VICTORIA - It's time for answers about how pedophile Peter Whitmore was able to roam so freely around Canada even though authorities were convinced he was a threat to children.
The notion that we can reduce crime problems by locking more people up for longer periods is generally foolish. Other countries have tried that approach and found it to be a costly failure. Tough talk on crime has more to do with politics than pragmatism.
But Whitmore and a small number of others like him - apparently incorrigible sex offenders who target children - pose a special challenge for courts, police and society. His case suggests the response is inadequate.
Whitmore surrendered to police in Saskatchewan and now faces sexual assault and abduction charges.
But his record goes back to 1993, when he was convicted of abducting and sexually assaulting four young boys. He served 16 months in jail, a relatively light sentence that likely reflected the court's view that he could change his behaviour.
He didn't. Nine days after he was set free Whitmore abducted an eight-year-old girl and sexually assaulted her. He was sentenced to four years in jail. Released under a set of conditions, he fled to Mexico and was eventually returned to jail.
When he was released once more Whitmore spoke to reporters and pleaded to be left alone. He wouldn't re-offend, he said. One more conviction could mean dangerous offender status and life in jail.
Weeks later he was found in a hotel room with a 13-year-old boy and sent back to prison for a year.
Released again, Whitmore was found with a five-year-old boy, carrying what police described as a "rape kit" -- tape, plastic ties, latex gloves and lubricant.
It should have been clear that Whitmore was a risk to children. Even knowing he faced life in jail, he was unable to stop.
But the criminal justice system was unable to respond to the danger effectively with sentences that protected society or effective supervision.
One solution is supposed to be dangerous offender designation, a rarely used but important provision that allows judges to jail offenders permanently if they appear certain to commit more crimes.
But Whitmore didn't qualify. He was repeatedly jailed for violating the conditions of his release, not for serious offences that would have allowed the Crown to apply for dangerous offender status.
Perhaps the Crown should have been more diligent in laying additional charges. Perhaps the legislation needs to be changed to allow dangerous offender status for people with offence patterns like Whitmore's. Something needs to change.
The case raises other serious issues.
When Whitmore was released in B.C. last year he was the subject of a Section 810 order, an extraordinary measure that allows police to keep close tabs on an offender released after serving his full sentence. He can be required to report daily to police, for example, and notify them of all his movements.
But, so far inexpilicaly, the order was allowed to lapse this June. Whitmore left for Alberta immediately. Police and Crown prosecutors there were in the process of applying for a new order, but were moving slowly. Whitmore, freed from tight supervision, took off across the country on his own. You have read the rest.
The failure has nothing to do with gaps in the law or a need for tougher legislation.
All police and prosecutors had to do was make sure the order was renewed before it expired on June 12 so that Whitmore remained under close supervision. (That had apparently worked for a year.)
They didn't do that, despite warnings from the parole board that he was virtually certain to re-offend.
Pedophile offenders pose a huge challenge to the justice system. Treatment is difficult and many remain a high risk to commit new assaults.
Whitmore's case suggests the system did not meet the challenge, in large part because it failed to make effective use of the existing laws.
Footnote: The case also highlights the need for the changes to age-of-consent legislation, promised by the Conservatives for this fall. Whitmore is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy travelling with him. Under the current law, his defence options include arguing that the boy was a consenting sex partner.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Hiding the crime facts from public a dumb idea
VICTORIA - The Mounties are likely right. People are way more concerned about crime than they should be.
But their idea that the best solution could be to keep crimes secret is bizarre.
B.C. RCMP discussed reducing the flow of information as a way to “improve” the public’s attitude about crime. People were more scared than they should be, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by the Vancouver Sun. It suggested media relations officers provide less information, in hopes that would mean less media coverage and a happier public.
The real problem isn’t too much information, it’s too little. Any journalist who has tried to pry information from the RCMP - or most police forces - can attest to the difficulty in getting more than the barest basics.
There are exceptions, notably when police call a press conference and lay out seized guns or drugs as a photo op. (And who is creating fear about crime then?)
But generally, secrecy rules. Crime stories may make the headlines, but not because of chatty RCMP officers.
The Mounties’ internal report included an analysis of unidentified B.C. newspapers over a four-week period that found 67 per cent of front-page stories were about crime. (The Sun reported 26 per cent of its front-page stories in the previous month dealt with crime.) And it cites a poll done for the RCMP that found 68 per cent of B.C. residents said they were concerned that their families may be a victim of crime.
Our fear of crime is overblown. Most Canadians think crime is on the increase; in reality the rates for most crimes have been declining fairly steadily for 20 years, falling by five per cent last year. Despite the drug-driven problems of car break-ins and theft, we’re safer today than we were in 1990.
And media coverage may fuel fear. My first reporting job included showing up at the Red Deer RCMP detachment every morning and getting a briefing on what had happened in the last 24 hours from the staff sergeant, which I then compiled into the Police Log for that day’s paper. It wasn’t complete - the sergeant didn’t even try to dissemble when he read what was obviously an interesting entry to himself, shook his head and then just turned the page. But the paper’s reports gave a fair picture of what police really did, hauling in drunks, breaking up arguments and checking out garage thefts.
Terrible things still happened. But anyone who read the paper knew they were rare. Most days, not much bad occurred at all (especially if you stayed away from the Windsor Hotel bar).
That kind of reporting is still the norm in many smaller communities, with much depending on the co-operation of the local RCMP detachment. And interestingly, the RCMP the survey found 53 per cent of Greater Vancouver residents think police are doing a good job. In the rest of province, police got good marks from 65 per cent in the rest of the province. More information may mean higher approval for police.
Crime is a public issue. The police are paid by - and accountable to - citizens. They don’t have any right to withhold information because they think it might give people the wrong idea or make them look bad.
But the media should take a look at its role. Major crimes demand major coverage. But our job should be to help people understand the world they live in, and it may be that our crime reporting leaves people uninformed about the daily grind for police and in the courts. Maybe every paper should have a Police Log.
Ignorance isn’t really bliss; keeping information from the public as a strategy is both wrong and futile.
This is a very safe place to live. Yet people are troubled by crime. The answer lies in more information, understanding and informed debate about the best public policies - not more secrecy.
Footnote: I covered courts and cops briefly. And as a naive young reporter, the most surprising thing to me was how well the system worked. Police functioned as social workers with guns, except when the really bad people came around. The courts did an effective job in locking up the dangerous, giving a reasonable chance to the potentially redeemable and acquitting the innocent. The system - terribly flawed - mostly worked, given the limitations government set.
But their idea that the best solution could be to keep crimes secret is bizarre.
B.C. RCMP discussed reducing the flow of information as a way to “improve” the public’s attitude about crime. People were more scared than they should be, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by the Vancouver Sun. It suggested media relations officers provide less information, in hopes that would mean less media coverage and a happier public.
The real problem isn’t too much information, it’s too little. Any journalist who has tried to pry information from the RCMP - or most police forces - can attest to the difficulty in getting more than the barest basics.
There are exceptions, notably when police call a press conference and lay out seized guns or drugs as a photo op. (And who is creating fear about crime then?)
But generally, secrecy rules. Crime stories may make the headlines, but not because of chatty RCMP officers.
The Mounties’ internal report included an analysis of unidentified B.C. newspapers over a four-week period that found 67 per cent of front-page stories were about crime. (The Sun reported 26 per cent of its front-page stories in the previous month dealt with crime.) And it cites a poll done for the RCMP that found 68 per cent of B.C. residents said they were concerned that their families may be a victim of crime.
Our fear of crime is overblown. Most Canadians think crime is on the increase; in reality the rates for most crimes have been declining fairly steadily for 20 years, falling by five per cent last year. Despite the drug-driven problems of car break-ins and theft, we’re safer today than we were in 1990.
And media coverage may fuel fear. My first reporting job included showing up at the Red Deer RCMP detachment every morning and getting a briefing on what had happened in the last 24 hours from the staff sergeant, which I then compiled into the Police Log for that day’s paper. It wasn’t complete - the sergeant didn’t even try to dissemble when he read what was obviously an interesting entry to himself, shook his head and then just turned the page. But the paper’s reports gave a fair picture of what police really did, hauling in drunks, breaking up arguments and checking out garage thefts.
Terrible things still happened. But anyone who read the paper knew they were rare. Most days, not much bad occurred at all (especially if you stayed away from the Windsor Hotel bar).
That kind of reporting is still the norm in many smaller communities, with much depending on the co-operation of the local RCMP detachment. And interestingly, the RCMP the survey found 53 per cent of Greater Vancouver residents think police are doing a good job. In the rest of province, police got good marks from 65 per cent in the rest of the province. More information may mean higher approval for police.
Crime is a public issue. The police are paid by - and accountable to - citizens. They don’t have any right to withhold information because they think it might give people the wrong idea or make them look bad.
But the media should take a look at its role. Major crimes demand major coverage. But our job should be to help people understand the world they live in, and it may be that our crime reporting leaves people uninformed about the daily grind for police and in the courts. Maybe every paper should have a Police Log.
Ignorance isn’t really bliss; keeping information from the public as a strategy is both wrong and futile.
This is a very safe place to live. Yet people are troubled by crime. The answer lies in more information, understanding and informed debate about the best public policies - not more secrecy.
Footnote: I covered courts and cops briefly. And as a naive young reporter, the most surprising thing to me was how well the system worked. Police functioned as social workers with guns, except when the really bad people came around. The courts did an effective job in locking up the dangerous, giving a reasonable chance to the potentially redeemable and acquitting the innocent. The system - terribly flawed - mostly worked, given the limitations government set.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Big raises for top goverment managers not out of line
VICTORIA - It’s traditional that government news releases on controversial topics - like pay raises for senior managers and political staffers - are dropped on Friday, often late in the day.
It usually works. There’s not much time to work up a story for the next day’s paper or that evening’s newscast. By Monday, the media - with its short attention span - has moved on.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s announcement of big raises for top government managers and political staffers was made on a summer Friday. Some political staffers would be eligible for 25-per-cent pay raises under the new plan. Senior managers would be eligible for raises of up to 40 per cent under the new grids.
Big jumps are the norm for senior managers. Dan Miller, as NDP premier, approved increases of almost 30 per cent for some managers in 2000. Campbell moved to bump some wages up by another 30 per cent in the next year.
It’s not a particularly effective way of managing pay scales. And now it’s happening again.
Should you be worried? A little, but not about the pay grid. The maximum salaries for deputy ministers - CEOs of very large organizations - goes up nine per cent, to $220,000.
That’s very good pay. But it’s still likely too little to ensure that B.C. can attract the very best candidates for the top jobs in critical ministries. It’s certainly not an excessive rate of pay for a good candidate to fill the vacancy at the top of the health ministry, for example, responsible for managing a vast enterprise.
Assistant deputy ministers - another 100 or so people one level down - also get a sharp increase in the pay grid. They max out at $160,000. Again, the pay is not too much for the responsibility in some of the jobs.
You can quarrel with the whole idea that people should make more than some arbitrary ceiling, but you can’t really make a strong case against these kinds of pay rates. The government says the new put B.C. in the middle of the pack among provinces.
You can be nervous about administration. Higher pay should mean higher demands for performance and greater accountability. It’s not clear that that the principle is clearly established in government. and there is always the risk that pay for all managers - not just those in the most demanding jobs - will creep upward.
You can also be nervous about the increases for political appointments. Pay scales jump from 13 per cent to 26 per cent. Assistants to ministers will be paid up to $94,500; executive assistants to ministers will be paid up to $68,400. (MLAs are paid about $75,000.)
The political increases are harder to justify. The jobs are demanding - especially for the people working with some ministers. But there has been no evidence offered that pay rates are making it impossible to attract and retain good employees. The new levels appear high compared to private sector equivalents and take B.C.’s pay for political appointees is now the third highest in Canada. The government hasn’t made a good case for the increases.
The latest raises mean just about everyone getting money from the government has had some sort of pay increase, from deputy ministers to health care workers to teachers.
But not MLAs. Their sneak attempt to award themselves a large pay raise and an extremely expensive pension plan fell apart in bitterness last fall. The deal had all been done behind closed doors and was set to be rushed through the legislature without debate or time for public reaction. But NDP leader Carole James, who had promised her party’s support, reneged. The Liberals were furious, and some New Democrat MLAs were just as peeved.
The angry Liberals said they weren’t going to talk about MLA pay increases again.
And despite some pressure from within, they’re likely going to stick to that position. MLAs will have to be content with their regular cost-of-living increases.
Footnote: What do these people do? Think of a deputy minister as the CEO of the ministry, responsible for its success, and deputy ministers as vice-presidents. They’re supposed to be non-partisan professional managers. Political staff - ministerial assistants and the like - are picked for party loyalty as well as their ability to help the minister deal with issues.
It usually works. There’s not much time to work up a story for the next day’s paper or that evening’s newscast. By Monday, the media - with its short attention span - has moved on.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s announcement of big raises for top government managers and political staffers was made on a summer Friday. Some political staffers would be eligible for 25-per-cent pay raises under the new plan. Senior managers would be eligible for raises of up to 40 per cent under the new grids.
Big jumps are the norm for senior managers. Dan Miller, as NDP premier, approved increases of almost 30 per cent for some managers in 2000. Campbell moved to bump some wages up by another 30 per cent in the next year.
It’s not a particularly effective way of managing pay scales. And now it’s happening again.
Should you be worried? A little, but not about the pay grid. The maximum salaries for deputy ministers - CEOs of very large organizations - goes up nine per cent, to $220,000.
That’s very good pay. But it’s still likely too little to ensure that B.C. can attract the very best candidates for the top jobs in critical ministries. It’s certainly not an excessive rate of pay for a good candidate to fill the vacancy at the top of the health ministry, for example, responsible for managing a vast enterprise.
Assistant deputy ministers - another 100 or so people one level down - also get a sharp increase in the pay grid. They max out at $160,000. Again, the pay is not too much for the responsibility in some of the jobs.
You can quarrel with the whole idea that people should make more than some arbitrary ceiling, but you can’t really make a strong case against these kinds of pay rates. The government says the new put B.C. in the middle of the pack among provinces.
You can be nervous about administration. Higher pay should mean higher demands for performance and greater accountability. It’s not clear that that the principle is clearly established in government. and there is always the risk that pay for all managers - not just those in the most demanding jobs - will creep upward.
You can also be nervous about the increases for political appointments. Pay scales jump from 13 per cent to 26 per cent. Assistants to ministers will be paid up to $94,500; executive assistants to ministers will be paid up to $68,400. (MLAs are paid about $75,000.)
