parties - a good thing, since they have gained too much power at the expense of individual MLAs or MPs.
Some critics suggest that voters should reject STV in the hope of some future opportunity for better change. But governments almost never allow for this kind of citizen-directed change (full credit to Gordon Campbell). There's no reason to think this chance will come again.
Which means the choice on election day is between staying with the current system, or moving to STV and STV.
It's hard to imagine anyone defending the current system, which has produced confrontation, polarization, cynicism and plummeting voter turnouts.
And bizarre results. In the last election almost 200,000 people voted Green. They have had no voice in the legislature. Some 345,000 people voted New Democrat - one in five voters - and they were represented by two MLAs, two per cent of the seats. In 1996, the Liberals received six per cent more votes than the NDP, but six fewer seats. The New Democrats governed for five years without a real mandate from the public.
No country in the world moving to democracy would chose a system that produced those kinds of results.
The STV system may isn't perfect. But it's far better than what we have.
Footnote: Campbell deserves credit for establishing the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, but he has treated their work shabbily by failing to provide enough money for effective campaigns for and against the change. It's an important decision, and people should have had easier access to information.
You get to help choose the party with the best policies, or leader, or the local candidate who will work most effectively for your community'.
This election is even more precious. You have a rare - maybe once in a lifetime - chance to improve our system by voting for a new, and better, way of electing MLAs and governments. If enough of us say yes to the single-transferable-vote system, it will be used for the 2009 election, bringing more representative, diverse legislatures and more responsive MLAs.
Under the new system there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs would be unchanged.
On election day you would no longer mark an 'X' beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes are counted, the election results reflect the overall rankings. (Opponents make much of the complexity of counting the ballots. The method is admirably explained at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. But really all you need to know is that it has been used in countries like Australia for a century, and works.)
Today, most B.C. voters face one decision - do they want the Liberals, or the NDP, to form the next government. That drives their vote, and the local candidate is largely irrelevant. People who run as independents, or for an alternative party, have little chance. Nomination contests for the two main parties - often undemocratic and flawed - matter more than the election.
But under STV, voters have options, because they are helping elect more than one MLA. In a five-member 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. There is a chance for independent candidates, or ones who champion important local issues.
The result will be a more diverse, representative legislature, with fewer wasted or reluctant votes for the less offensive party.
That's not the only benefit.
It's significant that voters under the system voters would rank candidates from within the same party. That means a party label isn't enough. Liberal candidates, NDP candidates, they will all be competing with each other for your support. Their re-election won't depend on keeping the party happy, but on representing the community effectively. Candidates who put the party interests ahead of the interests of the people they represent will be punished by voters.
Overall, the system is expected to weaken political parties - a good thing, since they have gained too much power at the expense of individual MLAs or MPs.
Some critics suggest that voters should reject STV in the hope of some future opportunity for better change. But governments almost never allow for this kind of citizen-directed change (full credit to Gordon Campbell). There's no reason to think this chance will come again.
Which means the choice on election day is between staying with the current system, or moving to STV and STV.
It's hard to imagine anyone defending the current system, which has produced confrontation, polarization, cynicism and plummeting voter turnouts.
And bizarre results. In the last election almost 200,000 people voted Green. They have had no voice in the legislature. Some 345,000 people voted New Democrat - one in five voters - and they were represented by two MLAs, two per cent of the seats. In 1996, the Liberals received six per cent more votes than the NDP, but six fewer seats. The New Democrats governed for five years without a real mandate from the public.
No country in the world moving to democracy would chose a system that produced those kinds of results.
The STV system may isn't perfect. But it's far better than what we have.
Footnote: Campbell deserves credit for establishing the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, but he has treated their work shabbily by failing to provide enough money for effective campaigns for and against the change. It's an important decision, and people should have had easier access to information.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Radio debate shows fierce final week ahead
VICTORIA - Too bad for the Liberals that the radio debate Gordon Campbell, fear tactics and all, didn't show up for last week's televised debate.
Campbell, Carole James and Adriane Carr held forth for 90 minutes - minus news and weather updates and commercials - on CKNW Monday, with most of the time spent answering planted call-in questions from supporters. (Vancouver Sun columnist Sean Holman, always tuned in, said he recognized a caller who asked James about giving teachers the right to strike as an aide to Liberal Shirley Bond, now working on her Prince George campaign.)
