VICTORIA - It should be good news for British Columbians. The government looked at the books after the fiscal year’s first three months and found the surpluse will be $600 million more than expected.
That’s thanks to a good economy and you. Income taxes and sales taxes will bring in $542 million more than budgeted. BC Hydro’s rate increase will mean an extra $377 million in profits. The good news is more than enough to offset a $775-million shortfall because natural gas prices are lower than expected.
So instead of a $600-million surplus for this year, Finance Minister Carole Taylor says B.C. is on track to finish at least $1.2 billion in the black.
When most families get good news like that, they think about what to do with the extra money. They consider paying down debt. But they also look at what they need today. Maybe some money should pay for tutoring for a child having trouble in school, or extra help for an aged parent. It’s a question of smart choices.
But not for the government. I asked Taylor if this was a chance for ministries to make another pitch for programs that didn’t make the cut at budget time.
No, said Taylor. There’s a contingency fund for emergency expense requirements, but no plan to look at what could be done with the unexpected surplus.
That’s a shame. And it’s a position that ignores the advice British Columbians have offered the government in prebudget consultations.
You can’t be reckless with this kind of windfall. It would be irresponsible to start some multi-year program only to find there wasn’t enough money to keep it going.
But there are many opportunities for one-off improvements. Maybe health authorities could buy time in private MRI clinics and reduce the long wait for needed tests. Tourism BC could get extra money to launch a pre-Olympic ad marketing campaign. The government could offer tax cuts - perhaps an extra deduction for any company’s research spending that could lead to economic diversification in the province’s struggling northwest.
But those options aren’t on the table.
Paying down debt is important. But the province is already committed to devoting 100 per cent of its budgeted surplus to debt repayment. That, remember, is $600 million this year.
The other $600 million, which was not included in the budget, should be available to meet the public’s needs and expectations.
As Taylor was releasing the quarterly report, she also unveiled the budget consultation flyer that’s to be mailed to every home in the province. It’s a slight document - half the front and back pages are taken up with two big pictures. But it does seek input on budget priorities.
Based on Taylor’s comments on the use of this surplus, there’s not much point in filling it out.
After all, two years ago the budget consultation process produced clear results. British Columbians believed about 15 per cent of any surplus should go to debt repayment. The priority should be improving services, especially health and education.
Last year, the budget consultation committee report was muddled, but the results were much the same. The public wanted a balanced approach to using surpluses, with improved services a priority.
British Columbians recognize the cost of debt. But they also know from their own experience the importance of balance. The mortgage has to be paid down, but the family’s needs today have to be looked after too.
And they know that B.C. does not have a debt problem. The province has the second lowest debt burden in Canada, after Alberta, which no longer has any real debt to repay.
The public’s view so far hasn’t much mattered. The government’s choice is to use all of the surplus to pay down debt, no matter what British Columbians say.
Which leads to obvious questions about how seriously British Columbians should take the coming “conversations” on health care Premier Gordon Campbell has promised. A conversation requires people listening, as well as talking.
For now, British Columbians should be wondering about the point of a budget consultation, given the government’s demonstrated willingness to ignore their clearly expressed views.
Footnote: Fill out the budget consultation flyer, by all means, when it hits your mailbox. But be aware that two years ago - before the election - the government mailed a similar piece to every home. About 26,000 people filled it out. But 23,500 of those forms never really got looked at. Time was tight, so the finance ministry picked a regionally representative 2,550 and tallied the results. The rest were dumped, unread. It was an awfully expensive way to conduct a very rough opinion poll.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Auditor sounds alarm about Olympic costs, stumbles
VICTORIA - It's time to get worried about the 2010 Olympics.
Not just about what the Games are going to cost you, although that's a big concern in the light of three sharply critical reports released this week.
But also about whether the government is fumbling the chance to ensure that B.C. gets some lasting benefits from the two-week event.
Acting auditor general Arn van Iersel released the office's second review of the province's Olympic activities this week. It was alarming reading.
A lot of the talk was around what the Olympics are really costing British Columbians. Premier Gordon Campbell insists the tab is just $600 million - the direct cost of narrowly defined Games spending.
But the auditor general, like almost everyone else, has again dismissed that claim. he Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements were part of the bid and should be included, he found. And it's foolish to claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat isn't part of the Games cost.
All in, the auditor general says, and provincial taxpayers are on the hook for at least $1.5 billion.
Municipalities are putting up another $400 million and the federal government $607 million.
The total tab from taxpayers will be at least $2.5 billion.
The government can stick to its story; the public will decide whether they believe the politicians or the auditor general.
But by not including all the costs, van Iersel says, the government is making it difficult to properly manage the programs. The budget for the Olympic Secretariat, for example, has increased from $24 million to $41million.
"For the province to manage its costs for the Games, the costs must first be defined and measured," he says. "The province, however, has not yet developed a comprehensive definition of Olympic costs."
The report raises bigger questions about what lies ahead.
The province has only $76 million left in its contingency fund for Games overruns, having already handed the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee $55 million to cover rising venue costs.
That's not likely going to be enough, says van Iersel.
For starters, there could be more cost overruns on Games construction. (A federal report released at the same time offers the same warning.)
And three years after B.C. was awarded the Games, organizers still don't have a handle on the costs of security or medical care. Ottawa and the province have agreed to split security costs, but they are still using the bid book estimate of $175 million in 2002 dollars. Inflation, increased security threats and other issues could easily double or triple that cost.
The problems aren't just on the cost side. If the Games are going to be more than an expensive party, the auditor general warned in 2003, the province needed a well-funded, well-planned marketing plan to seize the benefits. A government report in 2002 urged an immediate start on marketing efforts to ensure potential indirect economic benefits of $4 billion.
It hasn't happened. "The marketing effort to date has been delayed and unco-ordinated, with no central agency taking the lead," the new report found.
And the province apparently didn't realize that the International Olympic Committee restricts international marketing until the previous Games have concluded. B.C.'s hands are largely tied until after the Beijing Games, leaving just 18 months to woo the world.
That should be a special concern for communities outside the Vancouver-Whistler corridor. People who live in the rest of the B.C. are paying for the Games, but are at risk of seeing few benefits.
Finally, the report raises concerns about the secrecy around Games spending and plans.
"We are also concerned that the province has not done more to make the Games budget a public document," the auditor general's office says. The province has agreed to cover all cost overruns, he report notes, and the public is entitled to better information.
The alarm bells are sounding. It's far from clear that Campbell and company are listening.
Footnote: The province's marketing plan is also being hobbled by VANOC, the auditor general reports. Even though the province is by far the largest contributor, the Games organizers want to keep the best marketing tools for corporate donors. It won't even let the government use the Olympic rings or the word Olympic in ads.
Not just about what the Games are going to cost you, although that's a big concern in the light of three sharply critical reports released this week.
But also about whether the government is fumbling the chance to ensure that B.C. gets some lasting benefits from the two-week event.
Acting auditor general Arn van Iersel released the office's second review of the province's Olympic activities this week. It was alarming reading.