The political increases are harder to justify. The jobs are demanding - especially for the people working with some ministers. But there has been no evidence offered that pay rates are making it impossible to attract and retain good employees. The new levels appear high compared to private sector equivalents and take B.C.’s pay for political appointees is now the third highest in Canada. The government hasn’t made a good case for the increases.
The latest raises mean just about everyone getting money from the government has had some sort of pay increase, from deputy ministers to health care workers to teachers.
But not MLAs. Their sneak attempt to award themselves a large pay raise and an extremely expensive pension plan fell apart in bitterness last fall. The deal had all been done behind closed doors and was set to be rushed through the legislature without debate or time for public reaction. But NDP leader Carole James, who had promised her party’s support, reneged. The Liberals were furious, and some New Democrat MLAs were just as peeved.
The angry Liberals said they weren’t going to talk about MLA pay increases again.
And despite some pressure from within, they’re likely going to stick to that position. MLAs will have to be content with their regular cost-of-living increases.
Footnote: What do these people do? Think of a deputy minister as the CEO of the ministry, responsible for its success, and deputy ministers as vice-presidents. They’re supposed to be non-partisan professional managers. Political staff - ministerial assistants and the like - are picked for party loyalty as well as their ability to help the minister deal with issues.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Government fighting to deny needed help
VICTORIA - It's shameful to see the B.C. government going back to court to fight for the right to deny services to people who really need them.
It's not like we're talking about some questionable need. Kids with problems - fetal alcohol disorder or autism or the rest - get help from the government. Counselling and guidance, and if they really can't cope, one-on-one support to make sure they and the people around them are safe.
The support is based on need. It's not enough, but the criteria are roughly fair - the people who have the greatest need get the most services.
Until they turn 19. Then Community Living BC, executing a government policy, cuts all support to people with an IQ over 70. (There's small margin allowed.)
It doesn't matter if a teen can't function, is a danger to herself and others and is at a huge risk of exploitation. Too many right answers on the IQ test and all the support is gone overnight.
It's a disaster for people like Neil Fahlman. He’s a big, strong young man, with problems - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder and an autism variant. He makes bad decisions, acts impulsively and sometimes violently. His adoptive mother, Fiona Gow, had worked hard for him, but life had been tough.
But Fahlman has been living successfully on his own in a small cabin here on Vancouver Island - with help. The government has provided seven hours of support every day, a worker to keep Fahlman going.
But Neil's 19th birthday was approaching. His IQ, at 79, was above the threshold. The support would end.
HIs mother wasn't prepared to accept that. So she went to court. And won.
And sadly, the government is appealing the decision.
Children and Families MInister Stan Hagen says the government is appealing on a question of legal principle. The legislature, not the courts, should be setting policy.
But Justice Eric Chamberlist agreed completely. His ruling was based on the legislature's decison to pass the bill setting up Community Living BC. Chamberlist noted the legislation said Community Living BC's purpose is to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities."
If the government wanted to limit that assistance to people with IQs under 70, it just needed to amend the legislation or have cabinet issue an order, the justice said.
But instead the government is off to court.
If this was about principle, the government could appeal the decision while still changing its IQ policy. It hasn't.
It is a ridiculous policy. Community Living BC arranged its own psychological assessment of Fahlman. He needed the support, the psychologist said. Without it his aggression and impulsiveness could be disastrous. "He could do significant harm to himself and the community," the psychologist warned.
And the government is fighting to keep that policy in place, despite the risk both ot the individual and the community.
The issue is money. There's nothing wrong with that; we all have to figure out how to live within our means, and sometimes make hard decisions.
Having the IQ cutoff saves the government money, at least in the short term. It's a simple way to deny services.
If the government would admit that, instead of claiming some legal principle as justification, we could have a useful debate. Maybe peoples' lives are worth saving. Maybe support is cheaper than housing these people in jail.
Instead, the government is defending the indefensible under the guise of principle.
Strip the words away and you are left with the action - cutting support for Fahlman and others like him as a question of spending priorities.
There are parents out there terrified for their children. There are children with no parents.
It is ridiculous to cut all needed support when those people turn 19, based on an arbitrary test.
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued a release saying the IQ policy should go and support should be based on need. Sadly, it came almost four weeks after the court judgement and a day after Hagen announced that the decision would be appealed. Morley missed the chance to involve the public in the debate before the decision was made. She plans a report on the issue later this year.
It's not like we're talking about some questionable need. Kids with problems - fetal alcohol disorder or autism or the rest - get help from the government. Counselling and guidance, and if they really can't cope, one-on-one support to make sure they and the people around them are safe.
The support is based on need. It's not enough, but the criteria are roughly fair - the people who have the greatest need get the most services.
Until they turn 19. Then Community Living BC, executing a government policy, cuts all support to people with an IQ over 70. (There's small margin allowed.)
It doesn't matter if a teen can't function, is a danger to herself and others and is at a huge risk of exploitation. Too many right answers on the IQ test and all the support is gone overnight.
It's a disaster for people like Neil Fahlman. He’s a big, strong young man, with problems - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder and an autism variant. He makes bad decisions, acts impulsively and sometimes violently. His adoptive mother, Fiona Gow, had worked hard for him, but life had been tough.
But Fahlman has been living successfully on his own in a small cabin here on Vancouver Island - with help. The government has provided seven hours of support every day, a worker to keep Fahlman going.
But Neil's 19th birthday was approaching. His IQ, at 79, was above the threshold. The support would end.
HIs mother wasn't prepared to accept that. So she went to court. And won.
And sadly, the government is appealing the decision.
Children and Families MInister Stan Hagen says the government is appealing on a question of legal principle. The legislature, not the courts, should be setting policy.
But Justice Eric Chamberlist agreed completely. His ruling was based on the legislature's decison to pass the bill setting up Community Living BC. Chamberlist noted the legislation said Community Living BC's purpose is to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities."
If the government wanted to limit that assistance to people with IQs under 70, it just needed to amend the legislation or have cabinet issue an order, the justice said.
But instead the government is off to court.
If this was about principle, the government could appeal the decision while still changing its IQ policy. It hasn't.
It is a ridiculous policy. Community Living BC arranged its own psychological assessment of Fahlman. He needed the support, the psychologist said. Without it his aggression and impulsiveness could be disastrous. "He could do significant harm to himself and the community," the psychologist warned.
And the government is fighting to keep that policy in place, despite the risk both ot the individual and the community.
The issue is money. There's nothing wrong with that; we all have to figure out how to live within our means, and sometimes make hard decisions.
Having the IQ cutoff saves the government money, at least in the short term. It's a simple way to deny services.
If the government would admit that, instead of claiming some legal principle as justification, we could have a useful debate. Maybe peoples' lives are worth saving. Maybe support is cheaper than housing these people in jail.
Instead, the government is defending the indefensible under the guise of principle.
Strip the words away and you are left with the action - cutting support for Fahlman and others like him as a question of spending priorities.
There are parents out there terrified for their children. There are children with no parents.
It is ridiculous to cut all needed support when those people turn 19, based on an arbitrary test.
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued a release saying the IQ policy should go and support should be based on need. Sadly, it came almost four weeks after the court judgement and a day after Hagen announced that the decision would be appealed. Morley missed the chance to involve the public in the debate before the decision was made. She plans a report on the issue later this year.
Uranium mining poses big political risks
VICTORIA - It's got to be frustrating for the government. The geologists in the mines ministry are pretty sure there are no viable uranium deposits in B.C.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Ottawa trip for every new government hire goofy
VICTORIA - There is something quite wildly mad about the federal government.
The Vancouver Sun has reported that everybody hired by the federal government is now to be flown to Ottawa for an orientation session. If you’re filling in as a filing clerk during a maternity leave or hired to clean a federal building in Prince Rupert, you have to jet down to Ottawa for two days to learn. . . well, that’s not entirely clear.
Mostly, I defend people who work for government against often unfair critics. They work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector. (You can make your own judgment about how hard that typically is). Job security and benefits may be a bit better, but they’re not overpaid and their workplaces increasingly look like those of their corporate cousins, for better or worse.
But the federal government, it’s from some other planet.
The new federal program is called Orientation to the Public Service. Everybody hired for more than six months - as a prison guard, or fisheries inspector or receptionist - has to go to Ottawa for two days of meetings and receptions. They’re supposed to get an understanding of how government works. They get a visit to Parliament, some classes in how the public sector works and a reception “with invited guests such as MPs, senators, senior government officials, and other public servants from across the country." Then back on the plane home.
The program in Ottawa costs $750 per new employee, picked up by Treasury Board. But individual ministries or agencies have to pay the travel costs for their new hires. So, a portion of the budget for policing or delivering aboriginal services will now be spent on travel for any new employees.
It’s crazy. So obviously crazy you wonder how the Liberals approved the program and why the Conservatives decided to commit about $10 million to it this year.
It’s good to have an orientation for new employees, something that reviews how they fit into the organization, pitches its values and goals and makes people feel like they matter. Most organizations do a poor job of it. I was impressed years ago by a speech from a Disney World executive who said everybody hired - from gardeners to vice-presidents - went through a one-week course on customer service and what the Florida theme park was trying to do.
But I’ve worked for companies with headquarters in the U.S., England and Canadian cities. None of them thought they needed to fly every new hire back to the head office for orientation. A few individuals taking on new responsibilities, sure. But not a trip for the sake of the ritual.
Apparently part of the justification for all this is the sponsorship scandal. The notion is that the orientation offers new recruits a grounding “in the values, ethics and accountabilities of the public service."
What a minute. No one from Vancouver, or Kelowna, was involved in the sponsorship scandal - just politically connected types in Ottawa. They should be flying out here to learn from the people doing the work on the ground.
It’s a puzzling - and probably wrong - assumption that the government is hiring people so short on judgment that they need to fly off to Ottawa to learn about ethics by schmoozing with MPs.
And what exactly does this program say about local managers? Are they really incapable of helping new hires understand their roles and the purposes and values of the organization?
What’s most telling about this is that the new Conservative government approved continuing the program. Stephen Harper’s team had only been in government a few months. They should have been full of righteous indignation at Ottawa and its ways.
But the orientation program was only a few million, the civil service brass liked it and so the program lived on. Another new batch of MPs co-opted before they’ve even figured out the fastest route back to their offices.
Footnote: The Conservatives attempted to shift the blame on to the Martin government. “We’ve inherited a lot of programs like this that were decisions made by the Liberals that we’re only finding out about,” said MP Jason Kenney. Except that the Conservative cabinet approved spending for the program in the new governments’ first budget this year.
The Vancouver Sun has reported that everybody hired by the federal government is now to be flown to Ottawa for an orientation session. If you’re filling in as a filing clerk during a maternity leave or hired to clean a federal building in Prince Rupert, you have to jet down to Ottawa for two days to learn. . . well, that’s not entirely clear.
Mostly, I defend people who work for government against often unfair critics. They work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector. (You can make your own judgment about how hard that typically is). Job security and benefits may be a bit better, but they’re not overpaid and their workplaces increasingly look like those of their corporate cousins, for better or worse.
But the federal government, it’s from some other planet.
The new federal program is called Orientation to the Public Service. Everybody hired for more than six months - as a prison guard, or fisheries inspector or receptionist - has to go to Ottawa for two days of meetings and receptions. They’re supposed to get an understanding of how government works. They get a visit to Parliament, some classes in how the public sector works and a reception “with invited guests such as MPs, senators, senior government officials, and other public servants from across the country." Then back on the plane home.
The program in Ottawa costs $750 per new employee, picked up by Treasury Board. But individual ministries or agencies have to pay the travel costs for their new hires. So, a portion of the budget for policing or delivering aboriginal services will now be spent on travel for any new employees.
It’s crazy. So obviously crazy you wonder how the Liberals approved the program and why the Conservatives decided to commit about $10 million to it this year.
It’s good to have an orientation for new employees, something that reviews how they fit into the organization, pitches its values and goals and makes people feel like they matter. Most organizations do a poor job of it. I was impressed years ago by a speech from a Disney World executive who said everybody hired - from gardeners to vice-presidents - went through a one-week course on customer service and what the Florida theme park was trying to do.
But I’ve worked for companies with headquarters in the U.S., England and Canadian cities. None of them thought they needed to fly every new hire back to the head office for orientation. A few individuals taking on new responsibilities, sure. But not a trip for the sake of the ritual.
Apparently part of the justification for all this is the sponsorship scandal. The notion is that the orientation offers new recruits a grounding “in the values, ethics and accountabilities of the public service."
What a minute. No one from Vancouver, or Kelowna, was involved in the sponsorship scandal - just politically connected types in Ottawa. They should be flying out here to learn from the people doing the work on the ground.
It’s a puzzling - and probably wrong - assumption that the government is hiring people so short on judgment that they need to fly off to Ottawa to learn about ethics by schmoozing with MPs.
And what exactly does this program say about local managers? Are they really incapable of helping new hires understand their roles and the purposes and values of the organization?
What’s most telling about this is that the new Conservative government approved continuing the program. Stephen Harper’s team had only been in government a few months. They should have been full of righteous indignation at Ottawa and its ways.
But the orientation program was only a few million, the civil service brass liked it and so the program lived on. Another new batch of MPs co-opted before they’ve even figured out the fastest route back to their offices.
Footnote: The Conservatives attempted to shift the blame on to the Martin government. “We’ve inherited a lot of programs like this that were decisions made by the Liberals that we’re only finding out about,” said MP Jason Kenney. Except that the Conservative cabinet approved spending for the program in the new governments’ first budget this year.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Coroner's child death report short on useful recommendations
VICTORIA - It took the Coroners Service three years to complete its first annual review of child deaths.
That in itself indicates serious problems. The report, which offers only obvious and general recommendations, confirms how wrong things have gone.
The Coroners Service was supposed to take the lead in learning from child deaths after the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commission. Nothing would be lost, Premier Gordon Campbell promised.
The coroner took over child death reviews in 2003. You might have expected a report in 2004, or maybe the next year. After all, they're important in helping save lives.
But only now has the first annual report appeared. It offers seven recommendations, all glaringly obvious and all lacking useful detail. Kids should use car seats, or least be buckled in; they should learn to swim; guns should be kept locked up; and there should be meetings to talk about child suicide and the high death rate of aboriginal children. (The report did have one concrete recommendation, calling on health authorities to do more to teach parents about safe sleeping practices for infants.)
Here's the report on car seats: “It’s recommended that children should always be placed in an approved car seat and/or restrained with a seatbelt when travelling in a motor vehicle.”
The issue is serious. Car crashes were the leading cause of deaths in the cases reviewed, claiming 89 lives. In 37 per cent of the cases the children weren't restrained in any way.