Campbell did well, although it was mostly a negative pitch, raising fears about the possibility of an NDP victory rather than enthusiasm for another four years under the Liberals.
That's tricky ground. Attack politics can be deceptive, destructive and ugly .
But Campbell's radio performance generally stayed on the right side of the line. It is fair to note that the NDP's slate of 79 candidates includes 16 people who served as MLAs or cabinet ministers in previous, discredited NDP governments. It's fair to note that 25 are union officers, or are otherwise active in the labour movement. It's fair to observe that Adrian Dix, Glen Clark's closest political advisor and the man who admitted falsely dating a memo during the casino scandal is running for the NDP.
And it is fair to ask voters if they really want former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky, an NDP candidate, at the table if an NDP government - having restored teachers' right to strike - faces a showdown with the union.
There is still something depressing about the tactic. This is a sitting government elected with huge popular support - almost 60 per cent of the popular vote - that has driven away one a quarter of the people who elected it. Now the Liberals are reduced to campaigning as the least offensive option, at a time when unemployment is remarkably low and the economy strong.
James didn't do badly. She kept the focus on health, education and trust, all weak points for the Liberals. And she can probably be flattered by the shift in focus. In this debate, the NDP was treated like a party that might actually be the government, not just a strong opposition. That brings much closer scrutiny.
The radio show was also a good outing for Carr. In the TV debate, she was often part of a tag-team attack on Campbell, inevitably as a junior partner. This time she criticized both of the main parties, but the sharpest daggers were aimed at the New Democrats. "You can vote for what we've got now, you can vote for what you threw out four years ago, or you can vote for something new," Carr summarized, a good pitch.
The radio debate, with its limited audience, doesn't have anywhere near the impact of the TV debate. But it still matters as one of only two times that the public gets to see the leaders in action together. Clips from the debate, and observations by people like me, keep it at least somewhat in the public eye.
And it offers a good preview of what's ahead for the final week of the campaign. The Liberals have gone on the attack, acknowledging the strength of the NDP campaign, and their own vulnerability.
Partly, it's a stance aimed at rallying the campaign workers, and discouraging protest votes. Set out to create a strong NDP opposition, and you just may elect a James government, Campbell will say at every stop for the next week.
But it's also an admission of failure. Despite a strong economy, and initial goodwill, the Campbell government is now saying it is in a real fight to be re-elected.
It promises to be a hard-fought final week, and an election night more interesting than anyone would have predicted in the heady months after the 2001 vote.
Footnote: The Liberals should still win a significant majority, barring last-week surprises. But Campbell emerges from this campaign in much weaker position. In 1996, and again this year, Campbell has failed to improve the party's position during a campaign. That will encourage leadership challengers to emerge long before the 2009 election.
Campbell, Carole James and Adriane Carr held forth for 90 minutes - minus news and weather updates and commercials - on CKNW Monday, with most of the time spent answering planted call-in questions from supporters. (Vancouver Sun columnist Sean Holman, always tuned in, said he recognized a caller who asked James about giving teachers the right to strike as an aide to Liberal Shirley Bond, now working on her Prince George campaign.)
Campbell did well, although it was mostly a negative pitch, raising fears about the possibility of an NDP victory rather than enthusiasm for another four years under the Liberals.
That's tricky ground. Attack politics can be deceptive, destructive and ugly .
But Campbell's radio performance generally stayed on the right side of the line. It is fair to note that the NDP's slate of 79 candidates includes 16 people who served as MLAs or cabinet ministers in previous, discredited NDP governments. It's fair to note that 25 are union officers, or are otherwise active in the labour movement. It's fair to observe that Adrian Dix, Glen Clark's closest political advisor and the man who admitted falsely dating a memo during the casino scandal is running for the NDP.
And it is fair to ask voters if they really want former BC Teachers' Federation president David Chudnovsky, an NDP candidate, at the table if an NDP government - having restored teachers' right to strike - faces a showdown with the union.
There is still something depressing about the tactic. This is a sitting government elected with huge popular support - almost 60 per cent of the popular vote - that has driven away one a quarter of the people who elected it. Now the Liberals are reduced to campaigning as the least offensive option, at a time when unemployment is remarkably low and the economy strong.