A lot of the talk was around what the Olympics are really costing British Columbians. Premier Gordon Campbell insists the tab is just $600 million - the direct cost of narrowly defined Games spending.
But the auditor general, like almost everyone else, has again dismissed that claim. he Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements were part of the bid and should be included, he found. And it's foolish to claim that the government's Olympic Secretariat isn't part of the Games cost.
All in, the auditor general says, and provincial taxpayers are on the hook for at least $1.5 billion.
Municipalities are putting up another $400 million and the federal government $607 million.
The total tab from taxpayers will be at least $2.5 billion.
The government can stick to its story; the public will decide whether they believe the politicians or the auditor general.
But by not including all the costs, van Iersel says, the government is making it difficult to properly manage the programs. The budget for the Olympic Secretariat, for example, has increased from $24 million to $41million.
"For the province to manage its costs for the Games, the costs must first be defined and measured," he says. "The province, however, has not yet developed a comprehensive definition of Olympic costs."
The report raises bigger questions about what lies ahead.
The province has only $76 million left in its contingency fund for Games overruns, having already handed the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee $55 million to cover rising venue costs.
That's not likely going to be enough, says van Iersel.
For starters, there could be more cost overruns on Games construction. (A federal report released at the same time offers the same warning.)
And three years after B.C. was awarded the Games, organizers still don't have a handle on the costs of security or medical care. Ottawa and the province have agreed to split security costs, but they are still using the bid book estimate of $175 million in 2002 dollars. Inflation, increased security threats and other issues could easily double or triple that cost.
The problems aren't just on the cost side. If the Games are going to be more than an expensive party, the auditor general warned in 2003, the province needed a well-funded, well-planned marketing plan to seize the benefits. A government report in 2002 urged an immediate start on marketing efforts to ensure potential indirect economic benefits of $4 billion.
It hasn't happened. "The marketing effort to date has been delayed and unco-ordinated, with no central agency taking the lead," the new report found.
And the province apparently didn't realize that the International Olympic Committee restricts international marketing until the previous Games have concluded. B.C.'s hands are largely tied until after the Beijing Games, leaving just 18 months to woo the world.
That should be a special concern for communities outside the Vancouver-Whistler corridor. People who live in the rest of the B.C. are paying for the Games, but are at risk of seeing few benefits.
Finally, the report raises concerns about the secrecy around Games spending and plans.
"We are also concerned that the province has not done more to make the Games budget a public document," the auditor general's office says. The province has agreed to cover all cost overruns, he report notes, and the public is entitled to better information.
The alarm bells are sounding. It's far from clear that Campbell and company are listening.
Footnote: The province's marketing plan is also being hobbled by VANOC, the auditor general reports. Even though the province is by far the largest contributor, the Games organizers want to keep the best marketing tools for corporate donors. It won't even let the government use the Olympic rings or the word Olympic in ads.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
MRI queue-jumping symptom of sick health care
VICTORIA - The controversy about patients paying $1,400 to jump the waiting lists for MRIs - and having the tests done in a public hospital - shows how far B.C. has allowed the basic principle of public health care to be eroded.
At the heart of our system is a commitment that health care will be provided based on need. That’s why the Canada Health Act bars extra billing for any medically necessary treatment covered under the public plan.
The MRI scandal shows that principle was abandoned.
St. Paul’s Hospital allowed a private broker, Timely Medical Alternatives, to buy time on its machine and use its technicians to help people jump the waiting list. For $1,400 you could buy your way to speedier, better treatment than your neighbour. Two children might be diagnosed with an illness that required an MRI and placed on a waiting list together. A family with money could buy an immediate MRI scan, while the other child waited and perhaps suffered.
Canadians have so far decided that’s wrong. It is, in fact, illegal.
But B.C. governments, NDP and Liberal, have allowed the expansion of private clinics and companies that facilitate queue-jumping for people who can pay. There are about two dozen clinics in the province that offer faster treatment for people with money. They can operate mainly because the government chooses to turn a blind eye to the Canada Health Act violations.
The Liberal government can’t claim ignorance. Less than three years ago former health minister Colin Hansen introduced a bill aimed at upholding the Canada Health Act and ending two-tier care in the province. It was important to plug the loopholes and make it clear that B.C. wouldn’t tolerate extra-billing, Hansen said.
The bill was debated and passed by the legislature. MLAs decided it was necessary to protect medicare.
But then Premier Gordon Campbell said the government wouldn’t put the law into effect. It remains in limbo; Campbell has never explained why the government passed a bill to protect medicare one month and abandoned the next.
The government has known two-tier health care was increasing, but chose not to act.
That’s allowed companies like Timely Medical Alternatives to expand. The business started in 2003 to sell better health care to people who could pay for it. Some activities are clearly within the Canada Health Act. The company arranges surgery in Washington State, for example, for people who don’t want to wait for a knee replacement.
Others, like the MRI deal with St. Paul’s Hospital, aren’t.
Timely Medical Alternatives gives the B.C. government great marks for its “acceptance of private alternatives.” The business rates provinces based on their willingness to tolerate deals like the MRI arrangement. B.C. gets a six out of 10; Alberta gets three. The rest of the provinces get a one rating.
And the company is unabashed in crediting government for its success.
People are driven outside the public health-care system because it is performing poorly, the company says. ”Many Canadians wait unreasonably long for treatment of life-threatening conditions,” the company says. “Every year, scores of Canadians die while on long waiting lists for needed surgery.”
Timely Medical Alternatives is brutal in assessing government’s failure to pay for needed MRI scans. The real purpose is to make surgical wait times appear shorter than they are, the company says on its website. Patients aren’t added to surgical waiting lists until after they have the necessary MRI scans. If government provided the test promptly, then there would be more people “officially” waiting and wait lists would look worse.
Patient care is sacrificed so the truth about wait times can be concealed, the company explains.
Health Minister George Abbott says he’s investigating the queue-jumping at St. Paul’s.
But based on past practice, don’t hold you breath waiting for any real action. If the Campbell government was concerned about two-tier care, it would have acted long ago.
Footnote: NDP health critic Adrian Dix effectively raised the issue, producing a patient who has paid $1,400 and walked into St. Paul’s for an almost immediate MRI, while people in the public system were waiting for months for access to the same machine.
At the heart of our system is a commitment that health care will be provided based on need. That’s why the Canada Health Act bars extra billing for any medically necessary treatment covered under the public plan.
The MRI scandal shows that principle was abandoned.
St. Paul’s Hospital allowed a private broker, Timely Medical Alternatives, to buy time on its machine and use its technicians to help people jump the waiting list. For $1,400 you could buy your way to speedier, better treatment than your neighbour. Two children might be diagnosed with an illness that required an MRI and placed on a waiting list together. A family with money could buy an immediate MRI scan, while the other child waited and perhaps suffered.
Canadians have so far decided that’s wrong. It is, in fact, illegal.
But B.C. governments, NDP and Liberal, have allowed the expansion of private clinics and companies that facilitate queue-jumping for people who can pay. There are about two dozen clinics in the province that offer faster treatment for people with money. They can operate mainly because the government chooses to turn a blind eye to the Canada Health Act violations.