Yet the recommendation contributes little toward reducing deaths. Why weren't the children wearing seatbelts? Were there any regional variations in seatbelt use, or groups doing much better than others? Is B.C.'s rate worse than other jurisdictions that we could learn from?
Liberal MLA Iain Black has proposed a law to ensure that children up to eight ride in an approved car seat or booster seat. That could have been an issue for the child death review unit - is there evidence to show such a law would work? None of those questions were even raised.
The report also found - once again - that aboriginal children and youths are at much greater risk of death. The Coroners Service came up with no conclusions about why and offered no specific recommendations. It called on First Nations, government, parents, educators and communities to "forge new relationships" to deal with the problem.
That's fine. But surely there are things that should be done now to keep First Nations' kids safer.
The Coroners Service says those kinds of recommendations aren't its job. That's up to the new Representative for Child and Youth, says chief coroner Terry Smith.
But the Coroners' Service we site says its job includes making specific recommendations on systemic issues
And the representative's office that Smith says is supposed to be doing the work doesn't exist yet. It wasn't even conceived until Ted Hughes' report earlier this year on the major problems with child death reviews. The Coroners Service can't have been working for three years hoping that some agency would emerge to take the lead.
The report's weaknesses show how critical it is that the new Representative for Children and Youth get the mandate and budget to do the critical work needed. (Work has barely begun on setting the office up. There's no budget; the MLAs' committee that's to hire a representative has only met once.)
The Coroners Service report establishes that the representative will have to play a large role in reviewing child fatalities with the aim of preventing similar deaths.
That's only one part of the job, but an important one, as Gordon Campbell acknowledged in opposition. "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place."
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley has been granted another extension on her report into why Jamie Charlie was left in the home where his little sister Sherry was beaten to death. The report was originally due March 31. Now Morley is aiming for Sept. 29. "Unexpected issues around receiving documents as well as the higher than expected number of witnesses that were critical to the thoroughness and fairness of the process, have resulted in my request for the extension," Morley said in a statement. She also wants to leave time for people named in the report to respond.
That in itself indicates serious problems. The report, which offers only obvious and general recommendations, confirms how wrong things have gone.
The Coroners Service was supposed to take the lead in learning from child deaths after the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commission. Nothing would be lost, Premier Gordon Campbell promised.
The coroner took over child death reviews in 2003. You might have expected a report in 2004, or maybe the next year. After all, they're important in helping save lives.
But only now has the first annual report appeared. It offers seven recommendations, all glaringly obvious and all lacking useful detail. Kids should use car seats, or least be buckled in; they should learn to swim; guns should be kept locked up; and there should be meetings to talk about child suicide and the high death rate of aboriginal children. (The report did have one concrete recommendation, calling on health authorities to do more to teach parents about safe sleeping practices for infants.)
Here's the report on car seats: “It’s recommended that children should always be placed in an approved car seat and/or restrained with a seatbelt when travelling in a motor vehicle.”
The issue is serious. Car crashes were the leading cause of deaths in the cases reviewed, claiming 89 lives. In 37 per cent of the cases the children weren't restrained in any way.
Yet the recommendation contributes little toward reducing deaths. Why weren't the children wearing seatbelts? Were there any regional variations in seatbelt use, or groups doing much better than others? Is B.C.'s rate worse than other jurisdictions that we could learn from?
Liberal MLA Iain Black has proposed a law to ensure that children up to eight ride in an approved car seat or booster seat. That could have been an issue for the child death review unit - is there evidence to show such a law would work? None of those questions were even raised.
The report also found - once again - that aboriginal children and youths are at much greater risk of death. The Coroners Service came up with no conclusions about why and offered no specific recommendations. It called on First Nations, government, parents, educators and communities to "forge new relationships" to deal with the problem.
That's fine. But surely there are things that should be done now to keep First Nations' kids safer.
The Coroners Service says those kinds of recommendations aren't its job. That's up to the new Representative for Child and Youth, says chief coroner Terry Smith.
But the Coroners' Service we site says its job includes making specific recommendations on systemic issues
And the representative's office that Smith says is supposed to be doing the work doesn't exist yet. It wasn't even conceived until Ted Hughes' report earlier this year on the major problems with child death reviews. The Coroners Service can't have been working for three years hoping that some agency would emerge to take the lead.
The report's weaknesses show how critical it is that the new Representative for Children and Youth get the mandate and budget to do the critical work needed. (Work has barely begun on setting the office up. There's no budget; the MLAs' committee that's to hire a representative has only met once.)
The Coroners Service report establishes that the representative will have to play a large role in reviewing child fatalities with the aim of preventing similar deaths.
That's only one part of the job, but an important one, as Gordon Campbell acknowledged in opposition. "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place."
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley has been granted another extension on her report into why Jamie Charlie was left in the home where his little sister Sherry was beaten to death. The report was originally due March 31. Now Morley is aiming for Sept. 29. "Unexpected issues around receiving documents as well as the higher than expected number of witnesses that were critical to the thoroughness and fairness of the process, have resulted in my request for the extension," Morley said in a statement. She also wants to leave time for people named in the report to respond.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
No way out of the bad softwood deal
VICTORIA - The bad softwood deal is turning into a giant mess for the forest industry, Stephen Harper' and the Campbell government..
There will be lots of political fallout.
But the practical consequences are damaging for hundreds of communities. Canadian forest companies were looking for two things from a softwood deal - certainty, so they could make plans for the future, and a chance to compete in the U.S. market.
The agreement gives them neither. The deal can be killed by either side within three years; no company can confidently invest in Canadian forestry on that basis. And the barriers to the U.S. market included in the agreement are potentially greater than the duties now being imposed.
And for this, the industry is expected to drop all its legal action against the U.S. and hand over $1 billion in duties collected over the last four years. (Illegally, according to the B.C. and federal governments.)
If the deal goes through - and that's almost certain - companies will get back $4 billion in duties collected since 2002. Good news for the shareholders, but perhaps not for B.C. communities. Companies will be making decisions on how to use that money. Investment in B.C. will be less likely because of this softwood deal.
That's particularly bad news for the coastal industry, which needs investment in more efficient mills. The risk is that companies will take their share of the $4 billion, look at the prospects here and walk away.
How did this happen? It looks like the U.S. side saw that Canada was desperate to do a deal and took advantage. It doesn't matter why they judged Canada desperate - whether Ottawa was seen as keen to set up a good Harper-Bush meeting, anxious for a success for controversial Trade Minister David Emerson or hoping that settling softwood would win U.S. co-operation on some other file.
The U.S. guessed right and Canada is trapped in a bad deal.
Theoretically, forest companies can sink the agreement by refusing to give up their lawsuits against the U.S. over the current duties. But then what? The Harper government will be unlikely to champion the case for a better deal, and in any case it now lacks bargaining power now. Without strong government support for continued challenges under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization industry has dew options.
Meanwhile the B.C. government is left looking much like an ineffectual junior partner. Premier Gordon Campbell says now says B.C. won't support the agreement unless the terms are changed.
He's a little late. Forest Minister Rich Coleman has been praising the agreement. B.C. played a big role in reaching the agreement and it had "huge" support from the industry, Coleman told the legislature in May. He dismissed questions from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson that echo the concerns being raised by industry today.
Somehow, the B.C. government lost touch with industry and got in over its head. Harper's claim that he had B.C.'s support seems reasonable based on Coleman's raves.
(Emerson says the deal hasn't changed significantly since a draft was negotiated in April.)
Federally, Harper's softwood stumbles have handed the opposition a great election issue. The Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all oppose the deal. Harper has said the vote on it, expected this fall, will be a confidence motion. If the Conservatives lose, there would be an election.
It's a big opportunity for the opposition. A softwood deal that caves in to the Americans, signed, over the objections of provinces and industry, in a rush before a birthday visit to President George Bush.
But don't expect the government to fall. The Liberals' leadership vote will be Dec. 3. They'll want to wait until that's settled.
Mostly, this is embarrassing. The U.S. managed to negotiate a deal that's won wide acceptance.
Ottawa - encouraged by the B.C. government - has signed a bad deal, one already been rejected by provinces and industry.
Footnote: Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff will likely be an incidental casualty of the softwood deal. Ignatieff's return to Canada after decades in the U.S. and some of his written comments have already raised questions about whether he's too pro-American for some Liberal delegates. If the Liberals party plan a campaign attacking Harper's ties to Bush, Ignatieff is not their man.
There will be lots of political fallout.
But the practical consequences are damaging for hundreds of communities. Canadian forest companies were looking for two things from a softwood deal - certainty, so they could make plans for the future, and a chance to compete in the U.S. market.
The agreement gives them neither. The deal can be killed by either side within three years; no company can confidently invest in Canadian forestry on that basis. And the barriers to the U.S. market included in the agreement are potentially greater than the duties now being imposed.
And for this, the industry is expected to drop all its legal action against the U.S. and hand over $1 billion in duties collected over the last four years. (Illegally, according to the B.C. and federal governments.)
If the deal goes through - and that's almost certain - companies will get back $4 billion in duties collected since 2002. Good news for the shareholders, but perhaps not for B.C. communities. Companies will be making decisions on how to use that money. Investment in B.C. will be less likely because of this softwood deal.
That's particularly bad news for the coastal industry, which needs investment in more efficient mills. The risk is that companies will take their share of the $4 billion, look at the prospects here and walk away.
How did this happen? It looks like the U.S. side saw that Canada was desperate to do a deal and took advantage. It doesn't matter why they judged Canada desperate - whether Ottawa was seen as keen to set up a good Harper-Bush meeting, anxious for a success for controversial Trade Minister David Emerson or hoping that settling softwood would win U.S. co-operation on some other file.
The U.S. guessed right and Canada is trapped in a bad deal.
Theoretically, forest companies can sink the agreement by refusing to give up their lawsuits against the U.S. over the current duties. But then what? The Harper government will be unlikely to champion the case for a better deal, and in any case it now lacks bargaining power now. Without strong government support for continued challenges under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization industry has dew options.
Meanwhile the B.C. government is left looking much like an ineffectual junior partner. Premier Gordon Campbell says now says B.C. won't support the agreement unless the terms are changed.
He's a little late. Forest Minister Rich Coleman has been praising the agreement. B.C. played a big role in reaching the agreement and it had "huge" support from the industry, Coleman told the legislature in May. He dismissed questions from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson that echo the concerns being raised by industry today.
Somehow, the B.C. government lost touch with industry and got in over its head. Harper's claim that he had B.C.'s support seems reasonable based on Coleman's raves.
(Emerson says the deal hasn't changed significantly since a draft was negotiated in April.)
Federally, Harper's softwood stumbles have handed the opposition a great election issue. The Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all oppose the deal. Harper has said the vote on it, expected this fall, will be a confidence motion. If the Conservatives lose, there would be an election.
It's a big opportunity for the opposition. A softwood deal that caves in to the Americans, signed, over the objections of provinces and industry, in a rush before a birthday visit to President George Bush.
But don't expect the government to fall. The Liberals' leadership vote will be Dec. 3. They'll want to wait until that's settled.
Mostly, this is embarrassing. The U.S. managed to negotiate a deal that's won wide acceptance.
Ottawa - encouraged by the B.C. government - has signed a bad deal, one already been rejected by provinces and industry.
Footnote: Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff will likely be an incidental casualty of the softwood deal. Ignatieff's return to Canada after decades in the U.S. and some of his written comments have already raised questions about whether he's too pro-American for some Liberal delegates. If the Liberals party plan a campaign attacking Harper's ties to Bush, Ignatieff is not their man.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Bad softwood deal grim news for B.C.
VICTORIA - The softwood deal that David Emerson and Stephen Harper are pushing is so bad it’s hard to imagine what they’re thinking.
The U.S. lumber industry wins; Canada loses. Canadian companies hand over $1 billion in to the U.S., with about half of it going directly to their American competitors - a reward for imposing duties that Canada and B.C. have claimed were illegal.
In return, Canada gets pretty much nothing.
B.C. and Canada had two objectives when the latest stage of this battle started four years ago. Free access to the U.S. market for our lumber, so companies could compete. And an agreement that would last long enough to let companies and communities plan and invest with some confidence.
The proposed deal delivers neither. It does let Harper and George Bush talk about solving the trade dispute when they meet in Washington this week. Perhaps Harper hopes it will also increase the chances of co-operation on other issues.
But for Canada’s forest industry and for communities that depend on the sector, it’s bad news.
There is no free access. The agreement attempts to keep Canada’s share of the U.S. market below 34 per cent - about where it was under the former softwood deal that Canada considered unacceptable.
The mechanism is different. The new deal uses timber prices to trigger trade barriers. When American prices are greater than $355US per thousand board feet, Canadian companies would have free access to U.S. markets. Once they fall below that, the border would start to close.
Canadian companies would have a choice under the deal. Companies in a region can agree to accept a quota on exports and pay smaller export charges. Or they can agree to pay higher export charges and ship without a quota.
The export charges would be collected by Ottawa and probably shared with the provincial governments.
The idea from the U.S. perspective is simple. Canadian companies will have to build the cost of the export duties into the price of the wood they send across the border. That will let U.S. producers keep their prices higher. The U.S. National Association of Homebuilders is forecasting that lumber prices could be about $315 by the time the deal is in effect. That would mean export duties of 15 per cent - more than the companies are paying now.
That’s not even the worst part of the proposed agreement.
The whole point of this exercise was certainty. B.C.’s forest industry depends on the U.S. market. Companies’ willingness to invest here is reduced when they must factor in the chance that the door to the major market could be closed with little warning.
Instead of certainty, the deal offers a stopgap. It’s officially for seven years, but either side can opt and out and kill the deal in as little as three years. The industry - and governments - have no certainty.
No worries, says Emerson. It’s a U.S.-Canada deal and neither government is likely to pull out.
He can’t be serious. If the clause wasn’t likely to be used, the U.S. side wouldn’t be insisting that it be included. The American timber companies are a powerful political lobby. The agreement will be threatened the first moment they have the chance.
And why not? Their tactics over the last four years have worked extremely well, keeping Canadian lumber out, prices high and producing a $500-million windfall.
The deal is already under attack. The B.C. government and the province’s industry have sent a joint letter saying the agreement is unacceptable. They want, among other things, a slightly longer term. Companies can kill the agreement by refusing to drop their lawsuits over the current duties.
But Emerson signed an agreement on behalf of Canada. The industry has to worry about his future attitude. And in any case, the U.S. negotiators can now just keep insisting Canada honour the commitment already made.
Ottawa has fumbled, badly.