James didn't do badly. She kept the focus on health, education and trust, all weak points for the Liberals. And she can probably be flattered by the shift in focus. In this debate, the NDP was treated like a party that might actually be the government, not just a strong opposition. That brings much closer scrutiny.
The radio show was also a good outing for Carr. In the TV debate, she was often part of a tag-team attack on Campbell, inevitably as a junior partner. This time she criticized both of the main parties, but the sharpest daggers were aimed at the New Democrats. "You can vote for what we've got now, you can vote for what you threw out four years ago, or you can vote for something new," Carr summarized, a good pitch.
The radio debate, with its limited audience, doesn't have anywhere near the impact of the TV debate. But it still matters as one of only two times that the public gets to see the leaders in action together. Clips from the debate, and observations by people like me, keep it at least somewhat in the public eye.
And it offers a good preview of what's ahead for the final week of the campaign. The Liberals have gone on the attack, acknowledging the strength of the NDP campaign, and their own vulnerability.
Partly, it's a stance aimed at rallying the campaign workers, and discouraging protest votes. Set out to create a strong NDP opposition, and you just may elect a James government, Campbell will say at every stop for the next week.
But it's also an admission of failure. Despite a strong economy, and initial goodwill, the Campbell government is now saying it is in a real fight to be re-elected.
It promises to be a hard-fought final week, and an election night more interesting than anyone would have predicted in the heady months after the 2001 vote.
Footnote: The Liberals should still win a significant majority, barring last-week surprises. But Campbell emerges from this campaign in much weaker position. In 1996, and again this year, Campbell has failed to improve the party's position during a campaign. That will encourage leadership challengers to emerge long before the 2009 election.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Debate helps James within the NDP too - but what happened to First Nations
VICTORIA - Some footnotes from the debate, starting with another reason Carole James' strong performance is significant..
It was assumed some NDP leadership candidates sat out the last race, reluctant to take on the job so soon after the 2001 debacle and confident that James would face some sort of leadership challenge after this election. In the same way, most voters doubted James would deliver on her promise of a more moderate NDP, in part because they doubted she could control the party.
The debate, and what looks like a reasonably good election result, give James a much firmer footing in the sometimes snakepit world of NDP politics, and makes any moves against her politically reckless. That bolsters her clout over the next four years, and may reassure some voters about the NDP's course.
Meanwhile, the post-debate official Liberal spin was that Gordon Campbell, rather than being defensive, was polite, and the unofficial spin was that he didn't want to be seen as the overbearing middle-aged guy lecturing two nice women.
It's the first leaders' debate I can recall where women were in the majority, and that did create a problem for Campbell. That's not necessarily because he's male, but because he's male, widely seen as uncaring, and already unpopular with women voters. It would be tough for him to get into a noisy clash without looking bad.
That shouldn't have ruled out a better performance. Quiet and polite can still be highly effective.
But if gender was a factor in the way the debate went, then we should be working harder to see more women in the legislature. The relative civility - think back to the federal leaders' debate for an alternative - was a tribute to all three leaders.
One of the most surprising aspects of the debate were the number of topics that didn't get a mention.
No leader really talked about First Nations and treaties, despite the importance of the issue to the province's future and the continued difficulty in moving to final agreements.
No leader talked about forestry, beyond the hot button issue of raw log exports. Parts of the industry are booming, Campbell could have noted. And all three leaders could have offered their plan to deal with the coming drastic timber shortage as a result of the pine beetle infestation, or their approach to the never-ending softwood trade battle.
No leader really talked specifically about economic development for B.C.'s regions, and a plan to reverse a steady exodus of young families and resource sector jobs.
The time was short, and six topics were preselected. But the lack of focus on the rest of B.C., the parts of the province outside Vancouver and its sprawl, was surprising.
It was also a little surprising to see that James chose not to raise the Liberals' dubious fund-raising methods that have been in the news for the past week. The approach helped her avoid being seen as too negative, but it meant a missed chance to highlight the NDP pledge to ban corporate and union donations.
Voters did get a first look at a new theme from Campbell, one that will play a role over the next two weeks. "On May the 17th, you'll choose B.C.'s future," he said is his generally flat closing speech. "You're not going to choose an opposition. You're going to elect a government."