The Liberal government can’t claim ignorance. Less than three years ago former health minister Colin Hansen introduced a bill aimed at upholding the Canada Health Act and ending two-tier care in the province. It was important to plug the loopholes and make it clear that B.C. wouldn’t tolerate extra-billing, Hansen said.
The bill was debated and passed by the legislature. MLAs decided it was necessary to protect medicare.
But then Premier Gordon Campbell said the government wouldn’t put the law into effect. It remains in limbo; Campbell has never explained why the government passed a bill to protect medicare one month and abandoned the next.
The government has known two-tier health care was increasing, but chose not to act.
That’s allowed companies like Timely Medical Alternatives to expand. The business started in 2003 to sell better health care to people who could pay for it. Some activities are clearly within the Canada Health Act. The company arranges surgery in Washington State, for example, for people who don’t want to wait for a knee replacement.
Others, like the MRI deal with St. Paul’s Hospital, aren’t.
Timely Medical Alternatives gives the B.C. government great marks for its “acceptance of private alternatives.” The business rates provinces based on their willingness to tolerate deals like the MRI arrangement. B.C. gets a six out of 10; Alberta gets three. The rest of the provinces get a one rating.
And the company is unabashed in crediting government for its success.
People are driven outside the public health-care system because it is performing poorly, the company says. ”Many Canadians wait unreasonably long for treatment of life-threatening conditions,” the company says. “Every year, scores of Canadians die while on long waiting lists for needed surgery.”
Timely Medical Alternatives is brutal in assessing government’s failure to pay for needed MRI scans. The real purpose is to make surgical wait times appear shorter than they are, the company says on its website. Patients aren’t added to surgical waiting lists until after they have the necessary MRI scans. If government provided the test promptly, then there would be more people “officially” waiting and wait lists would look worse.
Patient care is sacrificed so the truth about wait times can be concealed, the company explains.
Health Minister George Abbott says he’s investigating the queue-jumping at St. Paul’s.
But based on past practice, don’t hold you breath waiting for any real action. If the Campbell government was concerned about two-tier care, it would have acted long ago.
Footnote: NDP health critic Adrian Dix effectively raised the issue, producing a patient who has paid $1,400 and walked into St. Paul’s for an almost immediate MRI, while people in the public system were waiting for months for access to the same machine.
'Rest of B.C.' faces electoral squeeze play
VICTORIA - Get ready for some anguished howls from rural B.C. as the Electoral Boundaries Commission starts overhauling the province's ridings.
The commission is heading out on the road this month, the first steps towards an overhaul of riding boundaries for the 2009 election. It's going to be a painful process for people in much of the province.
We're supposed to have a fair system of electing MLAs, with all voters having roughly equal influence and representation.
But we don't. The three ridings in the northwest - North Coast, Skeena, Bulkley Valley-Stikine - have 92,000 people and send three MLAs to Victoria.
In Vancouver, three ridings - Burrard, Hastings and Point Grey - have twice as many people, but also send three MLAs to Victoria. The votes of people in those ridings are worth half as much - at least in terms of electing a government - as people in the northwest.
There are reasons for the inequity. Liberal Lorne Mayencourt represents some 75,000 people in his Vancouver-Burrard riding; New Democrat Gary Coons about 28,000 in the North Coast riding.
But Mayencourt's riding is nine square kilometres; he can cover it with a $7 cab ride. North Coast is 66,000 square kilometres. It's hard to represent people spread out over such an area.
There's an argument for slacking off on the principle of rep by pop. The question is how far do you go? In a close election, should voters in the north have twice as much weight in deciding which party forms government?
Those are the questions the boundaries commission will struggle with over the next 18 months. The commission - Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, chief electoral officer Harry Neufeld and retired school administrator Stewart Ladyman of Penticton - has to come up with recommended changes to the current electoral boundaries.
They have a big task. In an attempt to head off legal challenges, the province has established principles. True representation by population would mean all ridings would have the same population. The legislature has decided that it will allow riding size to vary by plus or minus 25 per cent. The commission can recommend ridings larger or smaller than those guidelines "In very special circumstances."
The last commission, which reported in 1999, recommended six ridings be granted special consideration. That was mostly based on the vast geographic distances in remote ridings, but also on the effect of stripping representation away from northern voters.
Since then the population shift has continued. My count indicates three Lower Mainland ridings are too large, given the 25-per--cent rule. Ten ridings have too few people.
Fortunately, the commission isn't forced to cut the number of ridings in the North and Interior to add MLAs in the Lower Mainland. It's mandate includes the right to propose adding up to six seats, taking the legislature from 79 to 85 MLAs. That provides the opportunity to reduce the size of some of the Lower Mainland ridings without cutting back on representation from the rest of the province.
There will still be power shift. The regions' influence will be reduced by the new urban seats. (What ever happened to all that Heartland talk, anyway?)
But the principle of representation by population will be preserved.
This particular commission has another huge challenge. It has been asked to come up with proposed electoral boundaries that could be used if British Columbians decide they would prefer proportional representation to the current system. Another referendum on the single-transferable-vote system will be held along with the provincial election in 2009.
It's a wise move by Premier Gordon Campbell. The change was approved by 58 per cent of voters in 2005, just short of the required 60-per-cent. Campbell decided to put the question to the people again, this time with more information.
But it means much more work for the commission.
The commission is on its way to communities around the province over the next two months. It's well worth paying attention to its work.
Footnote: Questions around representation quickly become complex. A political party in B.C., once this redistribution is complete, may be able to form government without a single seat outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. But party which has its support concentrated in the rest of the province will be doomed to outsider status. That's a profound change in the political landscape over the course of a few decades.
The commission is heading out on the road this month, the first steps towards an overhaul of riding boundaries for the 2009 election. It's going to be a painful process for people in much of the province.
We're supposed to have a fair system of electing MLAs, with all voters having roughly equal influence and representation.
But we don't. The three ridings in the northwest - North Coast, Skeena, Bulkley Valley-Stikine - have 92,000 people and send three MLAs to Victoria.
In Vancouver, three ridings - Burrard, Hastings and Point Grey - have twice as many people, but also send three MLAs to Victoria. The votes of people in those ridings are worth half as much - at least in terms of electing a government - as people in the northwest.
There are reasons for the inequity. Liberal Lorne Mayencourt represents some 75,000 people in his Vancouver-Burrard riding; New Democrat Gary Coons about 28,000 in the North Coast riding.
But Mayencourt's riding is nine square kilometres; he can cover it with a $7 cab ride. North Coast is 66,000 square kilometres. It's hard to represent people spread out over such an area.
There's an argument for slacking off on the principle of rep by pop. The question is how far do you go? In a close election, should voters in the north have twice as much weight in deciding which party forms government?
Those are the questions the boundaries commission will struggle with over the next 18 months. The commission - Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, chief electoral officer Harry Neufeld and retired school administrator Stewart Ladyman of Penticton - has to come up with recommended changes to the current electoral boundaries.