Footnote: The bad deal is especially surprising because Canada seemed to be making steady progress in its legal efforts to fight the duties under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization. The dispute was always most likely to be settled through negotiation, but legal victories increase Canada’s bargaining position steadily had forced the U.S. to lower duties.
The U.S. lumber industry wins; Canada loses. Canadian companies hand over $1 billion in to the U.S., with about half of it going directly to their American competitors - a reward for imposing duties that Canada and B.C. have claimed were illegal.
In return, Canada gets pretty much nothing.
B.C. and Canada had two objectives when the latest stage of this battle started four years ago. Free access to the U.S. market for our lumber, so companies could compete. And an agreement that would last long enough to let companies and communities plan and invest with some confidence.
The proposed deal delivers neither. It does let Harper and George Bush talk about solving the trade dispute when they meet in Washington this week. Perhaps Harper hopes it will also increase the chances of co-operation on other issues.
But for Canada’s forest industry and for communities that depend on the sector, it’s bad news.
There is no free access. The agreement attempts to keep Canada’s share of the U.S. market below 34 per cent - about where it was under the former softwood deal that Canada considered unacceptable.
The mechanism is different. The new deal uses timber prices to trigger trade barriers. When American prices are greater than $355US per thousand board feet, Canadian companies would have free access to U.S. markets. Once they fall below that, the border would start to close.
Canadian companies would have a choice under the deal. Companies in a region can agree to accept a quota on exports and pay smaller export charges. Or they can agree to pay higher export charges and ship without a quota.
The export charges would be collected by Ottawa and probably shared with the provincial governments.
The idea from the U.S. perspective is simple. Canadian companies will have to build the cost of the export duties into the price of the wood they send across the border. That will let U.S. producers keep their prices higher. The U.S. National Association of Homebuilders is forecasting that lumber prices could be about $315 by the time the deal is in effect. That would mean export duties of 15 per cent - more than the companies are paying now.
That’s not even the worst part of the proposed agreement.
The whole point of this exercise was certainty. B.C.’s forest industry depends on the U.S. market. Companies’ willingness to invest here is reduced when they must factor in the chance that the door to the major market could be closed with little warning.
Instead of certainty, the deal offers a stopgap. It’s officially for seven years, but either side can opt and out and kill the deal in as little as three years. The industry - and governments - have no certainty.
No worries, says Emerson. It’s a U.S.-Canada deal and neither government is likely to pull out.
He can’t be serious. If the clause wasn’t likely to be used, the U.S. side wouldn’t be insisting that it be included. The American timber companies are a powerful political lobby. The agreement will be threatened the first moment they have the chance.
And why not? Their tactics over the last four years have worked extremely well, keeping Canadian lumber out, prices high and producing a $500-million windfall.
The deal is already under attack. The B.C. government and the province’s industry have sent a joint letter saying the agreement is unacceptable. They want, among other things, a slightly longer term. Companies can kill the agreement by refusing to drop their lawsuits over the current duties.
But Emerson signed an agreement on behalf of Canada. The industry has to worry about his future attitude. And in any case, the U.S. negotiators can now just keep insisting Canada honour the commitment already made.
Ottawa has fumbled, badly.
Footnote: The bad deal is especially surprising because Canada seemed to be making steady progress in its legal efforts to fight the duties under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization. The dispute was always most likely to be settled through negotiation, but legal victories increase Canada’s bargaining position steadily had forced the U.S. to lower duties.
Friday, June 30, 2006
NDP shuffle puts focus on health, community safety
VICTORIA - Carole James was due to shuffle MLAs in and out of critics' jobs about now anyway.
But her caucus shake-up will still be looked at in the context of the NDP's poor performance in two recent polls, which showed Gordon Campbell and his party both with their highest ratings in almost five years. The Liberals ' popularity has increased since last year's election; the New Democrats' support has fallen.
There are a lot of factors, starting with the Liberals' rebirth as a kinder, gentler government. And the election is still three years away. But James has to respond to the polls, if only to keep critics within the party happy. The changes send the message that she recognizes the need for change.
The shuffle was due anyway. The current critics were all appointed just after the election last year; most were unknown quantities with no legislative experience. (James made her choices after asking the MLAs to do written reports on their areas of interest, why they believed they were qualified to tackle those issues and the goals that should be set.)
Some shone, some struggled. It takes a special skill set to be an effective critic. It's not enough to be an expert on the ministry that you're responsible for. You have to build a network of sources around the province. You need to be a sharp questioner in budget debate and quick and confident enough to pin down well-prepared ministers in Question Period.
And then you have to be able to make the most of media attention when it comes.
James' most significant change was to shift Adrian Dix from children and families critic to health.
Dix was an extraordinarily effective critic. There are two goals for a critic, or there should be. Critics certainly want to score points for their side and make the other guys look bad. But they also have a chance to produce meaningful improvements in the way government works. Dix's efforts highlighted the Liberals' failures in the children's ministry. They also produced Ted Hughes' review of the ministry, creation of an independent advocate for children and a total overhaul of ministry management.
By moving him to health James confirms that's going to be an NDP priority. There's still major dissatisfaction with the problem points in the system and the lack of accountability. Health Minister George Abbott is in for a much tougher time.
MIke Farnworth, the NDP's House Leader, moves from economic development critic to public safety and solicitor general. Farnworth's move signals an interest in making crime and safety a bigger issue in the next year.
Twelve of the 32 critics stayed put, including Cariboo North's Bob Simpson, a highly effective forestry critic.
Some MLAs got promotions. North Island’s Claire Trevena went from income assistance to child care and early childhood development while Esquimalt MLA Maurine Karagianis takes over children and family development.
And some choices just seem puzzling. Sunshine Coast Nicholas Simons takes over human rights, multiculturalism and immigration. The issues are hugely important to Vancouver's minority communities; Raj Chouhan of Burnaby had the job until the shuffle.
The shuffle should give the NDP a sharper focus on a couple of priority issues.
But no matter who the critics are, the New Democrats have a problem. It's difficult to score political points off a government that's working hard at being liked by voters. If the government avoids unpopular decisions, responds quickly to problems and abandons plans if the outcry gets too loud, then the opposition is in trouble. The Liberals - despite some backsliding - show signs of having learned that lesson.
The NDP has actually been an effective opposition in many areas. The Liberals abandoned three spring session bills in the face of their criticism, an extraordinary action from a majority government. The legislature has been general civil and productive.
But that's not enough to win voters' support, especially if things are generally going well.
Footnote: Shane Simpson of Vancouver-Hastings stays in environment, an area that should be critical for the NDP. The Greens were at 10 per cent in the Ipsos poll. Both parties are eying those votes. But high-profile moves like protecting much of the Great Bear Rainforest have played well with environmentalists, and left the NDP with a tougher job.
But her caucus shake-up will still be looked at in the context of the NDP's poor performance in two recent polls, which showed Gordon Campbell and his party both with their highest ratings in almost five years. The Liberals ' popularity has increased since last year's election; the New Democrats' support has fallen.
There are a lot of factors, starting with the Liberals' rebirth as a kinder, gentler government. And the election is still three years away. But James has to respond to the polls, if only to keep critics within the party happy. The changes send the message that she recognizes the need for change.
The shuffle was due anyway. The current critics were all appointed just after the election last year; most were unknown quantities with no legislative experience. (James made her choices after asking the MLAs to do written reports on their areas of interest, why they believed they were qualified to tackle those issues and the goals that should be set.)
Some shone, some struggled. It takes a special skill set to be an effective critic. It's not enough to be an expert on the ministry that you're responsible for. You have to build a network of sources around the province. You need to be a sharp questioner in budget debate and quick and confident enough to pin down well-prepared ministers in Question Period.
And then you have to be able to make the most of media attention when it comes.
James' most significant change was to shift Adrian Dix from children and families critic to health.
Dix was an extraordinarily effective critic. There are two goals for a critic, or there should be. Critics certainly want to score points for their side and make the other guys look bad. But they also have a chance to produce meaningful improvements in the way government works. Dix's efforts highlighted the Liberals' failures in the children's ministry. They also produced Ted Hughes' review of the ministry, creation of an independent advocate for children and a total overhaul of ministry management.
By moving him to health James confirms that's going to be an NDP priority. There's still major dissatisfaction with the problem points in the system and the lack of accountability. Health Minister George Abbott is in for a much tougher time.
MIke Farnworth, the NDP's House Leader, moves from economic development critic to public safety and solicitor general. Farnworth's move signals an interest in making crime and safety a bigger issue in the next year.
Twelve of the 32 critics stayed put, including Cariboo North's Bob Simpson, a highly effective forestry critic.
Some MLAs got promotions. North Island’s Claire Trevena went from income assistance to child care and early childhood development while Esquimalt MLA Maurine Karagianis takes over children and family development.
And some choices just seem puzzling. Sunshine Coast Nicholas Simons takes over human rights, multiculturalism and immigration. The issues are hugely important to Vancouver's minority communities; Raj Chouhan of Burnaby had the job until the shuffle.
The shuffle should give the NDP a sharper focus on a couple of priority issues.
But no matter who the critics are, the New Democrats have a problem. It's difficult to score political points off a government that's working hard at being liked by voters. If the government avoids unpopular decisions, responds quickly to problems and abandons plans if the outcry gets too loud, then the opposition is in trouble. The Liberals - despite some backsliding - show signs of having learned that lesson.
The NDP has actually been an effective opposition in many areas. The Liberals abandoned three spring session bills in the face of their criticism, an extraordinary action from a majority government. The legislature has been general civil and productive.
But that's not enough to win voters' support, especially if things are generally going well.
Footnote: Shane Simpson of Vancouver-Hastings stays in environment, an area that should be critical for the NDP. The Greens were at 10 per cent in the Ipsos poll. Both parties are eying those votes. But high-profile moves like protecting much of the Great Bear Rainforest have played well with environmentalists, and left the NDP with a tougher job.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Court case should mean end of class fees and charges
VICTORIA - Education is supposed to be the great equalizer. All children are should get the same chance to make the most of their abilities.
That’s why a new legal effort to win a ban on class fees in B.C. makes sense.
Greater Victoria school trustee John Young is behind the push. The 85-year-old former teacher and principal probably drives his peers nuts with his anti-fee campaigns. He even sued his own school district over the issue.
But Young is right. We’ve decided that a public education system is important. MLAs passed the School Act, which says it’s illegal to charge for classes or the “educational resource materials necessary to participate.” The next budding math genius shouldn’t be shunted aside because his parents can’t afford the class fees.
The B.C. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Young took the Victoria school district to court in 1997 over various fees charged students. Against the law, he said.
Justice Montague Drake agreed. He rejected the district’s arguments about why it’s OK to charge kids to take classes, including the defence that making students pay for materials needed in a course was legal. If the supplies are needed to complete the course, then you couldn’t charge for them. "There should be, then, no charge for the materials used in educational programs," wrote Drake.
The Victoria school district accepted the ruling and came up with a policy fees that met the legal requirements of the School Act. The lost money hurt, but didn’t have any dire consequences, according to the superintendent.
But the government tried to give school districts an out. Cabinet passed an order that said fees for musical instrument rentals, some school supplies and materials to be used in projects that will eventually be taken home by a student are OK. Schools across B.C. have taken that as a licence to charge fees. (Some readers are undoubtedly clenching their fists and muttering darkly about Gordon Campbell’s attack on public education. I should remind them this was 1997; the NDP cabinet passed the order that tried to legitimize user-pay education.)
That’s what Young is challenging, seeking a court declaration that the fees are illegal.
It’s not just a fuss about principle. The fees matter. Students who want to take a course in tourism are asked for $50. Vancouver students can be charged $100 to take calculus and $150 for physical education. For a parent on limited income, already coping with back-to-school costs, it’s a big burden.
School districts exempt poor people from the fees. But should they have to plead poverty? And do their children instead just opt to avoid classes that cost money?
There’s no real equality of opportunity. A child who grows up in a stable family that visits the library every Saturday morning and takes preschool music and gym will have a better chance than a child without those opportunities. Schools in affluent neighbourhoods can count on parents to raise a lot of money to give their kids a better education. Schools in inner-city neighbourhoods or in struggling resource communities can’t count on the same support. Parents there just don’t have the money and connections to raise big money for their schools. Tough luck for those students.
For now, that’s life.
But public school is where every child gets a chance. It takes work, but they can shine. Their abilities and effort matter more than their background.
If it’s worth teaching children something in school, it’s worth making sure they all get the chance. Some 11-year-old kid desperate to learn to play the flute shouldn’t be shut out because her mum doesn’t have the fee charged for the class. A math whiz shouldn’t avoid calculus because it costs too much.
This is B.C. in 2006, one of the most privileged places on Earth. How can we say we don’t want to pay for children’s education?
Footnote: It’s the time to end fees. School districts are desperate for revenue, signing deals with soda companies, pushing parents’ fundraising and even starting risky overseas businesses to try and raise revenue. If the practice isn’t stopped now, fees will become a more and more important source of revenue until they are too significant to eliminate.
That’s why a new legal effort to win a ban on class fees in B.C. makes sense.
Greater Victoria school trustee John Young is behind the push. The 85-year-old former teacher and principal probably drives his peers nuts with his anti-fee campaigns. He even sued his own school district over the issue.
But Young is right. We’ve decided that a public education system is important. MLAs passed the School Act, which says it’s illegal to charge for classes or the “educational resource materials necessary to participate.” The next budding math genius shouldn’t be shunted aside because his parents can’t afford the class fees.
The B.C. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Young took the Victoria school district to court in 1997 over various fees charged students. Against the law, he said.
Justice Montague Drake agreed. He rejected the district’s arguments about why it’s OK to charge kids to take classes, including the defence that making students pay for materials needed in a course was legal. If the supplies are needed to complete the course, then you couldn’t charge for them. "There should be, then, no charge for the materials used in educational programs," wrote Drake.
The Victoria school district accepted the ruling and came up with a policy fees that met the legal requirements of the School Act. The lost money hurt, but didn’t have any dire consequences, according to the superintendent.
But the government tried to give school districts an out. Cabinet passed an order that said fees for musical instrument rentals, some school supplies and materials to be used in projects that will eventually be taken home by a student are OK. Schools across B.C. have taken that as a licence to charge fees. (Some readers are undoubtedly clenching their fists and muttering darkly about Gordon Campbell’s attack on public education. I should remind them this was 1997; the NDP cabinet passed the order that tried to legitimize user-pay education.)
That’s what Young is challenging, seeking a court declaration that the fees are illegal.
It’s not just a fuss about principle. The fees matter. Students who want to take a course in tourism are asked for $50. Vancouver students can be charged $100 to take calculus and $150 for physical education. For a parent on limited income, already coping with back-to-school costs, it’s a big burden.