The Liberal fear is that voters who simply want a stronger opposition, or to punish the Liberals over specific grievances, will end up accidentally electing an NDP government. They also recognize the value of planting that thought in voters' minds when there are so many close races.
It will take the next set of polls before we know how the debate really affected the race.
But it's already a win for James personally, and a boost for NDP workers. That's important. The party that has the best organization on the ground will win some close races.
Footnote: The TV ratings remind us that most voters will get their information about the debate secondhand. About 37 per cent of the people watching TV tuned in the debate at some point, almost four time as many as watched the runner-up, Jeopardy. But that still means most voters will rely on the media or friends in forming their opinion.
It was assumed some NDP leadership candidates sat out the last race, reluctant to take on the job so soon after the 2001 debacle and confident that James would face some sort of leadership challenge after this election. In the same way, most voters doubted James would deliver on her promise of a more moderate NDP, in part because they doubted she could control the party.
The debate, and what looks like a reasonably good election result, give James a much firmer footing in the sometimes snakepit world of NDP politics, and makes any moves against her politically reckless. That bolsters her clout over the next four years, and may reassure some voters about the NDP's course.
Meanwhile, the post-debate official Liberal spin was that Gordon Campbell, rather than being defensive, was polite, and the unofficial spin was that he didn't want to be seen as the overbearing middle-aged guy lecturing two nice women.
It's the first leaders' debate I can recall where women were in the majority, and that did create a problem for Campbell. That's not necessarily because he's male, but because he's male, widely seen as uncaring, and already unpopular with women voters. It would be tough for him to get into a noisy clash without looking bad.
That shouldn't have ruled out a better performance. Quiet and polite can still be highly effective.
But if gender was a factor in the way the debate went, then we should be working harder to see more women in the legislature. The relative civility - think back to the federal leaders' debate for an alternative - was a tribute to all three leaders.
One of the most surprising aspects of the debate were the number of topics that didn't get a mention.
No leader really talked about First Nations and treaties, despite the importance of the issue to the province's future and the continued difficulty in moving to final agreements.
No leader talked about forestry, beyond the hot button issue of raw log exports. Parts of the industry are booming, Campbell could have noted. And all three leaders could have offered their plan to deal with the coming drastic timber shortage as a result of the pine beetle infestation, or their approach to the never-ending softwood trade battle.
No leader really talked specifically about economic development for B.C.'s regions, and a plan to reverse a steady exodus of young families and resource sector jobs.
The time was short, and six topics were preselected. But the lack of focus on the rest of B.C., the parts of the province outside Vancouver and its sprawl, was surprising.
It was also a little surprising to see that James chose not to raise the Liberals' dubious fund-raising methods that have been in the news for the past week. The approach helped her avoid being seen as too negative, but it meant a missed chance to highlight the NDP pledge to ban corporate and union donations.
Voters did get a first look at a new theme from Campbell, one that will play a role over the next two weeks. "On May the 17th, you'll choose B.C.'s future," he said is his generally flat closing speech. "You're not going to choose an opposition. You're going to elect a government."
The Liberal fear is that voters who simply want a stronger opposition, or to punish the Liberals over specific grievances, will end up accidentally electing an NDP government. They also recognize the value of planting that thought in voters' minds when there are so many close races.
It will take the next set of polls before we know how the debate really affected the race.
But it's already a win for James personally, and a boost for NDP workers. That's important. The party that has the best organization on the ground will win some close races.
Footnote: The TV ratings remind us that most voters will get their information about the debate secondhand. About 37 per cent of the people watching TV tuned in the debate at some point, almost four time as many as watched the runner-up, Jeopardy. But that still means most voters will rely on the media or friends in forming their opinion.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
No big winner, but good night for James
VICTORIA - Here's the debate in a three paragraphs.
Gordon Campbell didn't do well, but he didn't do terribly, which is generally the goal for the front-runner. Nobody who watched the debate would have left saying 'wow, I feel a lot better about that guy.' Nobody would have been plunged into horror at some newly revealed weakness.
Carole James did well, though not enough to make any huge changes in the party's fortunes. There wasn't the Gordon Wilson-Brian Mulroney kind of defining moment that would transform the campaign.