They have a big task. In an attempt to head off legal challenges, the province has established principles. True representation by population would mean all ridings would have the same population. The legislature has decided that it will allow riding size to vary by plus or minus 25 per cent. The commission can recommend ridings larger or smaller than those guidelines "In very special circumstances."
The last commission, which reported in 1999, recommended six ridings be granted special consideration. That was mostly based on the vast geographic distances in remote ridings, but also on the effect of stripping representation away from northern voters.
Since then the population shift has continued. My count indicates three Lower Mainland ridings are too large, given the 25-per--cent rule. Ten ridings have too few people.
Fortunately, the commission isn't forced to cut the number of ridings in the North and Interior to add MLAs in the Lower Mainland. It's mandate includes the right to propose adding up to six seats, taking the legislature from 79 to 85 MLAs. That provides the opportunity to reduce the size of some of the Lower Mainland ridings without cutting back on representation from the rest of the province.
There will still be power shift. The regions' influence will be reduced by the new urban seats. (What ever happened to all that Heartland talk, anyway?)
But the principle of representation by population will be preserved.
This particular commission has another huge challenge. It has been asked to come up with proposed electoral boundaries that could be used if British Columbians decide they would prefer proportional representation to the current system. Another referendum on the single-transferable-vote system will be held along with the provincial election in 2009.
It's a wise move by Premier Gordon Campbell. The change was approved by 58 per cent of voters in 2005, just short of the required 60-per-cent. Campbell decided to put the question to the people again, this time with more information.
But it means much more work for the commission.
The commission is on its way to communities around the province over the next two months. It's well worth paying attention to its work.
Footnote: Questions around representation quickly become complex. A political party in B.C., once this redistribution is complete, may be able to form government without a single seat outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. But party which has its support concentrated in the rest of the province will be doomed to outsider status. That's a profound change in the political landscape over the course of a few decades.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Five years of errors since 9/11
VICTORIA - Five years on from the World Trade Centre, and it looks we have got it mostly wrong since then, starting with the fiction that as a result of the 9/11 terror attacks "everything had changed."
That just wasn't true. Terror had taken a shocking new form, deadly on a mass scale and symbolically powerful.
But the world hadn't changed. People still worried about their jobs and their children. Countries still struggled with a host of problems. Bad states still oppressed their people and threatened their neighbours. None of that was different.
That was the terrorists' big victory. A relatively small gang of them staged one spectacular attack and convinced us that we had to change everything. We let them decide our future.
We could have said no. That would not have meant ignoring the attacks. We could have gone after the terrorists who were responsible and looked at what we needed to do improve basic security. Modest, pragmatic responses.
Instead, we accepted the fiction that everything had changed.
In the last five years, that belief has been expensive. Thousands of people have died as a result, and hundreds of thousands have suffered terribly. Canadians have accepted the loss of some basic civil liberties through anti-terror legislation. America has sacrificed its position as champion of democracy and the rule of law, joining those states which sanction kidnapping and secret prisons.
We've spent billions on security and made travelling and trade much more difficult.
We - that is Canada and the rest of the West - have spent something like $1 trillion in total in responding to the 9/11 attacks. That's an astonishing amount of money that could have done quite a lot of good.
And we've gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You could make an argument that those things were all necessary for our safety.
Except for a large problem. They haven't worked. The aim of all these efforts - the laws that eroded our rights, the airport security, the wars - was to make us safer by punishing the bad guys, deterring other terrorists and reducing the risk of attack.
At best, they have been unsuccessful. They may have made things worse.
The U.S. State Department reports there were 11,111 terror attacks in 2005, up from 3,192 the year before. The increase may be misleading, it warns, because it's tough to count accurately. But the trend since 2001 and has been steadily upward. The greater our efforts to increase safety, the more terror attacks.
New terrorists have emerged, organized in autonomous cells, like the people who blew up bombs in London's subway. Perhaps that would have happened anyway. But perhaps the response has fuelled the fire.
Everyone in the world must have expected the West to hunt attack Osama bin Laden and the people responsible for the attacks. The 2001 Afghanistan campaign, which saw the Taliban removed and some 3,000 Al Qaeda operatives killed or captured, was even quietly welcomed by some in the Muslim world.
But the war in Iraq, the confrontation with Iran and the rest have left too many people convinced this a war with Islam.
It's time to rethink our assumptions, in light of the failure so far. You can speculate that things might be worse if we had not responded as we did, but the evidence indicates our efforts have been ineffective.
We can't turn back the clock. We can take a different approach going forward. Canada's commitment to fighting in Afghanistan, for example, rests on the belief that the war reduces the risk of a terror attack in our country. (Humanitarian work and regime stabilization are part of the mission, but no one could seriously argue that Canadians would be fighting based on those issues alone.)
If that belief is wrong and if we are not reducing the terror threat, then we need to rethink the mission.
We've given up a lot in the last five years, for too little.
Footnote: Canadians have given up more than the right to take toothpaste on airplanes. Anti-terror laws passed after 9/11 allow people to be held indefinitely without a charges, a trial or appeal if they are deemed a threat. Police can arrest people who have broken no laws on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. The prime minister can outlaw groups based on secret evidence. You can be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
That just wasn't true. Terror had taken a shocking new form, deadly on a mass scale and symbolically powerful.
But the world hadn't changed. People still worried about their jobs and their children. Countries still struggled with a host of problems. Bad states still oppressed their people and threatened their neighbours. None of that was different.
That was the terrorists' big victory. A relatively small gang of them staged one spectacular attack and convinced us that we had to change everything. We let them decide our future.
We could have said no. That would not have meant ignoring the attacks. We could have gone after the terrorists who were responsible and looked at what we needed to do improve basic security. Modest, pragmatic responses.
Instead, we accepted the fiction that everything had changed.
In the last five years, that belief has been expensive. Thousands of people have died as a result, and hundreds of thousands have suffered terribly. Canadians have accepted the loss of some basic civil liberties through anti-terror legislation. America has sacrificed its position as champion of democracy and the rule of law, joining those states which sanction kidnapping and secret prisons.
We've spent billions on security and made travelling and trade much more difficult.
We - that is Canada and the rest of the West - have spent something like $1 trillion in total in responding to the 9/11 attacks. That's an astonishing amount of money that could have done quite a lot of good.
And we've gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You could make an argument that those things were all necessary for our safety.
Except for a large problem. They haven't worked. The aim of all these efforts - the laws that eroded our rights, the airport security, the wars - was to make us safer by punishing the bad guys, deterring other terrorists and reducing the risk of attack.
At best, they have been unsuccessful. They may have made things worse.
The U.S. State Department reports there were 11,111 terror attacks in 2005, up from 3,192 the year before. The increase may be misleading, it warns, because it's tough to count accurately. But the trend since 2001 and has been steadily upward. The greater our efforts to increase safety, the more terror attacks.
New terrorists have emerged, organized in autonomous cells, like the people who blew up bombs in London's subway. Perhaps that would have happened anyway. But perhaps the response has fuelled the fire.