School districts exempt poor people from the fees. But should they have to plead poverty? And do their children instead just opt to avoid classes that cost money?
There’s no real equality of opportunity. A child who grows up in a stable family that visits the library every Saturday morning and takes preschool music and gym will have a better chance than a child without those opportunities. Schools in affluent neighbourhoods can count on parents to raise a lot of money to give their kids a better education. Schools in inner-city neighbourhoods or in struggling resource communities can’t count on the same support. Parents there just don’t have the money and connections to raise big money for their schools. Tough luck for those students.
For now, that’s life.
But public school is where every child gets a chance. It takes work, but they can shine. Their abilities and effort matter more than their background.
If it’s worth teaching children something in school, it’s worth making sure they all get the chance. Some 11-year-old kid desperate to learn to play the flute shouldn’t be shut out because her mum doesn’t have the fee charged for the class. A math whiz shouldn’t avoid calculus because it costs too much.
This is B.C. in 2006, one of the most privileged places on Earth. How can we say we don’t want to pay for children’s education?
Footnote: It’s the time to end fees. School districts are desperate for revenue, signing deals with soda companies, pushing parents’ fundraising and even starting risky overseas businesses to try and raise revenue. If the practice isn’t stopped now, fees will become a more and more important source of revenue until they are too significant to eliminate.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Health resignation a challenge to Campbell
VICTORIA - When the government's top health care manager quits in protest over Premier Gordon Campbell's "unsound" plans for health, the public deserves answers.
Dr. Penny Ballem isn't just another bureaucrat. Campbell recruited her to run the health ministry in 2001. Since then she's been at the centre of all the health care changes, with strong support from Campbell.
Until last week, when Ballem quit and went public with her concerns in a letter delivered to Campbell (and quickly leaked).
"As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part," Ballem wrote. "This, combined with the lack of satisfaction you have expressed in the work the ministry has brought forward to cabinet, has clarified for me that it is time I moved on."
It's a major attack on government health policies from a senior manager who has been steadfastly loyal. Ballem has taken the lead in defending the government's health policies, a job usually reserved for politicians.
Ballem's resignation raises important questions for the public. The premier's office apparently plans major health-care changes that Ballem believes are so "unsound" that she has no choice but to resign. What are they?
Cabinet was apparently unhappy with the proposals coming from the health ministry. What were they, and why did cabinet ministers get so exercised about them?
And was the government's move to shift thousands of surgeries to private clinics one of the areas of conflict?
Campbell's response so far has been lame. He says he doesn't know what policies Ballem was referring to when she used the "unsound" label. Ballem was involved in developing all the current policies, he says.
It's a worrying response. There's clearly a significant policy question - Ballem didn't quit a job she devoted five years to on a whim. Neither Campbell nor Health Minister George Abbott apparently know what the policy question is and had not picked up the phone to call her and find out.
There are other factors at play. Ballem's letter of resignation specifically mentioned that the unsound policies are being promoted by the premier and his deputy minister, Jessica McDonald.
The premier's office under McDonald has been pushing into policy areas that were the preserve of ministries. Its budget has increased 40 per cent over the last two years. About $2.5 million of the increase has gone to set up the "deputy minister's policy secretariat."
Campbell say the secretariat lets his office take a broader look at policy questions than any individual ministry can do. But it also concentrates power within a small group reporting to the premier and undercuts ministries.
Health care remains the top issue for the public and a problem for the government. The spring session of the legislature was dominated by questions about ER problems, crowded hospitals and a shortage of long-term care spaces.
The Liberals hoped that setting up the five regional health authorities would spare them some of the inevitable health-care controversies.
But that hasn't worked. The health authorities aren't responsible to anyone but government, which sets the budgets, appoints the directors and calls the policy shots. When 91-year-old Fanny Albo was pushed from a Trail hospital and died far from family and friends, Ballem was sent to the Kootenays to find out why. (Her review identified major public dissatisfaction with the Interior Health Authority.)
Some Liberal MLAs - taking the brunt of the criticism in their ridings - have been grumbling about the health problems.
All this is unfolding against the backdrop of Campbell's big, vague plans for health care change. He travelled to Europe to look at alternate systems, but hasn't provided any report to the public. He plans some sort of "dialogue" on health care this fall, but again details are non-existent.
Ballem's resignation raises immediate, important questions. The public needs real answers.
Footnote: Ballem's resignation caught Abbott by surprised and the health minister was left looking out of the loop when reporters caught with him late Thursday. Ballem sent her resignation letter to the premier that morning; by day's end Abbott still didn't know she had complained of unsound plans from the premier's office.
Dr. Penny Ballem isn't just another bureaucrat. Campbell recruited her to run the health ministry in 2001. Since then she's been at the centre of all the health care changes, with strong support from Campbell.
Until last week, when Ballem quit and went public with her concerns in a letter delivered to Campbell (and quickly leaked).
"As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part," Ballem wrote. "This, combined with the lack of satisfaction you have expressed in the work the ministry has brought forward to cabinet, has clarified for me that it is time I moved on."
It's a major attack on government health policies from a senior manager who has been steadfastly loyal. Ballem has taken the lead in defending the government's health policies, a job usually reserved for politicians.
Ballem's resignation raises important questions for the public. The premier's office apparently plans major health-care changes that Ballem believes are so "unsound" that she has no choice but to resign. What are they?
Cabinet was apparently unhappy with the proposals coming from the health ministry. What were they, and why did cabinet ministers get so exercised about them?
And was the government's move to shift thousands of surgeries to private clinics one of the areas of conflict?
Campbell's response so far has been lame. He says he doesn't know what policies Ballem was referring to when she used the "unsound" label. Ballem was involved in developing all the current policies, he says.
It's a worrying response. There's clearly a significant policy question - Ballem didn't quit a job she devoted five years to on a whim. Neither Campbell nor Health Minister George Abbott apparently know what the policy question is and had not picked up the phone to call her and find out.
There are other factors at play. Ballem's letter of resignation specifically mentioned that the unsound policies are being promoted by the premier and his deputy minister, Jessica McDonald.
The premier's office under McDonald has been pushing into policy areas that were the preserve of ministries. Its budget has increased 40 per cent over the last two years. About $2.5 million of the increase has gone to set up the "deputy minister's policy secretariat."
Campbell say the secretariat lets his office take a broader look at policy questions than any individual ministry can do. But it also concentrates power within a small group reporting to the premier and undercuts ministries.
Health care remains the top issue for the public and a problem for the government. The spring session of the legislature was dominated by questions about ER problems, crowded hospitals and a shortage of long-term care spaces.
The Liberals hoped that setting up the five regional health authorities would spare them some of the inevitable health-care controversies.
But that hasn't worked. The health authorities aren't responsible to anyone but government, which sets the budgets, appoints the directors and calls the policy shots. When 91-year-old Fanny Albo was pushed from a Trail hospital and died far from family and friends, Ballem was sent to the Kootenays to find out why. (Her review identified major public dissatisfaction with the Interior Health Authority.)
Some Liberal MLAs - taking the brunt of the criticism in their ridings - have been grumbling about the health problems.
All this is unfolding against the backdrop of Campbell's big, vague plans for health care change. He travelled to Europe to look at alternate systems, but hasn't provided any report to the public. He plans some sort of "dialogue" on health care this fall, but again details are non-existent.
Ballem's resignation raises immediate, important questions. The public needs real answers.
Footnote: Ballem's resignation caught Abbott by surprised and the health minister was left looking out of the loop when reporters caught with him late Thursday. Ballem sent her resignation letter to the premier that morning; by day's end Abbott still didn't know she had complained of unsound plans from the premier's office.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Poll shows Liberals sitting pretty across B.C.
VICTORIA - It was pretty a good week for Gordon Campbell.
An Ipsos-Reid poll reported strong support for both the Liberals and Campbell’s leadership, high enough to make another majority a good bet.
And two independent economic forecasts predict a strong economy through the end of next year, a happy circumstance for any party in power.
The Ipsos poll, especially if read along with the Mustel Group poll released last month, shows a big recovery for the Liberals. The party is at popularity levels it hasn’t since the very brief honeymoon after the 2001 election. Campbell has never had such a strong approval rating.
As recently as two years ago, the Liberals trailed in an Ipsos poll. The NDP was at 44 per cent across the province — 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland. The Liberals were at 37 per cent provincially and 33 per cent outside the Lower Mainland.
Now the Liberals are at 51 per cent provincially, the NDP at 35 per cent. (Greens have the support of 10 per cent of decided voters.) The support cuts across demographic and geographic lines. Even on Vancouver Island, where NDP support has been strong - the New Democrats took nine of 13 seats in 2005 - the Liberals have a comfortable lead. Campbell’s party is even slightly ahead in terms of support from union households across B.C.
The reasons aren’t complex. The government has come up with more money to ease the problems caused by underfunding in health care, education and services for children and families. It has quit acting the bully with its employees, reaching negotiated settlements with more than 50 unions representing some 200,000 workers.
And it has shed some of the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Just compare last year’s handling of the Sherry Charlie case with this year’s response to the death of Fanny Albo after she was pushed from a Trail hospital. The government denied and stonewalled on the Charlie case until the pressure became too great. This year, the health deputy minister was dispatched immediately to prepare a public report on Albo’s death.
Add to all that a strong economy and no hot button issues and you’ve got a formula for political success.
Bad news for the NDP. Carole James still gets better ratings than Campbell. (They’re effectively tied, each with about 50-per-cent of approval ratings. But almost 45 per cent disapprove of Campbell’s performance; only 29 per cent give James thumbs down.)
But poll numbers like these, for a government in its fifth year, are grim news for an opposition. There’s not much the NDP can do to swing voters away from the Liberals if they are general satisfied. Their only hope is that the Liberals will drive voters way, as they did during their first term.
That doesn’t look likely right now. The Liberals are taking more care not to anger voters needlessly. Education Minister Shirley Bond’s attacks on teachers during the run-up to last fall’s strike helped build support for the union; this time she’s stayed quiet.
There are hints of the old style, like the decision to turn the auditor general’s position into a partisan appointment.
And Forest Minister Rich Coleman may come to regret his claim that B.C. took the lead in reaching the proposed softwood settlement that is now in so much trouble.
But generally the Liberals aren’t picking fights and are steering clear of risky issues.
On a practical level, it’s good news for an opposition. The Liberals abandoned three bad bills in the face of NDP concerns in the spring session, choosing not to risk losing political points in a confrontation. Oppositions rarely have such impact on legislation.
In terms of electoral success, the news is not so good for the NDP. If the Liberals don’t mess up, there’s little really that the NDP can do to cause a big shift in support.
Footnote: The Campbell government was jolted this week by the resignation of health deputy minister Penny Ballem, one of the most powerful bureaucrats through its first five years. Ballem, the architect and defender of most health care changes, set out her reasons in a letter to Campbell. "As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part." No response from Campbell yet.
An Ipsos-Reid poll reported strong support for both the Liberals and Campbell’s leadership, high enough to make another majority a good bet.
And two independent economic forecasts predict a strong economy through the end of next year, a happy circumstance for any party in power.
The Ipsos poll, especially if read along with the Mustel Group poll released last month, shows a big recovery for the Liberals. The party is at popularity levels it hasn’t since the very brief honeymoon after the 2001 election. Campbell has never had such a strong approval rating.
As recently as two years ago, the Liberals trailed in an Ipsos poll. The NDP was at 44 per cent across the province — 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland. The Liberals were at 37 per cent provincially and 33 per cent outside the Lower Mainland.
Now the Liberals are at 51 per cent provincially, the NDP at 35 per cent. (Greens have the support of 10 per cent of decided voters.) The support cuts across demographic and geographic lines. Even on Vancouver Island, where NDP support has been strong - the New Democrats took nine of 13 seats in 2005 - the Liberals have a comfortable lead. Campbell’s party is even slightly ahead in terms of support from union households across B.C.
The reasons aren’t complex. The government has come up with more money to ease the problems caused by underfunding in health care, education and services for children and families. It has quit acting the bully with its employees, reaching negotiated settlements with more than 50 unions representing some 200,000 workers.
And it has shed some of the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Just compare last year’s handling of the Sherry Charlie case with this year’s response to the death of Fanny Albo after she was pushed from a Trail hospital. The government denied and stonewalled on the Charlie case until the pressure became too great. This year, the health deputy minister was dispatched immediately to prepare a public report on Albo’s death.
Add to all that a strong economy and no hot button issues and you’ve got a formula for political success.
Bad news for the NDP. Carole James still gets better ratings than Campbell. (They’re effectively tied, each with about 50-per-cent of approval ratings. But almost 45 per cent disapprove of Campbell’s performance; only 29 per cent give James thumbs down.)
But poll numbers like these, for a government in its fifth year, are grim news for an opposition. There’s not much the NDP can do to swing voters away from the Liberals if they are general satisfied. Their only hope is that the Liberals will drive voters way, as they did during their first term.
That doesn’t look likely right now. The Liberals are taking more care not to anger voters needlessly. Education Minister Shirley Bond’s attacks on teachers during the run-up to last fall’s strike helped build support for the union; this time she’s stayed quiet.
There are hints of the old style, like the decision to turn the auditor general’s position into a partisan appointment.
And Forest Minister Rich Coleman may come to regret his claim that B.C. took the lead in reaching the proposed softwood settlement that is now in so much trouble.
But generally the Liberals aren’t picking fights and are steering clear of risky issues.
On a practical level, it’s good news for an opposition. The Liberals abandoned three bad bills in the face of NDP concerns in the spring session, choosing not to risk losing political points in a confrontation. Oppositions rarely have such impact on legislation.
In terms of electoral success, the news is not so good for the NDP. If the Liberals don’t mess up, there’s little really that the NDP can do to cause a big shift in support.
Footnote: The Campbell government was jolted this week by the resignation of health deputy minister Penny Ballem, one of the most powerful bureaucrats through its first five years. Ballem, the architect and defender of most health care changes, set out her reasons in a letter to Campbell. "As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part." No response from Campbell yet.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Chopping support for at 19 makes no sense
VICTORIA - Everybody knew something bad could happen if Neil Fahlman was cut loose with no support when he turned 19.
Even the government’s psychologist warned things could go really wrong.
“Without the supports now in place Neil would be extremely vulnerable to his own aggressiveness and impulsivity,” the psychologist found. “He could do significant harm to himself and the community.”
But rules are rules and budgets are budgets. Community Living BC, which delivers services to people with mental disabilities, has a rule that it inherited from government. It is not enough to need help. If your IQ is 70 or above, support stops at 19. You are on your own.
Neil tested at 79, low enough to place him in the bottom 10 per cent of the population. But high enough, according to the policy, that Neil no longer needed help.