And B.C.'s regions should be steamed at how little attention was given to any issues that matter to them. Forestry never even came up, except in terms of a brief reference to raw log exports. Nothing on mining, or regional economic development, or of ways to provide better services outside the Lower Mainland.
My reaction to the debate doesn't much matter. (For one thing, I'm taking notes, which means I'm not watching the way a typical voter would, and miss some of the gestures and expressions.)
More importantly, the target audience for all three parties is really swing voters, people who will probably vote but are not yet committed to a party.
The pitches were about what you would expect.
James tried to raise questions about weak areas of the Liberals' record. The debate's six topics included health care and education. In both cases James was effective in raising doubts about the Liberals' performance, raising the broken long-term care promise and rising waiting lists, and cuts to school services.
She reminded people of the Liberals' broken promises, on gambling and long-term care beds and BC Rail. (Campbell strangely tried to maintain, again, that BC Rail hadn't been sold.) And she promised balanced budgets and no new taxes.
It was a good effort. James had the most to gain in the debate, as many British Columbians have yet to form an opinion of her leadership, according to polls. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll indicates that James and the NDP gained approval durin the first days of the campaign, while the Liberals slide. It points to an opportunity.
It wasn't a great performance from Campbell, who seemed the most stiff and nervous of the three. But it wasn't bad, and he met the main goal of the Liberal campaign by avoiding any mistakes that would help the NDP.
The Liberals have been running a cautious, guarded campaign, protecting their lead in the polls. Campbell kept on that track Tuesday.
He did challenge James effectively on her promise to restore the right to strike to teachers. And Campbell raised the NDP's record in the '90s. "British Columbia went from being the best economy in the country to the worst," he said.
Still, Campbell didn't do much to advance the party's cause. James did.
Green Party leader Adriane Carr can probably count it as an adequate night. The Greens' objective is to get Carr elected in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. She stressed the importance of having an alternative to the "old parties" of vested interests, and made point of linking the NDP and the Liberals in her criticisms. Carr didn't score any big wins, but she probably helped her personal campaign.
The debate's impact will be carefully measured by the parties' pollsters over the next 24 hours. My guess is that there will be enough of a shift to alter the last two weeks of the campaign.
James took a major step Tuesday, campaigning to form the next government, not just a strong opposition. Campbell raised the possibility of an NDP government as well, in a cautionary way.
The Liberals were on their way to a comfortable majority, with perhaps 50 of the 79 seats. But if the polls show the debate produced even a small shift in party support, the race will be much closer.
And both New Democrats and Liberals will be looking at changing their approaches to the final days of this campaign.
Footnote: The debate format worked well, and all three leaders deserve full marks for allowing the others to speak, generally without interruption. The debate was courteous, and not unreasonably negative. Voters would likely welcome more of the same - especially the debate on regional issues proposed by James.
Gordon Campbell didn't do well, but he didn't do terribly, which is generally the goal for the front-runner. Nobody who watched the debate would have left saying 'wow, I feel a lot better about that guy.' Nobody would have been plunged into horror at some newly revealed weakness.
Carole James did well, though not enough to make any huge changes in the party's fortunes. There wasn't the Gordon Wilson-Brian Mulroney kind of defining moment that would transform the campaign.
And B.C.'s regions should be steamed at how little attention was given to any issues that matter to them. Forestry never even came up, except in terms of a brief reference to raw log exports. Nothing on mining, or regional economic development, or of ways to provide better services outside the Lower Mainland.
My reaction to the debate doesn't much matter. (For one thing, I'm taking notes, which means I'm not watching the way a typical voter would, and miss some of the gestures and expressions.)
More importantly, the target audience for all three parties is really swing voters, people who will probably vote but are not yet committed to a party.
The pitches were about what you would expect.
James tried to raise questions about weak areas of the Liberals' record. The debate's six topics included health care and education. In both cases James was effective in raising doubts about the Liberals' performance, raising the broken long-term care promise and rising waiting lists, and cuts to school services.
She reminded people of the Liberals' broken promises, on gambling and long-term care beds and BC Rail. (Campbell strangely tried to maintain, again, that BC Rail hadn't been sold.) And she promised balanced budgets and no new taxes.