Everyone in the world must have expected the West to hunt attack Osama bin Laden and the people responsible for the attacks. The 2001 Afghanistan campaign, which saw the Taliban removed and some 3,000 Al Qaeda operatives killed or captured, was even quietly welcomed by some in the Muslim world.
But the war in Iraq, the confrontation with Iran and the rest have left too many people convinced this a war with Islam.
It's time to rethink our assumptions, in light of the failure so far. You can speculate that things might be worse if we had not responded as we did, but the evidence indicates our efforts have been ineffective.
We can't turn back the clock. We can take a different approach going forward. Canada's commitment to fighting in Afghanistan, for example, rests on the belief that the war reduces the risk of a terror attack in our country. (Humanitarian work and regime stabilization are part of the mission, but no one could seriously argue that Canadians would be fighting based on those issues alone.)
If that belief is wrong and if we are not reducing the terror threat, then we need to rethink the mission.
We've given up a lot in the last five years, for too little.
Footnote: Canadians have given up more than the right to take toothpaste on airplanes. Anti-terror laws passed after 9/11 allow people to be held indefinitely without a charges, a trial or appeal if they are deemed a threat. Police can arrest people who have broken no laws on the suspicion that they are involved in terrorist activities. The prime minister can outlaw groups based on secret evidence. You can be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Cancelled fall legislature a disservice to public
VICTORIA - You’re getting short-changed by the Liberals’ decision to cancel the fall session of the legislature.
House leader Mike de Jong confirmed the government is pulling the plug on the session, which was to start Oct. 2 and run until the end of November.
The government has no legislation to pass, he said, so there’s no need. "We're not sitting just for the sake of sitting or passing laws just for the sake of passing laws," he said. "That's not how I measure a successful government."
Fair enough. More laws does not equal better government. In fact, sometimes the public would be well-served by fewer big new ideas from government.
But a successful government can be measured by its willingness to account for its actions and policies. And any government can be improved when MLAs - from all parties - have a chance to raise questions and concerns on behalf of their communities.
The Liberals are shutting down an opportunity for those kind of useful debates.
Gordon Campbell introduced fixed fall and spring legislative sessions in 2001. That was a useful improvement. In the past sessions had been called and ended at the whim of the party in power. When the heat got too much - either summer heat or political heat - the government could shut the legislature down. The legislature only sat for 40 days in 1996, when the newly elected NDP government was taking a kicking over its false campaign claim of a balanced budget.
The Liberals hinted this might happen in last year’s Throne Speech, which said fall sessions were intended to deal with unfinished business from the spring.
Politically, the move probably makes sense. There’s a sharper focus on the government when the legislature is in session. The opposition uses Question Period each day to grill ministers about policies and problems, and reporters and columnists are watching closely. The government faces a daily risk of bad-news stories. (The Liberals deserve full credit for doubling the length of Question Period to 30 minutes, a major improvement.)
But cancelling the session brings another set of political problems. NDP leader Carole James was quick to accuse the Liberals of “running away from the public" and trying to avoid accountability. Anytime an issue emerges over the next few months James will be reminding people that the legislature could have worked at finding solutions if the sitting hadn’t been cancelled.
Leaving politics aside, the cancellation is a loss for the public. The accountability that the legislature provides is important. Without it, issues can be ignored and problems can fester.
Until last fall’s legislative session, for example, the government had insisted that everything was fine in the ministry of children and families, despite evidence of mounting problems that were leaving children at risk.
It took daily hammering by the NDP to force the government to admit that the system, battered by budget cuts and mismanagement, was in fact failing. Without the session, and the forum it provided, the Hughes inquiry and badly needed improvements might have been stalled. Children and families would have suffered as a result.
And while the focus is on Question Period, the legislature provides a forum for all MLAs - Liberals and New Democrats - to raise issues important to their communities.
There’s no shortage of issues. Communities across B.C. are struggling with homelessness, addictions and mental illness. Health care remains an issue. Forest-dependent communities are waiting for information on how the softwood lumber agreement will affect them. De Jong said that even with the cancelled session, the legislature will sit for a fairly typical number of days this year.
That’s not true. The legislature sat for 42 days in the spring. That will be the third fewest days sine 1991. The average for the last decade is about 63 days.
A much shortened session might have made sense. But the public, and MLAs, are poorly served by the decision to cancel the entire sitting.
Footnote: The legislature may be recalled for one day in the fall. A special committee is seeking a candidate to become the child and youth officer, a new advocacy and oversight position recommended by Ted Hughes in his report on child protection problems. If the committee comes up with a recommendation, the legislature would have to approve the choice.
House leader Mike de Jong confirmed the government is pulling the plug on the session, which was to start Oct. 2 and run until the end of November.
The government has no legislation to pass, he said, so there’s no need. "We're not sitting just for the sake of sitting or passing laws just for the sake of passing laws," he said. "That's not how I measure a successful government."
Fair enough. More laws does not equal better government. In fact, sometimes the public would be well-served by fewer big new ideas from government.
But a successful government can be measured by its willingness to account for its actions and policies. And any government can be improved when MLAs - from all parties - have a chance to raise questions and concerns on behalf of their communities.
The Liberals are shutting down an opportunity for those kind of useful debates.
Gordon Campbell introduced fixed fall and spring legislative sessions in 2001. That was a useful improvement. In the past sessions had been called and ended at the whim of the party in power. When the heat got too much - either summer heat or political heat - the government could shut the legislature down. The legislature only sat for 40 days in 1996, when the newly elected NDP government was taking a kicking over its false campaign claim of a balanced budget.
The Liberals hinted this might happen in last year’s Throne Speech, which said fall sessions were intended to deal with unfinished business from the spring.
Politically, the move probably makes sense. There’s a sharper focus on the government when the legislature is in session. The opposition uses Question Period each day to grill ministers about policies and problems, and reporters and columnists are watching closely. The government faces a daily risk of bad-news stories. (The Liberals deserve full credit for doubling the length of Question Period to 30 minutes, a major improvement.)
But cancelling the session brings another set of political problems. NDP leader Carole James was quick to accuse the Liberals of “running away from the public" and trying to avoid accountability. Anytime an issue emerges over the next few months James will be reminding people that the legislature could have worked at finding solutions if the sitting hadn’t been cancelled.
Leaving politics aside, the cancellation is a loss for the public. The accountability that the legislature provides is important. Without it, issues can be ignored and problems can fester.
Until last fall’s legislative session, for example, the government had insisted that everything was fine in the ministry of children and families, despite evidence of mounting problems that were leaving children at risk.
It took daily hammering by the NDP to force the government to admit that the system, battered by budget cuts and mismanagement, was in fact failing. Without the session, and the forum it provided, the Hughes inquiry and badly needed improvements might have been stalled. Children and families would have suffered as a result.
And while the focus is on Question Period, the legislature provides a forum for all MLAs - Liberals and New Democrats - to raise issues important to their communities.
There’s no shortage of issues. Communities across B.C. are struggling with homelessness, addictions and mental illness. Health care remains an issue. Forest-dependent communities are waiting for information on how the softwood lumber agreement will affect them. De Jong said that even with the cancelled session, the legislature will sit for a fairly typical number of days this year.