This is where the story could have gone very wrong and those warnings of “significant harm” come true.
But Neil’s mother wouldn’t accept the decision. She took the case to B.C. Supreme Court and this month won a victory for Neil and thousands of others.
Fiona Gow adopted Neil when he was five weeks old. When he was diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, attention deficit disorder and other problems, she sought help. By the time he turned 15, Neil was a big, volatile kid - he’s now over 300 pounds. Gow and her husband couldn’t cope. Foster care didn’t work, for similar reasons.
Community Living BC helped with a solution. With the help of one-on-one support seven hours a day, Neil started living successfully by himself in a small cabin in a quiet Vancouver Island community. (He qualified for social assistance disability benefits.)
Then his 19th birthday approached. And despite the fact that Community Living BC had approved the support for Neil, and despite the warning from its psychologist, the agency said it was cutting off support, citing the IQ policy.
Leave aside the legal issue for the moment. This is a person with serious behavioural problems, possibly living in your neighbourhood, who has been identified as a danger to himself and others. Is it really sensible to cut off support when he turns 19?
The court did look at the legal issues. Mr. Justice Eric Chamberlist found the legislation establishing Community Living BC said it was to "promote equitable access to community living support" and to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities." Denying people needed support because of an IQ test score is contrary to the purposes established by the legislation, the court ruled. If the government wants to cut costs by using arbitrary tests, it needs to amend the legislation or pass a cabinet order.
Community Living BC is trying to figure out whether to appeal.
The issue is really money. The IQ standard was a way to restrict the number of people eligible for help, dumping some who needed it. Fahlman's support - seven hours a day, every day - costs about $1,500 a week.
If Community Living BC has to honour its obligations to people like Fahlman - and there are many of them - it will have to cut somewhere else.
Unless the government recognizes that it is wrong and foolish to abandon people like Fahlman. Impulsive, easily led, unable to consider consequences they can easily be preyed on, or become offenders. Whatever happens, things tend to turn out badly.
It's important that government worries about costs.
But it's ridiculous to say that someone who needs seven hours a day of support, for his own well-being and the protection of the community, is suddenly fine to make his own way in life because he turns 19.
We are just throwing those people away, to land in their parents' basements, in jail or on the streets.
The court ruling could mean an end to that waste. All government has to do is accept it.
Footnote: It is not good to turn 19 in B.C. if you have problems. Children in care are also generally abandoned by the system on their birthday, sent packing from their last foster home, often with few skills, emotional issues and no money. It is cruel, and a formula for disaster.
Even the government’s psychologist warned things could go really wrong.
“Without the supports now in place Neil would be extremely vulnerable to his own aggressiveness and impulsivity,” the psychologist found. “He could do significant harm to himself and the community.”
But rules are rules and budgets are budgets. Community Living BC, which delivers services to people with mental disabilities, has a rule that it inherited from government. It is not enough to need help. If your IQ is 70 or above, support stops at 19. You are on your own.
Neil tested at 79, low enough to place him in the bottom 10 per cent of the population. But high enough, according to the policy, that Neil no longer needed help.
This is where the story could have gone very wrong and those warnings of “significant harm” come true.
But Neil’s mother wouldn’t accept the decision. She took the case to B.C. Supreme Court and this month won a victory for Neil and thousands of others.
Fiona Gow adopted Neil when he was five weeks old. When he was diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, attention deficit disorder and other problems, she sought help. By the time he turned 15, Neil was a big, volatile kid - he’s now over 300 pounds. Gow and her husband couldn’t cope. Foster care didn’t work, for similar reasons.
Community Living BC helped with a solution. With the help of one-on-one support seven hours a day, Neil started living successfully by himself in a small cabin in a quiet Vancouver Island community. (He qualified for social assistance disability benefits.)
Then his 19th birthday approached. And despite the fact that Community Living BC had approved the support for Neil, and despite the warning from its psychologist, the agency said it was cutting off support, citing the IQ policy.
Leave aside the legal issue for the moment. This is a person with serious behavioural problems, possibly living in your neighbourhood, who has been identified as a danger to himself and others. Is it really sensible to cut off support when he turns 19?
The court did look at the legal issues. Mr. Justice Eric Chamberlist found the legislation establishing Community Living BC said it was to "promote equitable access to community living support" and to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities." Denying people needed support because of an IQ test score is contrary to the purposes established by the legislation, the court ruled. If the government wants to cut costs by using arbitrary tests, it needs to amend the legislation or pass a cabinet order.
Community Living BC is trying to figure out whether to appeal.
The issue is really money. The IQ standard was a way to restrict the number of people eligible for help, dumping some who needed it. Fahlman's support - seven hours a day, every day - costs about $1,500 a week.
If Community Living BC has to honour its obligations to people like Fahlman - and there are many of them - it will have to cut somewhere else.
Unless the government recognizes that it is wrong and foolish to abandon people like Fahlman. Impulsive, easily led, unable to consider consequences they can easily be preyed on, or become offenders. Whatever happens, things tend to turn out badly.
It's important that government worries about costs.
But it's ridiculous to say that someone who needs seven hours a day of support, for his own well-being and the protection of the community, is suddenly fine to make his own way in life because he turns 19.
We are just throwing those people away, to land in their parents' basements, in jail or on the streets.
The court ruling could mean an end to that waste. All government has to do is accept it.
Footnote: It is not good to turn 19 in B.C. if you have problems. Children in care are also generally abandoned by the system on their birthday, sent packing from their last foster home, often with few skills, emotional issues and no money. It is cruel, and a formula for disaster.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Cellphones, seatbelts and saving young drivers' lives
VICTORIA - What's wrong with saying to people in their first two years of driving that they shouldn't talk on a cellphone while they're trying to get off a highway or make it through a school zone?
The Canadian Automobile Association wants provinces to look at laws to bar new drivers from talking on the cellphone or fiddling with their iPods when they're behind the wheel.
The distraction is the last thing an inexperienced driver needs, says the association. Police could keep an eye on drivers with an 'N' for novice on their car and issue tickets to new drivers using cellphones.
Solicitor General John Les isn't keen on the idea. It's more important to improve driver education, he says.
It's unclear why the government can't do both. Few people would argue that distraction is a problem for any driver, with the risks rising for the less experienced. The moments it takes to find a ringing cellphone amid the front-seat debris and fumble with the tiny buttons to answer can bring a crash closer. Driver experience will be one factor in avoiding disaster in that kind of situation.
The CAA cites a U.S. study, that found distraction of all kinds - from cellphone use to squabbling kids to managing that burger and fries - played a role in 80 per cent of crashes. (ICBC puts the number much lower, saying only nine per cent of serious and fatal crashes are caused by driver distraction, with cellphones a tiny factor.)
The anecdotal evidence closer to home is convincing. In May a new driver in Chilliwack, talking on her cellphone, drifted on to the shoulder and crashed into a cyclist, killing the mother of two.
The real problem with the law is that it wouldn't be enforced. Hard-pressed police are juggling a tonne of priorities, with the public expecting action on all of them at once. Any law relies on two factors for its effectiveness - the likely penalty, and the chances of actually being caught. If enforcement is non-existent - think of the bicycle helmet law these days - then the penalties are meaningless.
But there's still value. Like the bicycle helmet law, a ban on cellphone use for inexperienced drivers would send a message that the behaviour is dangerous. It would be available when police encountered especially risky behaviour. About 40 countries, including Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, South America, and Spain and several U.S. states have introduced bans. So has Newfoundland.
Les isn't likely to change his mind.
So instead of a cellphone ban, here is a safety proposal -also aimed at new drivers - that should be easy for government to embrace.
There's one common factor in virtually every serious crash involving new drivers. Not cellphone use, or speed, or impaired driving, although the latter two are also tragically common.
The almost universal factor is failure to use seatbelts. Vancouver Island's crash team looked at a string of crashes involving young drivers in its first months. And while there was a lot of risk-taking, every one had common element. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute -- there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," police said.
Why? New drivers are often young and consider themselves invulnerable. They don't understand the seriousness of driving. And they know that there is little chance of getting a ticket for not using a seatbelt and facing the $138 fine.
The answer is simple. Make seatbelt use effectively mandatory for drivers 'New' or 'Learner' status. Instead of a fine, impose a 30-day licence suspension. New drivers not using a seatbelt don't understand the risks of the road. Give them time to consider them. Make enforcement a priority.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive.
At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will remind people each time they start their cars that driving is an activity with some significant risks that calls for care and caution.
Footnote: The government could also make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries penalty points for all drivers, like most other infractions. ICBC estimates about 90-per-cent of drivers use seatbelts, but a Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C. seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
The Canadian Automobile Association wants provinces to look at laws to bar new drivers from talking on the cellphone or fiddling with their iPods when they're behind the wheel.
The distraction is the last thing an inexperienced driver needs, says the association. Police could keep an eye on drivers with an 'N' for novice on their car and issue tickets to new drivers using cellphones.
Solicitor General John Les isn't keen on the idea. It's more important to improve driver education, he says.
It's unclear why the government can't do both. Few people would argue that distraction is a problem for any driver, with the risks rising for the less experienced. The moments it takes to find a ringing cellphone amid the front-seat debris and fumble with the tiny buttons to answer can bring a crash closer. Driver experience will be one factor in avoiding disaster in that kind of situation.
The CAA cites a U.S. study, that found distraction of all kinds - from cellphone use to squabbling kids to managing that burger and fries - played a role in 80 per cent of crashes. (ICBC puts the number much lower, saying only nine per cent of serious and fatal crashes are caused by driver distraction, with cellphones a tiny factor.)
The anecdotal evidence closer to home is convincing. In May a new driver in Chilliwack, talking on her cellphone, drifted on to the shoulder and crashed into a cyclist, killing the mother of two.
The real problem with the law is that it wouldn't be enforced. Hard-pressed police are juggling a tonne of priorities, with the public expecting action on all of them at once. Any law relies on two factors for its effectiveness - the likely penalty, and the chances of actually being caught. If enforcement is non-existent - think of the bicycle helmet law these days - then the penalties are meaningless.
But there's still value. Like the bicycle helmet law, a ban on cellphone use for inexperienced drivers would send a message that the behaviour is dangerous. It would be available when police encountered especially risky behaviour. About 40 countries, including Australia, Britain, Israel, Italy, South America, and Spain and several U.S. states have introduced bans. So has Newfoundland.
Les isn't likely to change his mind.
So instead of a cellphone ban, here is a safety proposal -also aimed at new drivers - that should be easy for government to embrace.
There's one common factor in virtually every serious crash involving new drivers. Not cellphone use, or speed, or impaired driving, although the latter two are also tragically common.
The almost universal factor is failure to use seatbelts. Vancouver Island's crash team looked at a string of crashes involving young drivers in its first months. And while there was a lot of risk-taking, every one had common element. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute -- there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," police said.
Why? New drivers are often young and consider themselves invulnerable. They don't understand the seriousness of driving. And they know that there is little chance of getting a ticket for not using a seatbelt and facing the $138 fine.
The answer is simple. Make seatbelt use effectively mandatory for drivers 'New' or 'Learner' status. Instead of a fine, impose a 30-day licence suspension. New drivers not using a seatbelt don't understand the risks of the road. Give them time to consider them. Make enforcement a priority.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive.
At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will remind people each time they start their cars that driving is an activity with some significant risks that calls for care and caution.
Footnote: The government could also make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries penalty points for all drivers, like most other infractions. ICBC estimates about 90-per-cent of drivers use seatbelts, but a Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C. seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
BC Ferries safety questions demand government answers
VICTORIA - It’s been a choppy patch for BC Ferries.
Fares have soared. The Queen of Oak Bay crushed a flotilla of boats last year in Horseshoe Bay.
And then in March the Queen of the North sank, claiming two lives and wreaking havoc on service between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy.
So far, the Liberal government has stayed above the fray. It changed B.C. Ferries from a Crown corporation to a sort-of independent business in 2003. If you’ve got worries, talk to the company, cabinet ministers said.
But three years on the pretence that ferries have nothing to do with government has pretty much unravelled.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon might have just been able to dodge most questions about soaring ferry fares and their effect on regional economies.
But he can’t avoid the hard questions about safety on BC Ferries in the aftermath of the Queen of the North disaster. David Hahn, the corporation’s CEO, has been handling the issue, but his credibility has been damaged. People need to hear from the government, which owns the corporation and is ultimately responsible.
Hahn and the BC Ferry and Marine Workers have been feuding about safety. It’s been a bizarre spectacle - try and imagine Air Canada’s management and unions tossing public abuse at each other after a plane crash. The union complains safety issues have been ignored. Hahn says union members are refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation into the sinking.
And then Derik Bowland dropped a bombshell on BC Ferries.
Bowland isn’t just another critic. He started with BC Ferries in February as director of safety, health and environment. He left a $200,000 job as cruise ship captain to take on the senior safety job. And then five days after the sinking - less than two months after he started work - he left.
Now Bowland is suing B.C. Ferries, claiming its refusal to address safety problems and efforts to prevent him from doing his job effectively forced him from the post.
It’s important to remember that he has his own agenda as an ex-employee suing the company. And none of the allegations in his statement of claim have been proved.
But they are terribly serious. Bowland alleges he began pointing out major safety shortcomings soon after he began work and warned warning that “there was a strong likelihood of catastrophic incidents if safety practices and protocols were not immediately improved.”
Bowland alleges the corporation refused to recognize serious problems in safety policies and practices. If it had the Queen of the North might not have sunk, he says.
And he alleges B.C. Ferries executives first undermined and the blocked entirely his efforts to investigate the sinking, which claimed two lives. That’s when he left the job.
Hahn has given one radio interview on the lawsuit, saying Bowland was a short-term employee who had never been on the Queen of the North. No warnings of safety problems reached him or other senior executives, he says.
But Hahn has a credibility problem. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the sinking. On May 11 it delivered a letter to him warning of problems. "Information gathered so far has revealed that some bridge team members were not familiar with the use of all the bridge equipment and controls," the letter warned. B.C. Ferries needs to examine its training, the letter said.
Hahn didn’t reveal the letter’s existence for two weeks and then described it as “benign” in an interview. When a reporter uncovered the letter the warning looked far from routine. (Hahn now says he will release material from the safety board within 24 hours of receiving it.)
The questions are beginning pile up. The answers from B.C. Ferries are inadequate; the report from the Transportation Safety Board is months - perhaps more than a year - away.
It’s time for the government to step in, review safety and report to the public.