It was a good effort. James had the most to gain in the debate, as many British Columbians have yet to form an opinion of her leadership, according to polls. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll indicates that James and the NDP gained approval durin the first days of the campaign, while the Liberals slide. It points to an opportunity.
It wasn't a great performance from Campbell, who seemed the most stiff and nervous of the three. But it wasn't bad, and he met the main goal of the Liberal campaign by avoiding any mistakes that would help the NDP.
The Liberals have been running a cautious, guarded campaign, protecting their lead in the polls. Campbell kept on that track Tuesday.
He did challenge James effectively on her promise to restore the right to strike to teachers. And Campbell raised the NDP's record in the '90s. "British Columbia went from being the best economy in the country to the worst," he said.
Still, Campbell didn't do much to advance the party's cause. James did.
Green Party leader Adriane Carr can probably count it as an adequate night. The Greens' objective is to get Carr elected in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. She stressed the importance of having an alternative to the "old parties" of vested interests, and made point of linking the NDP and the Liberals in her criticisms. Carr didn't score any big wins, but she probably helped her personal campaign.
The debate's impact will be carefully measured by the parties' pollsters over the next 24 hours. My guess is that there will be enough of a shift to alter the last two weeks of the campaign.
James took a major step Tuesday, campaigning to form the next government, not just a strong opposition. Campbell raised the possibility of an NDP government as well, in a cautionary way.
The Liberals were on their way to a comfortable majority, with perhaps 50 of the 79 seats. But if the polls show the debate produced even a small shift in party support, the race will be much closer.
And both New Democrats and Liberals will be looking at changing their approaches to the final days of this campaign.
Footnote: The debate format worked well, and all three leaders deserve full marks for allowing the others to speak, generally without interruption. The debate was courteous, and not unreasonably negative. Voters would likely welcome more of the same - especially the debate on regional issues proposed by James.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Liberals show need to ban old-style fundraising
VICTORIA - Yes, the scandal over the BC Liberals' fund-raising practices is real.
Not in the way you might at first think, that the Campbell Liberals are breaking new ground, or some sort of rogues within a generally fine system. In fact, all parties in power raise money in similar ways, and that includes selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But in this election, the Green Party and the NDP have both promised political financing reform if they form government. Corporate, union and municipal donations would be banned and individual donations limited, as they are federally and in Quebec and Manitoba.
The Liberals are opposed to reform. And that should be an important policy difference for voters.
The money involved in the Liberals' wrong-doing is small, but the specifics are serious. Municipalities, individuals and businesses in the northwest were encouraged to pay to attend an economic development conference. Taxpayers paid to fly in ministers, as well as senior bureaucrat Andrew Wilkinson, a former Liberal party president.
And then the local Liberal party treated the event as a fund-raiser, and pocketed the proceeds.
In Nelson, a similar scheme saw the party profit from what was billed as a breakfast meeting with Economic Development Minister John Les. Want to talk about the interests of your small business with the minister, or hear his ideas? Write the party a cheque.
The Liberals also took money from charities, something party rules rightly bar.
In turn, the Liberals complain the NDP took money from First Nations' governments in 1997, and that unions are skirting election finance laws with their anti-Liberal campaigns.
The Liberals have shown that the current system does not work. According to a national survey in 2000, almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
It does not take any deep study to conclude that a corporation, or union, that donates $50,000 a year to the party in power will benefit as a result. If two editors call me tomorrow with questions about B.C. politics, and one has been running the column regularly and the other rarely, I'll call the supporter first.
Certainly that's the way donors think. The Liberals are in trouble in part because they took money from municipalities. The mayors, and councillors, defend buying tickets to party fund-raisers in part because it bought them access to cabinet ministers that they could not otherwsie get. Pay the price to the party, reap the benefits.
Consider Paul Martin's leadership campaign. Long after competitors had been routed, he was receiving millions in donations.
Why? Supporters didn't have to worry about ensuring a Martin government, as that was already certain. The only explanation, is that they wanted their financial support to be noted for future reference. They expected something. (Corporations and unions both have legal obligations to spend money in ways that benefit their shareholders and members.)