That’s not true. The legislature sat for 42 days in the spring. That will be the third fewest days sine 1991. The average for the last decade is about 63 days.
A much shortened session might have made sense. But the public, and MLAs, are poorly served by the decision to cancel the entire sitting.
Footnote: The legislature may be recalled for one day in the fall. A special committee is seeking a candidate to become the child and youth officer, a new advocacy and oversight position recommended by Ted Hughes in his report on child protection problems. If the committee comes up with a recommendation, the legislature would have to approve the choice.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Clement’s non-decision on safe-injection ignores the facts
VICTORIA - It’s frustrating to watch the Harper government fumble and stumble over the future of Vancouver’s safe-injection site.
After months of waffling - and with less than two weeks before the site’s licence expired - Health Minister Tony Clement said he still couldn’t make up his mind. Instead of granting the three-year licence extension sought for the Insite centre, Clement stalled. The centre can keep going until he makes a decision by end of next year, he said.
It was a blatantly political move. Clement’s non-decision was announced on the Friday before the long weekend, at 7 p.m. Ottawa time. He refused to answer any questions. His handling of the issue suggests the Conservatives want to kill the site, but are afraid it would hurt them politically. By stalling they can keep their intentions secret until after the next election.
Every shred of evidence suggests the safe-injection site has achieved its relatively modest goals without any documented negative effects. The Insite project offers a clean, safe place for people to inject their drugs.
A nurse is there to deal with problems, help people avoid infection or other medical complications and refer addicts to treatment or services. Clean needles are available.
The alternative is to have addicts injecting in a flophouse or alley.
The site, the first in North America, has been intensively studied by health researchers. Last month, in Harm Reduction Journal, a report found that it saves taxpayers up to $8 million a year.
Without Insite, there would have been 2,000 additional emergency room visits for abscesses, infections and overdoses, the study found. About 100 of those visits would have resulted in hospitalization, using a desperately needed acute-care bed for an average two weeks.
There were 453 overdoses at Insite. None resulted in death and few required hospital care. Without the centre, 18 to 20 people would have died and and about 100 would have required hospital care.
About 100 people were referred to methadone programs, for many a first step toward dealing with their addiction. At the least, those people will not be scrambling, panhandling and stealing to get money for drugs.
The centre, by cutting down on shared needles and other unsafe practices, also reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C, serious public health problems.
Other reviews done for the RCMP found there was no increase in crime in the area. The centre did not create new drug users.
Health care costs reduced. Lives saved. People leaving illegal drug use behind. No increase in crime or drug use. Support from the B.C. government, he City of Vancouver and public health officials.
Surely continuing the program - and extending it to other centres across B.C. and Canada where there is support - is a no-brainer.
Clement doesn’t think so. He wants more studies. In the news release announcing the decision, he offered these crafted quotes.
“We believe the best form of harm reduction is to help addicts to break the cycle of dependency,” Clements is quoted. “We also need better education and prevention to ensure Canadians don’t get addicted to drugs in the first place.” Of course. There is likely not a sane person in Canada - including the operators of the safe-injection site - who would not agree with those words. (And wonder why Clement wasn’t doing more in those areas.)
Safe-injection sites aren’t some miracle solution that makes the problem go away. People using the site are still struggling with their addictions and the pain or emptiness or genetic bad luck that brought them there. Their lives are still terrible, dangerous messes. But the site works, by the most pragmatic measures. It saves lives, prevents the spread of deadly diseases, frees up millions in health care costs for other uses and helps some people get clean. All without one real, demonstrated negative effect.
It’s shameful that a government would, apparently, place politics ahead of both sound health policy and peoples’ lives.
Footnote: Clement has never visited the Vancouver safe-injection site to see how it works. He did travel to Sweden and Denmark this summer to look at drug policies in those two countries, including a meeting with a Swedish lobby group promoting tougher drug policies. Vancouver’s experiment has attracted world attention; Clement should have visited before making his decision.
After months of waffling - and with less than two weeks before the site’s licence expired - Health Minister Tony Clement said he still couldn’t make up his mind. Instead of granting the three-year licence extension sought for the Insite centre, Clement stalled. The centre can keep going until he makes a decision by end of next year, he said.
It was a blatantly political move. Clement’s non-decision was announced on the Friday before the long weekend, at 7 p.m. Ottawa time. He refused to answer any questions. His handling of the issue suggests the Conservatives want to kill the site, but are afraid it would hurt them politically. By stalling they can keep their intentions secret until after the next election.
Every shred of evidence suggests the safe-injection site has achieved its relatively modest goals without any documented negative effects. The Insite project offers a clean, safe place for people to inject their drugs.
A nurse is there to deal with problems, help people avoid infection or other medical complications and refer addicts to treatment or services. Clean needles are available.
The alternative is to have addicts injecting in a flophouse or alley.
The site, the first in North America, has been intensively studied by health researchers. Last month, in Harm Reduction Journal, a report found that it saves taxpayers up to $8 million a year.
Without Insite, there would have been 2,000 additional emergency room visits for abscesses, infections and overdoses, the study found. About 100 of those visits would have resulted in hospitalization, using a desperately needed acute-care bed for an average two weeks.
There were 453 overdoses at Insite. None resulted in death and few required hospital care. Without the centre, 18 to 20 people would have died and and about 100 would have required hospital care.
About 100 people were referred to methadone programs, for many a first step toward dealing with their addiction. At the least, those people will not be scrambling, panhandling and stealing to get money for drugs.
The centre, by cutting down on shared needles and other unsafe practices, also reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C, serious public health problems.
Other reviews done for the RCMP found there was no increase in crime in the area. The centre did not create new drug users.
Health care costs reduced. Lives saved. People leaving illegal drug use behind. No increase in crime or drug use. Support from the B.C. government, he City of Vancouver and public health officials.
Surely continuing the program - and extending it to other centres across B.C. and Canada where there is support - is a no-brainer.
Clement doesn’t think so. He wants more studies. In the news release announcing the decision, he offered these crafted quotes.
“We believe the best form of harm reduction is to help addicts to break the cycle of dependency,” Clements is quoted. “We also need better education and prevention to ensure Canadians don’t get addicted to drugs in the first place.” Of course. There is likely not a sane person in Canada - including the operators of the safe-injection site - who would not agree with those words. (And wonder why Clement wasn’t doing more in those areas.)
Safe-injection sites aren’t some miracle solution that makes the problem go away. People using the site are still struggling with their addictions and the pain or emptiness or genetic bad luck that brought them there. Their lives are still terrible, dangerous messes. But the site works, by the most pragmatic measures. It saves lives, prevents the spread of deadly diseases, frees up millions in health care costs for other uses and helps some people get clean. All without one real, demonstrated negative effect.
It’s shameful that a government would, apparently, place politics ahead of both sound health policy and peoples’ lives.