Footnote: Hahn has proposed B.C. Ferries do its own safety audit and release the results. He says he is talking to a “credible” individual about leading the review. At this point, an internal review won’t be enough to provide the needed reassurances about safety. The government needs to take the lead.
Fares have soared. The Queen of Oak Bay crushed a flotilla of boats last year in Horseshoe Bay.
And then in March the Queen of the North sank, claiming two lives and wreaking havoc on service between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy.
So far, the Liberal government has stayed above the fray. It changed B.C. Ferries from a Crown corporation to a sort-of independent business in 2003. If you’ve got worries, talk to the company, cabinet ministers said.
But three years on the pretence that ferries have nothing to do with government has pretty much unravelled.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon might have just been able to dodge most questions about soaring ferry fares and their effect on regional economies.
But he can’t avoid the hard questions about safety on BC Ferries in the aftermath of the Queen of the North disaster. David Hahn, the corporation’s CEO, has been handling the issue, but his credibility has been damaged. People need to hear from the government, which owns the corporation and is ultimately responsible.
Hahn and the BC Ferry and Marine Workers have been feuding about safety. It’s been a bizarre spectacle - try and imagine Air Canada’s management and unions tossing public abuse at each other after a plane crash. The union complains safety issues have been ignored. Hahn says union members are refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation into the sinking.
And then Derik Bowland dropped a bombshell on BC Ferries.
Bowland isn’t just another critic. He started with BC Ferries in February as director of safety, health and environment. He left a $200,000 job as cruise ship captain to take on the senior safety job. And then five days after the sinking - less than two months after he started work - he left.
Now Bowland is suing B.C. Ferries, claiming its refusal to address safety problems and efforts to prevent him from doing his job effectively forced him from the post.
It’s important to remember that he has his own agenda as an ex-employee suing the company. And none of the allegations in his statement of claim have been proved.
But they are terribly serious. Bowland alleges he began pointing out major safety shortcomings soon after he began work and warned warning that “there was a strong likelihood of catastrophic incidents if safety practices and protocols were not immediately improved.”
Bowland alleges the corporation refused to recognize serious problems in safety policies and practices. If it had the Queen of the North might not have sunk, he says.
And he alleges B.C. Ferries executives first undermined and the blocked entirely his efforts to investigate the sinking, which claimed two lives. That’s when he left the job.
Hahn has given one radio interview on the lawsuit, saying Bowland was a short-term employee who had never been on the Queen of the North. No warnings of safety problems reached him or other senior executives, he says.
But Hahn has a credibility problem. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the sinking. On May 11 it delivered a letter to him warning of problems. "Information gathered so far has revealed that some bridge team members were not familiar with the use of all the bridge equipment and controls," the letter warned. B.C. Ferries needs to examine its training, the letter said.
Hahn didn’t reveal the letter’s existence for two weeks and then described it as “benign” in an interview. When a reporter uncovered the letter the warning looked far from routine. (Hahn now says he will release material from the safety board within 24 hours of receiving it.)
The questions are beginning pile up. The answers from B.C. Ferries are inadequate; the report from the Transportation Safety Board is months - perhaps more than a year - away.
It’s time for the government to step in, review safety and report to the public.
Footnote: Hahn has proposed B.C. Ferries do its own safety audit and release the results. He says he is talking to a “credible” individual about leading the review. At this point, an internal review won’t be enough to provide the needed reassurances about safety. The government needs to take the lead.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Ken Thomson, Charles Bronson and me
VICTORIA - Mostly what I thought when I heard that Ken Thomson had died was that now I could only claim personal acquaintance with two billionaires.
Not that I knew Mr. Thomson well, but we did dine together. Thomson Newspapers, in the last years that there was such a thing, had a conference at a golf resort in Florida and he had flown in for the last day. Since I was in my beloved corporate stage at that point, and could be counted on to use a knife and fork at dinner, I was seated at the chairman's table that evening.
Talk was strained. Thomson seemed shy, and a little odd. He tossed his tie over his shoulder when the soup came to avoid spills - although his crisp white shirt was then exposed to risk. He spoke of his father Roy - who had been dead for almost 20 years - as if he were a powerful presence. What would Dad say, he wondered, when talk turned to some difficult decision.
Thomson's brilliance in the 30 years he ran the company was in knowing when to get in and out of businesses. The corporation moved into North Sea oil and then out when growth prospects slowed. It made money in retailing with the Hudson's Bay Company and then left the business. Thomson built its British-based travel operations into a $1-billion business and then sold it.
By the time we sat down to dinner Thomson was giving newspapers one last chance.
The corporation had done wonderfully from papers since Roy Thomson bought the Timmins Express in 1934. Up until the 1980s the monopoly newspapers in towns across North America produced huge profit margins and cash that was used to expand the corporation, both into international newspaper holdings and new business areas.
Then urban sprawl engulfed many of the communities Thomson newspapers had dominated, and competition rolled in along with it. New technology slashed the costs of entry for rivals.
By the late 1980s the newspaper business was still producing good profits, but it wasn't growing. Thomson had a richly deserved reputation for frugal operation, so cost-cutting to boost profits wasn't an option. There was nothing to cut.
But to his credit Thomson was not prepared to give up on newspapers, the foundation of the business, without giving us a good chance. By the time of that dinner the newspaper division - some 150 papers with more than $1 billion in revenue - was on its second batch of senior managers charged with finding ways to deliver growth.
It didn't work. Within a few years the newspapers were up for sale. The Thomson Corp. focused on electronic publishing, selling specialized information about banking and the law to clients who would pay top dollar.
But back to dinner. Conversation did not flow terribly smoothly, despite our best efforts. Thomson, while very nice, was not one of those big guys with an easy and entirely superficial charm. We struggled for topics.
Until the publisher from a Louisiana newspaper - not just smart but a woman, ensuring her place at the favoured table - mentioned traditional New Orleans jazz. Thomson became genuinely interested. He loved the music, and then wondered if we had seen a Charles Bronson movie called Hard Times, set in New Orleans in the '30s. (It is a good movie.)
One of his favourites, said Thomson, who said he was a fan of Bronson, although a bit disappointed in some of the later Death Wish sequels. He had sent Bronson a note when he was shooting in Toronto - it might have been Death Wish V - inviting him to dinner, but never got a reply. Thomson looked kind of sad at that. He really would have found an evening talking movies with Charles Bronson a great pleasure.
It was charming. Not just his fondness for the movies, but his willingness to share his enthusiasm with us.
A smart business guy, of course. But I'll think of a movie buff, and a grown man still faintly intimidated by a larger-than-life father.
Footnote: For those interested, the other billionaire acquaintances are two of the senior members of the New Brunswick Irving family, for whom I managed newspapers for a time.
Not that I knew Mr. Thomson well, but we did dine together. Thomson Newspapers, in the last years that there was such a thing, had a conference at a golf resort in Florida and he had flown in for the last day. Since I was in my beloved corporate stage at that point, and could be counted on to use a knife and fork at dinner, I was seated at the chairman's table that evening.
Talk was strained. Thomson seemed shy, and a little odd. He tossed his tie over his shoulder when the soup came to avoid spills - although his crisp white shirt was then exposed to risk. He spoke of his father Roy - who had been dead for almost 20 years - as if he were a powerful presence. What would Dad say, he wondered, when talk turned to some difficult decision.
Thomson's brilliance in the 30 years he ran the company was in knowing when to get in and out of businesses. The corporation moved into North Sea oil and then out when growth prospects slowed. It made money in retailing with the Hudson's Bay Company and then left the business. Thomson built its British-based travel operations into a $1-billion business and then sold it.
By the time we sat down to dinner Thomson was giving newspapers one last chance.
The corporation had done wonderfully from papers since Roy Thomson bought the Timmins Express in 1934. Up until the 1980s the monopoly newspapers in towns across North America produced huge profit margins and cash that was used to expand the corporation, both into international newspaper holdings and new business areas.
Then urban sprawl engulfed many of the communities Thomson newspapers had dominated, and competition rolled in along with it. New technology slashed the costs of entry for rivals.
By the late 1980s the newspaper business was still producing good profits, but it wasn't growing. Thomson had a richly deserved reputation for frugal operation, so cost-cutting to boost profits wasn't an option. There was nothing to cut.
But to his credit Thomson was not prepared to give up on newspapers, the foundation of the business, without giving us a good chance. By the time of that dinner the newspaper division - some 150 papers with more than $1 billion in revenue - was on its second batch of senior managers charged with finding ways to deliver growth.
It didn't work. Within a few years the newspapers were up for sale. The Thomson Corp. focused on electronic publishing, selling specialized information about banking and the law to clients who would pay top dollar.
But back to dinner. Conversation did not flow terribly smoothly, despite our best efforts. Thomson, while very nice, was not one of those big guys with an easy and entirely superficial charm. We struggled for topics.
Until the publisher from a Louisiana newspaper - not just smart but a woman, ensuring her place at the favoured table - mentioned traditional New Orleans jazz. Thomson became genuinely interested. He loved the music, and then wondered if we had seen a Charles Bronson movie called Hard Times, set in New Orleans in the '30s. (It is a good movie.)
One of his favourites, said Thomson, who said he was a fan of Bronson, although a bit disappointed in some of the later Death Wish sequels. He had sent Bronson a note when he was shooting in Toronto - it might have been Death Wish V - inviting him to dinner, but never got a reply. Thomson looked kind of sad at that. He really would have found an evening talking movies with Charles Bronson a great pleasure.
It was charming. Not just his fondness for the movies, but his willingness to share his enthusiasm with us.
A smart business guy, of course. But I'll think of a movie buff, and a grown man still faintly intimidated by a larger-than-life father.
Footnote: For those interested, the other billionaire acquaintances are two of the senior members of the New Brunswick Irving family, for whom I managed newspapers for a time.
Spending on substance abuse just makes sense
VICTORIA - Somebody tried to break into my car this spring, hammering a screwdriver into the lock and then tugging enthusiastically on the front passenger window.
I count myself another victim of our drug policy. The attempted crime took place on a lovely residential street across from Government House, where Lt.-Gov. Iona Campagnolo lives. In Victoria, according to police, 90 per cent of property crimes are committed by people hunting drug money.
That's almost 25 crimes a day, mostly petty offences like the assault on my aging Honda. But the cost is still high. The bill for fixing my car was almost $400. And what's the damage done when peoples' sense of security is undermined by small crimes?
Those kinds of things weren't even included in the latest, most complete report on the costs of substance abuse in B.C.
But it still found that drugs, alcohol and tobacco cost every British Columbian more than $1,400 last year. The study by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse was the first attempt in a decade to calculate the costs of drug, alcohol and tobacco use.
It found substance abuse cost Canada $39.8 billion in 2002 - about $6 billion more than the B.C. government spends on everything, from health care to policing.
Behind the numbers, there's a terrible human cost. Lives destroyed, families broken. For most of us, there's a moral obligation to help people in trouble - and drug abusers are surely in trouble.
Even without the moral component, dealing with the problem makes economic sense. Reduce substance abuse and you reap huge benefits.
The Canadian Centre in Substance Abuse study, based on 2002 data, found illegal drugs created direct and indirect costs of $8.2 billion; alcohol abuse $14.6 billion; and tobacco abuse $17 billion.
Abuse cost $24.3 billion in lost productivity; $8.8 billion in health care costs; and $5.4 billion in law-enforcement costs. That doesn't include the costs of crime or the effect on communities of having downtowns crowded with the addicted and desperate.
It's a such waste, of lives and of money.
Substance abuse won't go away. But any success in helping people to end or reduce their abuse will pay great benefits.
Look at the numbers. B.C. has done relatively well in terms of tobacco abuse. We have the fourth lowest per-capita cost among provinces at $563 a year. But Ontario has the lowest cost. If we could match that province, tobacco-related costs in B.C. would fall by $250 million a year.
Illegal drugs cost B.C. significantly more per capita than any other province. Again, bringing costs in line with Ontario - which is in the middle of the pack nationally - would result in a $505-million saving.
Alcohol abuse costs B.C. $536 per capita, second highest among the provinces. Again, matching Ontario would a $393-million improvement.
So without any breakthrough or miraculous cure, simply by doing as well as Ontario, we'd save $1.1 billion in substance costs.
We know what to do, starting with ensuring that people can get treatment. (That doesn't happen now; if an addict calls and says she is ready to detox, she'll almost always be told to call back in a week to see if a space is available.)
But we choose not to do it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to support safe injection sites even though the evidence shows Vancouver's centre has saved lives, made the community safer and resulted in more addicts entering treatment. Attorney General Wally Oppal says a Victoria drug court - which would give offenders help in cleaning up - would be great, but isn't a priority. And treatment is still terribly limited.
Our current approach has failed. Substance abuse costs society more now than it did a decade ago, the study found.
But still we fumble on, unwilling to do make the investments in prevention, treatment and harm reduction that would save lives and billions of dollars.
Footnote: The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Addiction Commission had a response to the national study available on its website within five weeks of it's release. The national study is available at www.ccsa.ca.
I count myself another victim of our drug policy. The attempted crime took place on a lovely residential street across from Government House, where Lt.-Gov. Iona Campagnolo lives. In Victoria, according to police, 90 per cent of property crimes are committed by people hunting drug money.
That's almost 25 crimes a day, mostly petty offences like the assault on my aging Honda. But the cost is still high. The bill for fixing my car was almost $400. And what's the damage done when peoples' sense of security is undermined by small crimes?
Those kinds of things weren't even included in the latest, most complete report on the costs of substance abuse in B.C.
But it still found that drugs, alcohol and tobacco cost every British Columbian more than $1,400 last year. The study by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse was the first attempt in a decade to calculate the costs of drug, alcohol and tobacco use.
It found substance abuse cost Canada $39.8 billion in 2002 - about $6 billion more than the B.C. government spends on everything, from health care to policing.
Behind the numbers, there's a terrible human cost. Lives destroyed, families broken. For most of us, there's a moral obligation to help people in trouble - and drug abusers are surely in trouble.
Even without the moral component, dealing with the problem makes economic sense. Reduce substance abuse and you reap huge benefits.
The Canadian Centre in Substance Abuse study, based on 2002 data, found illegal drugs created direct and indirect costs of $8.2 billion; alcohol abuse $14.6 billion; and tobacco abuse $17 billion.
Abuse cost $24.3 billion in lost productivity; $8.8 billion in health care costs; and $5.4 billion in law-enforcement costs. That doesn't include the costs of crime or the effect on communities of having downtowns crowded with the addicted and desperate.
It's a such waste, of lives and of money.
Substance abuse won't go away. But any success in helping people to end or reduce their abuse will pay great benefits.