Campbell says disclosure of donations is enough. You should be able to keep track of the thousands of donors, and thousands of decisions by secretive governments, and decide if improper favoritism is being shown. It was always a far-fetched argument, but the Liberal party's current claim that it couldn't even keep track of donors or fund-raising schemes elevates the argument to fantasy.
It's not a complicated problem. Ban donations from corporations, unions and organizations, and set reasonable limits for individuals. Decide how much parties - which are supposedly volunteer-based - really need to operate, and run election campaigns. If donation limits make it impossible for them to get enough money, then come up with equitable public funding.
The issue is simple. Is it likely, or possible, that parties will feel an obligation to those who give them huge amounts of money? Almost all of us - and this what matters - say yes.
That perception alone threatens democracy, and is reason enough to ban corporate and union donations.
Footnote: The Liberals raised $5 million in the first 10 months of last year. About $3.5 million came from corporations and other businesses, while individuals contributed $1.5 million, mostly from people willing to write big cheques. The NDP took in $2.5 million, with $360,000 from unions and the rest from individuals, largely writing small cheques.
Not in the way you might at first think, that the Campbell Liberals are breaking new ground, or some sort of rogues within a generally fine system. In fact, all parties in power raise money in similar ways, and that includes selling access to the leader, or cabinet ministers.
But in this election, the Green Party and the NDP have both promised political financing reform if they form government. Corporate, union and municipal donations would be banned and individual donations limited, as they are federally and in Quebec and Manitoba.
The Liberals are opposed to reform. And that should be an important policy difference for voters.
The money involved in the Liberals' wrong-doing is small, but the specifics are serious. Municipalities, individuals and businesses in the northwest were encouraged to pay to attend an economic development conference. Taxpayers paid to fly in ministers, as well as senior bureaucrat Andrew Wilkinson, a former Liberal party president.
And then the local Liberal party treated the event as a fund-raiser, and pocketed the proceeds.
In Nelson, a similar scheme saw the party profit from what was billed as a breakfast meeting with Economic Development Minister John Les. Want to talk about the interests of your small business with the minister, or hear his ideas? Write the party a cheque.
The Liberals also took money from charities, something party rules rightly bar.
In turn, the Liberals complain the NDP took money from First Nations' governments in 1997, and that unions are skirting election finance laws with their anti-Liberal campaigns.
The Liberals have shown that the current system does not work. According to a national survey in 2000, almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
It does not take any deep study to conclude that a corporation, or union, that donates $50,000 a year to the party in power will benefit as a result. If two editors call me tomorrow with questions about B.C. politics, and one has been running the column regularly and the other rarely, I'll call the supporter first.
Certainly that's the way donors think. The Liberals are in trouble in part because they took money from municipalities. The mayors, and councillors, defend buying tickets to party fund-raisers in part because it bought them access to cabinet ministers that they could not otherwsie get. Pay the price to the party, reap the benefits.
Consider Paul Martin's leadership campaign. Long after competitors had been routed, he was receiving millions in donations.
Why? Supporters didn't have to worry about ensuring a Martin government, as that was already certain. The only explanation, is that they wanted their financial support to be noted for future reference. They expected something. (Corporations and unions both have legal obligations to spend money in ways that benefit their shareholders and members.)
Campbell says disclosure of donations is enough. You should be able to keep track of the thousands of donors, and thousands of decisions by secretive governments, and decide if improper favoritism is being shown. It was always a far-fetched argument, but the Liberal party's current claim that it couldn't even keep track of donors or fund-raising schemes elevates the argument to fantasy.
It's not a complicated problem. Ban donations from corporations, unions and organizations, and set reasonable limits for individuals. Decide how much parties - which are supposedly volunteer-based - really need to operate, and run election campaigns. If donation limits make it impossible for them to get enough money, then come up with equitable public funding.
The issue is simple. Is it likely, or possible, that parties will feel an obligation to those who give them huge amounts of money? Almost all of us - and this what matters - say yes.
That perception alone threatens democracy, and is reason enough to ban corporate and union donations.
Footnote: The Liberals raised $5 million in the first 10 months of last year. About $3.5 million came from corporations and other businesses, while individuals contributed $1.5 million, mostly from people willing to write big cheques. The NDP took in $2.5 million, with $360,000 from unions and the rest from individuals, largely writing small cheques.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