Footnote: Clement has never visited the Vancouver safe-injection site to see how it works. He did travel to Sweden and Denmark this summer to look at drug policies in those two countries, including a meeting with a Swedish lobby group promoting tougher drug policies. Vancouver’s experiment has attracted world attention; Clement should have visited before making his decision.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
On Tofino's water crisis and the opportunity for Elizabeth May
VICTORIA - Newly Green party leader Elizabeth May is already ahead of the game.
May captured the leadership this week in Ottawa, sweeping aside two other candidates.
People - or at least the media - actually paid attention. That’s a big change for the federal Greens.
May looks a smart choice on the basis of her skills and experience. She’s 52, with a law degree and a long history in the environmental movement. As executive director of the Sierra Club, she’s shown the ability to come up with ways of pitching an environmental message that win media attention and resonate with voters. She’s had some experience inside the world of government, working as an advisor to then environment minister Tom McMilan during the Mulroney years.
The Greens are still a desperate long shot to have any electoral success under Canada’s current winner-take-all system.
But that doesn’t mean the party can’t be influential, if it focuses on the right issues in a compelling way. The Harper Conservatives are weak on the environment, especially on the major problem of global warming. They’ve effectively pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord, with no indication yet what alternate plan they have.
Stephen Harper doesn’t have much to fear from the Liberals on the issue. All he has to do is point to their record in power, which featured much talk and no action.
May is a more serious threat. It doesn’t matter if see convinces voters to back her party. Effective attacks on the Conservatives’ position will still undermine Harper’s chances.
It’s a good issue. Poll show Canadians are convinced global warming is a threat and that it’s important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Leaving aside the warming issue, spiking oil and gas prices have convinced many Canadians it’s wreckless to be so dependent on fossil fuels.
If May needs a talking point for speeches in B.C., she needs to look no farther than the water crisis in Tofino that’s shut down tourist businesses on one of the busiest weekends of the year.
The story has it all for the Greens. The threat of climate change, shown by the virtually non-existent rainfall this summer. The importance of conservation. The consequences of poor planning and lack of concern for environmental issues.
And on top of that, an good case study in the economic costs of neglect. The community will lose something like $350,000 a day in economic activity when the indefinite ban starts. That would have paid for a lot of conservation programs or an improved water supply system.
Instead of focusing on that kind of issue, May’s first public comments after winning the leadership were about the need to repeal NAFTA, pointing to the softwood lumber dispute and perceived threats to Canada’s right to have independent environmental policies.
It was an odd choice. NAFTA really isn’t on most Canadians’ list of pressing issues, in part because the agreement has mostly been beneficial in ensuring access to U.S. markets. Thirteen years after the deal was signed, the dire warnings about the Americans taking our water or gutting environmental regulations just haven’t happened. The sky has not fallen.
May has a good opportunity. The party has more than $1 million a year in public funding, based on its showing in the last election. May has good skills and wisely plans to watch the Commons from the visitors’ gallery and offer her critiques daily to the media. It’s tactic that worked reasonably well for NDP leader Jack Layton until he won a seat.
Most importantly, May takes the helm at a time when there’s a political vacuum. The Liberals are discredited; the Conservatives make many voters nervous; and the NDP is seen as irrelevant.
Even if the Greens are unlikely to win any seats, all the other parties will be edgy about losing critical votes in close ridings and shifting their policies accordingly.
It’s a fine time for a new leader and new party to make a mark.
Footnote: Despite their traditional decent showing in B.C., the Greens’ best chance for a breakthrough may be Quebec. Polls show Quebecers are the strongest on environmental issues, especially in support for Kyoto. And they have no trouble with the idea of casting a protest vote; after all, they sent 51 Bloc Quebecois MPs to Ottawa out of 75 seats. Unfortunately, May’s French is poor to mediocre.
May captured the leadership this week in Ottawa, sweeping aside two other candidates.
People - or at least the media - actually paid attention. That’s a big change for the federal Greens.
May looks a smart choice on the basis of her skills and experience. She’s 52, with a law degree and a long history in the environmental movement. As executive director of the Sierra Club, she’s shown the ability to come up with ways of pitching an environmental message that win media attention and resonate with voters. She’s had some experience inside the world of government, working as an advisor to then environment minister Tom McMilan during the Mulroney years.
The Greens are still a desperate long shot to have any electoral success under Canada’s current winner-take-all system.
But that doesn’t mean the party can’t be influential, if it focuses on the right issues in a compelling way. The Harper Conservatives are weak on the environment, especially on the major problem of global warming. They’ve effectively pulled Canada out of the Kyoto accord, with no indication yet what alternate plan they have.
Stephen Harper doesn’t have much to fear from the Liberals on the issue. All he has to do is point to their record in power, which featured much talk and no action.
May is a more serious threat. It doesn’t matter if see convinces voters to back her party. Effective attacks on the Conservatives’ position will still undermine Harper’s chances.
It’s a good issue. Poll show Canadians are convinced global warming is a threat and that it’s important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Leaving aside the warming issue, spiking oil and gas prices have convinced many Canadians it’s wreckless to be so dependent on fossil fuels.
If May needs a talking point for speeches in B.C., she needs to look no farther than the water crisis in Tofino that’s shut down tourist businesses on one of the busiest weekends of the year.
The story has it all for the Greens. The threat of climate change, shown by the virtually non-existent rainfall this summer. The importance of conservation. The consequences of poor planning and lack of concern for environmental issues.
And on top of that, an good case study in the economic costs of neglect. The community will lose something like $350,000 a day in economic activity when the indefinite ban starts. That would have paid for a lot of conservation programs or an improved water supply system.
Instead of focusing on that kind of issue, May’s first public comments after winning the leadership were about the need to repeal NAFTA, pointing to the softwood lumber dispute and perceived threats to Canada’s right to have independent environmental policies.
It was an odd choice. NAFTA really isn’t on most Canadians’ list of pressing issues, in part because the agreement has mostly been beneficial in ensuring access to U.S. markets. Thirteen years after the deal was signed, the dire warnings about the Americans taking our water or gutting environmental regulations just haven’t happened. The sky has not fallen.
May has a good opportunity. The party has more than $1 million a year in public funding, based on its showing in the last election. May has good skills and wisely plans to watch the Commons from the visitors’ gallery and offer her critiques daily to the media. It’s tactic that worked reasonably well for NDP leader Jack Layton until he won a seat.
Most importantly, May takes the helm at a time when there’s a political vacuum. The Liberals are discredited; the Conservatives make many voters nervous; and the NDP is seen as irrelevant.
Even if the Greens are unlikely to win any seats, all the other parties will be edgy about losing critical votes in close ridings and shifting their policies accordingly.
It’s a fine time for a new leader and new party to make a mark.
Footnote: Despite their traditional decent showing in B.C., the Greens’ best chance for a breakthrough may be Quebec. Polls show Quebecers are the strongest on environmental issues, especially in support for Kyoto. And they have no trouble with the idea of casting a protest vote; after all, they sent 51 Bloc Quebecois MPs to Ottawa out of 75 seats. Unfortunately, May’s French is poor to mediocre.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Alcan's sweet power deal still a mystery
VICTORIA - The people in Kitimat complaining that the province is handing a giant gift to Alcan have been taking some hits lately.