Look at the numbers. B.C. has done relatively well in terms of tobacco abuse. We have the fourth lowest per-capita cost among provinces at $563 a year. But Ontario has the lowest cost. If we could match that province, tobacco-related costs in B.C. would fall by $250 million a year.
Illegal drugs cost B.C. significantly more per capita than any other province. Again, bringing costs in line with Ontario - which is in the middle of the pack nationally - would result in a $505-million saving.
Alcohol abuse costs B.C. $536 per capita, second highest among the provinces. Again, matching Ontario would a $393-million improvement.
So without any breakthrough or miraculous cure, simply by doing as well as Ontario, we'd save $1.1 billion in substance costs.
We know what to do, starting with ensuring that people can get treatment. (That doesn't happen now; if an addict calls and says she is ready to detox, she'll almost always be told to call back in a week to see if a space is available.)
But we choose not to do it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to support safe injection sites even though the evidence shows Vancouver's centre has saved lives, made the community safer and resulted in more addicts entering treatment. Attorney General Wally Oppal says a Victoria drug court - which would give offenders help in cleaning up - would be great, but isn't a priority. And treatment is still terribly limited.
Our current approach has failed. Substance abuse costs society more now than it did a decade ago, the study found.
But still we fumble on, unwilling to do make the investments in prevention, treatment and harm reduction that would save lives and billions of dollars.
Footnote: The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Addiction Commission had a response to the national study available on its website within five weeks of it's release. The national study is available at www.ccsa.ca.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Liberal leadership hopefuls hit money hurdles
VICTORIA - Just when the Harper government was looking a little rattled, along comes Joe Volpe to remind voters what they don't like about the Liberals.
The Conservatives looked to be stumbling this week, re-opening the pointless debate on gay marriage.
Pointless because given Stephen Harper's promise not to use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter of rights, the government can't actually do anything to stop same-sex marriages.
And anyway, same-sex marriages have been a fact for almost a year now. Nothing bad has happened. People have quit talking about the issue showing how irrelevant it was in the first place. The Conservatives, by dredging it up, revive fears that the party is intolerant and prescriptive. At the same time, they appear to be badly out of touch with the real concerns of Canada - Afghanistan, health care, crime.
But Harper didn't have to worry. The Volpe affair - and Liberal leadership fundraising issues generally - raised bigger questions about the Liberals.
Volpe is an Ontario MP who is one of 11 official candidates for the Liberal leadership. All the hopefuls are scrambling to raise money. The party demands $50,000 before candidates are allowed on the ballot. Then there's the cost of flying around the country to seek support, paid staff, mailings. Candidates are allowed spend up to $3.4 million; after the first $500,000 they will have to send $10,000 to the party for every $40,000 they spend.
But this is the first leadership race run under new financing rules that bar corporate and union donations and limit individual donations to $5,400.
Volpe's campaign was supported by a group of 20 people who all gave the maximum. Ten of them were current or former executives with one pharmaceutical company; the other 10 were their family members.
Including 11-year-old twins and their 14-year-old brother, who were among five minors who contributed $5,400 each.
Volpe didn't see anything wrong with that. The law doesn't bar minors from contributing. If a couple of Grade 6 kids to decide on their own to hand $5,400 each to his campaign instead of buying hockey cards, so what? He spoke at their school, Volpe said. Maybe they were really impressed.
And it's true - minors can contribute. But it is an offence to make a donation that really comes from another person or to plot to get around the limits.
Volpe eventually returned the kids' money, but he still saw nothing wrong with taking $5,400 cheques from children. "All the donations for our campaign have been in compliance with the law," he said. "We wanted to clear the air and public perception."
The Liberal party response was just as weird. Party brass defended the donations and rejected calls for an investigation.
Have the lost their minds? The Liberals were booted from office in part because of fund-raising scandals. A leadership campaign that reminds voters of past wrongs would be disastrous.
And they look to be risking that. Donations are limited by law. Loans are not. And nine of the 11 candidates - all except Volpe - have borrowed between $30,000 and $200,000 from backers to fund their campaigns. Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison borrowed $200,000 from four men with major business interests in the province. The theory is that the loans will be repaid from donations, but candidates can ask for repeated extensions on the repayment deadline. The potential for abuse - for using loans as a way to get around donation limits - is immense.
Candidates do face a tough fund-raising challenge now that corporate donations are barred. (Paul Martin raised more than $10 million for his leadership campaign, largely from corporate donors.)
There are too many of them, with no clear frontrunners, and the new leader could spend the next five years at least in opposition.
But Canadians are watching to see if the Liberals have learned from the sponsorship scandal. The last week has suggested they haven't.
Footnote: The field may shrink after two leadership debates. The first, in English will be this Saturday in Winnipeg; a French-language debate will follow June 17 in Moncton. The debates won't be decisive, but they will provide an occasion for all candidates to assess their chances.
The Conservatives looked to be stumbling this week, re-opening the pointless debate on gay marriage.
Pointless because given Stephen Harper's promise not to use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter of rights, the government can't actually do anything to stop same-sex marriages.
And anyway, same-sex marriages have been a fact for almost a year now. Nothing bad has happened. People have quit talking about the issue showing how irrelevant it was in the first place. The Conservatives, by dredging it up, revive fears that the party is intolerant and prescriptive. At the same time, they appear to be badly out of touch with the real concerns of Canada - Afghanistan, health care, crime.
But Harper didn't have to worry. The Volpe affair - and Liberal leadership fundraising issues generally - raised bigger questions about the Liberals.
Volpe is an Ontario MP who is one of 11 official candidates for the Liberal leadership. All the hopefuls are scrambling to raise money. The party demands $50,000 before candidates are allowed on the ballot. Then there's the cost of flying around the country to seek support, paid staff, mailings. Candidates are allowed spend up to $3.4 million; after the first $500,000 they will have to send $10,000 to the party for every $40,000 they spend.
But this is the first leadership race run under new financing rules that bar corporate and union donations and limit individual donations to $5,400.
Volpe's campaign was supported by a group of 20 people who all gave the maximum. Ten of them were current or former executives with one pharmaceutical company; the other 10 were their family members.
Including 11-year-old twins and their 14-year-old brother, who were among five minors who contributed $5,400 each.
Volpe didn't see anything wrong with that. The law doesn't bar minors from contributing. If a couple of Grade 6 kids to decide on their own to hand $5,400 each to his campaign instead of buying hockey cards, so what? He spoke at their school, Volpe said. Maybe they were really impressed.
And it's true - minors can contribute. But it is an offence to make a donation that really comes from another person or to plot to get around the limits.
Volpe eventually returned the kids' money, but he still saw nothing wrong with taking $5,400 cheques from children. "All the donations for our campaign have been in compliance with the law," he said. "We wanted to clear the air and public perception."
The Liberal party response was just as weird. Party brass defended the donations and rejected calls for an investigation.
Have the lost their minds? The Liberals were booted from office in part because of fund-raising scandals. A leadership campaign that reminds voters of past wrongs would be disastrous.
And they look to be risking that. Donations are limited by law. Loans are not. And nine of the 11 candidates - all except Volpe - have borrowed between $30,000 and $200,000 from backers to fund their campaigns. Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison borrowed $200,000 from four men with major business interests in the province. The theory is that the loans will be repaid from donations, but candidates can ask for repeated extensions on the repayment deadline. The potential for abuse - for using loans as a way to get around donation limits - is immense.
Candidates do face a tough fund-raising challenge now that corporate donations are barred. (Paul Martin raised more than $10 million for his leadership campaign, largely from corporate donors.)
There are too many of them, with no clear frontrunners, and the new leader could spend the next five years at least in opposition.
But Canadians are watching to see if the Liberals have learned from the sponsorship scandal. The last week has suggested they haven't.
Footnote: The field may shrink after two leadership debates. The first, in English will be this Saturday in Winnipeg; a French-language debate will follow June 17 in Moncton. The debates won't be decisive, but they will provide an occasion for all candidates to assess their chances.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Secrecy surrounds huge taxpayer gift to forest company
VICTORIA - It’s not as if Weyerhaeuser made any sort of case for a $200-million gift from B.C. taxpayers.
But the Liberal government gave them one, without getting any identifiable benefit in return.
And both Mike de Jong, forest minister at the time, and Rich Coleman, in the job now, have not been able to come up with any answers to explain the gift.
Weyerhaeuser owned large tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. The licences covered both Crown lands and about 90,000 hectares the company owned as private lands, much of it in the Port Alberni area.
In 2004 Weyerhaeuser executives asked the government for a favour. They wanted the private lands - about the size of Manning Provincial Park - taken out of the tree farm licence.
The benefits for the corporation were huge. Land in the tree farm licence was controlled by the government as if it was Crown land. Stringent environmental and replanting requirements, a limit on the rate of harvest, a bar on selling the land for housing and strict controls on raw log exports - they were all part of the deal.
That’s why, in the 1950s the government encouraged forest companies to include their private lands in tree farm licences. Government wanted to be able to guarantee sustainable forest management and protect jobs for British Columbians.
Companies that agreed were compensated with additional Crown timber to make up for any lost profits. That’s how the private lands became part of these licences.
Now Weyerhaeuser wanted the deal cancelled. The benefits to the corporation would be huge - between $18 million and $24 million a year in extra profits.
But what about taxpayers? They had already compensated the company for including the land in the tree farm licence. The local communities and the province both stood to benefit for decades from the ability to manage the land in the best interests of British Columbians. Why give that up?
A ministry briefing note for de Jong at the time didn’t even contemplate the idea of a gift to the corporation. It assumed Weyerhaeuser would pay taxpayers compensation.
But even with that assumption, the ministry recommended that de Jong just say no to Weyerhaesuer.
For starters, the ministry briefing note warned de Jong that communities and forest workers considered the tree farm agreement a “social contract” that ensured local areas benefited from the forests and that sustainable management would mean jobs for their children. (That concern was prescient; the change allowed more log exports and cost local jobs.)
Senior ministry officials also said it would be difficult to get fair compensation from Weyerhaesuer and warned of a political backlash.
The only significant benefits cited were making the corporation happy and perhaps placating the U.S. in the softwood dispute (although that sure didn’t work).
But de Jong rejected the ministry recommendation. About 70,000 hectares were removed from the tree farm licence. Within a few months Weyerhaesuer was in negotiations to sell the whole operation business to Brascan, which ultimately paid $1.4 billion for it.
Nobody spoke up for taxpayers. But the Hupacasath First Nation took the government to B.C. Supreme Court, saying they should have been consulted. They won their case. (The Hupacasath, like local communities, had been kept in the dark.)
Brascan provided evidence in the case, because the company wanted to make sure the deal wasn’t undone. Getting the private land out of the tree farm licence was critical to Brascan’s decision to buy. Its profits from the private timberland were about $25 to $30 per cubic metre higher than on Crown land. The government’s gift was worth $15 million to $24 million a year in extra corporate profits.
Add to that the ability to take the land out of forest production and sell it for housing, and you have a benefit worth at least $200 million.
Why did the government do it? De Jong wouldn’t respond to questions. Coleman isn’t offering any answers. A deal was done, he says, but that’s it.
It’s none of your business.
Footnote: The New Democrats raised the issue in the legislature, but got no sensible answers from Coleman. “There was still a deal done,” he acknowledged in reply to a question from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson. “The member is telling the House pieces of what he thinks he understood took place at the time, but he actually has no idea what the total agreement was, because it isn't public.”
But the Liberal government gave them one, without getting any identifiable benefit in return.
And both Mike de Jong, forest minister at the time, and Rich Coleman, in the job now, have not been able to come up with any answers to explain the gift.
Weyerhaeuser owned large tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. The licences covered both Crown lands and about 90,000 hectares the company owned as private lands, much of it in the Port Alberni area.
In 2004 Weyerhaeuser executives asked the government for a favour. They wanted the private lands - about the size of Manning Provincial Park - taken out of the tree farm licence.
The benefits for the corporation were huge. Land in the tree farm licence was controlled by the government as if it was Crown land. Stringent environmental and replanting requirements, a limit on the rate of harvest, a bar on selling the land for housing and strict controls on raw log exports - they were all part of the deal.
That’s why, in the 1950s the government encouraged forest companies to include their private lands in tree farm licences. Government wanted to be able to guarantee sustainable forest management and protect jobs for British Columbians.
Companies that agreed were compensated with additional Crown timber to make up for any lost profits. That’s how the private lands became part of these licences.
Now Weyerhaeuser wanted the deal cancelled. The benefits to the corporation would be huge - between $18 million and $24 million a year in extra profits.
But what about taxpayers? They had already compensated the company for including the land in the tree farm licence. The local communities and the province both stood to benefit for decades from the ability to manage the land in the best interests of British Columbians. Why give that up?
A ministry briefing note for de Jong at the time didn’t even contemplate the idea of a gift to the corporation. It assumed Weyerhaeuser would pay taxpayers compensation.
But even with that assumption, the ministry recommended that de Jong just say no to Weyerhaesuer.
For starters, the ministry briefing note warned de Jong that communities and forest workers considered the tree farm agreement a “social contract” that ensured local areas benefited from the forests and that sustainable management would mean jobs for their children. (That concern was prescient; the change allowed more log exports and cost local jobs.)
Senior ministry officials also said it would be difficult to get fair compensation from Weyerhaesuer and warned of a political backlash.
The only significant benefits cited were making the corporation happy and perhaps placating the U.S. in the softwood dispute (although that sure didn’t work).
But de Jong rejected the ministry recommendation. About 70,000 hectares were removed from the tree farm licence. Within a few months Weyerhaesuer was in negotiations to sell the whole operation business to Brascan, which ultimately paid $1.4 billion for it.
Nobody spoke up for taxpayers. But the Hupacasath First Nation took the government to B.C. Supreme Court, saying they should have been consulted. They won their case. (The Hupacasath, like local communities, had been kept in the dark.)
Brascan provided evidence in the case, because the company wanted to make sure the deal wasn’t undone. Getting the private land out of the tree farm licence was critical to Brascan’s decision to buy. Its profits from the private timberland were about $25 to $30 per cubic metre higher than on Crown land. The government’s gift was worth $15 million to $24 million a year in extra corporate profits.
Add to that the ability to take the land out of forest production and sell it for housing, and you have a benefit worth at least $200 million.
Why did the government do it? De Jong wouldn’t respond to questions. Coleman isn’t offering any answers. A deal was done, he says, but that’s it.
It’s none of your business.
Footnote: The New Democrats raised the issue in the legislature, but got no sensible answers from Coleman. “There was still a deal done,” he acknowledged in reply to a question from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson. “The member is telling the House pieces of what he thinks he understood took place at the time, but he actually has no idea what the total agreement was, because it isn't public.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