Since the corporation announced plans to modernize its smelter, the critics have been painted as a bunch of out-of-touch, whiny ingrates.
Alcan’s announcement is great news, says Premier Gordon Campbell. It shows that B.C. is a good place to invest.
The smelter in Kitimat employs about 1,550 people and is the heart of the company town. Alcan has announced plans to spend about $2 billion to modernize the smelter. Production capacity will increase by more than 40 per cent, but new technology means the smelter will employ about 550 fewer people. There will be several hundred construction jobs as the work is done. And the investment likely guarantees that the smelter will be around for a few decades.
A lot of that is good news, especially the certainty. Alcan has operations around the world and there’s always the risk some other government will offer dirt-cheap power and the company will move on.
The job losses aren’t good news. Kitimat has seen a steady reduction in jobs at the smelter, with a damaging effect on residential property values and small businesses. The announcement that more than one-third of the jobs at the smelter will vanish is a major blow.
Usually you would still say tough luck. Technology has meant job losses in other industries. Companies adapt to global competitors or vanish. It’s painful, and sometimes government help is needed during the transition, but change is inevitable.
But there’s a difference here.
Kitimat exists because of a deal between Alcan and the provincial government reached in the later 1940s. The government wanted economic activity in the northwest. Alcan wanted cheap power and ocean access for an aluminum smelter. (Making aluminum requires lots of electric power to generate heat.)
B.C. had an extraordinary resource to offer. Back in 1928 a provincial bureaucrat named Frederick Knewstubb had looked up from a pile of maps in Victoria and announced that he had discovered one of the world's great hydroelectric sites.
He proposed damming the Nechako River, reversing its flow and sending the water rocketing down to the coast, driving turbines at the bottom. But the power wasn’t needed in the northwest and there was no way to get it out to other markets. Nothing happened.
Until 1949, when the province handed over the water rights and Alcan agreed to build the power project, smelter and planned community. It was a trade - cheap electricity for jobs.
But the government was prudent. Even though there was no transmission grid for Alcan to tap into then, then the agreement anticipated the risk that Alcan would just sell the cheap electricity at a profit instead of creating jobs. The act and agreements handing over the water rights said the power was to be used to make aluminum or for other industrial projects "in the vicinity of the works."
The people in Kitimat - including Mayor Richard Wozney, a former Liberal candidate - want the agreement enforced. If it was, they say, Alcan would have expanded the smelter to make use of the electricity at the same time as it modernized, preserving jobs.
Or the province could reclaim the power and make it available to other industries willing to develop in the area.
Instead, Alcan will keep on selling electricity from Kemano that was supposed to be used to generate economic activity in the region, first to BCHydro, then direct to the U.S. Profits are huge, because the energy is so cheap to produce. Conservatively, figure about $1 billion over the next 20 years - half the smelter project costs.
It’s been a long a battle for Kitimat, with few successes. The provincial government hasn’t given any real answers about why the original agreement is no longer valid, or when the public resource became Alcan’s property. Some straight answers would go a long way.
Footnote: Kitimat is continuing legal efforts to enforce the original agreement, but the chances of winning any real change look slim. Politically, the issue is costly for the Liberals. Former MLA Roger Harris, widely respected, lost to New Democrat Robin Austin by 440 votes in 2005. The government’s stonewalling on Alcan power sales was a big factor.
Since the corporation announced plans to modernize its smelter, the critics have been painted as a bunch of out-of-touch, whiny ingrates.
Alcan’s announcement is great news, says Premier Gordon Campbell. It shows that B.C. is a good place to invest.
The smelter in Kitimat employs about 1,550 people and is the heart of the company town. Alcan has announced plans to spend about $2 billion to modernize the smelter. Production capacity will increase by more than 40 per cent, but new technology means the smelter will employ about 550 fewer people. There will be several hundred construction jobs as the work is done. And the investment likely guarantees that the smelter will be around for a few decades.
A lot of that is good news, especially the certainty. Alcan has operations around the world and there’s always the risk some other government will offer dirt-cheap power and the company will move on.
The job losses aren’t good news. Kitimat has seen a steady reduction in jobs at the smelter, with a damaging effect on residential property values and small businesses. The announcement that more than one-third of the jobs at the smelter will vanish is a major blow.
Usually you would still say tough luck. Technology has meant job losses in other industries. Companies adapt to global competitors or vanish. It’s painful, and sometimes government help is needed during the transition, but change is inevitable.
But there’s a difference here.
Kitimat exists because of a deal between Alcan and the provincial government reached in the later 1940s. The government wanted economic activity in the northwest. Alcan wanted cheap power and ocean access for an aluminum smelter. (Making aluminum requires lots of electric power to generate heat.)
B.C. had an extraordinary resource to offer. Back in 1928 a provincial bureaucrat named Frederick Knewstubb had looked up from a pile of maps in Victoria and announced that he had discovered one of the world's great hydroelectric sites.
He proposed damming the Nechako River, reversing its flow and sending the water rocketing down to the coast, driving turbines at the bottom. But the power wasn’t needed in the northwest and there was no way to get it out to other markets. Nothing happened.
Until 1949, when the province handed over the water rights and Alcan agreed to build the power project, smelter and planned community. It was a trade - cheap electricity for jobs.
But the government was prudent. Even though there was no transmission grid for Alcan to tap into then, then the agreement anticipated the risk that Alcan would just sell the cheap electricity at a profit instead of creating jobs. The act and agreements handing over the water rights said the power was to be used to make aluminum or for other industrial projects "in the vicinity of the works."
The people in Kitimat - including Mayor Richard Wozney, a former Liberal candidate - want the agreement enforced. If it was, they say, Alcan would have expanded the smelter to make use of the electricity at the same time as it modernized, preserving jobs.
Or the province could reclaim the power and make it available to other industries willing to develop in the area.
Instead, Alcan will keep on selling electricity from Kemano that was supposed to be used to generate economic activity in the region, first to BCHydro, then direct to the U.S. Profits are huge, because the energy is so cheap to produce. Conservatively, figure about $1 billion over the next 20 years - half the smelter project costs.
It’s been a long a battle for Kitimat, with few successes. The provincial government hasn’t given any real answers about why the original agreement is no longer valid, or when the public resource became Alcan’s property. Some straight answers would go a long way.
Footnote: Kitimat is continuing legal efforts to enforce the original agreement, but the chances of winning any real change look slim. Politically, the issue is costly for the Liberals. Former MLA Roger Harris, widely respected, lost to New Democrat Robin Austin by 440 votes in 2005. The government’s stonewalling on Alcan power sales was a big factor.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Heritage fund makes for better energy decisions
VICTORIA - The NDP and the Liberals have been slagging each other over whether the government is selling off B.C. natural gas reserves too cheaply.
The NDP says royalty rate cuts worth about $240 million to oil companies since 2003 have been too generous. The Liberals say the New Democrats are “clueless” and the industry wouldn’t be as active without the special deals.
The whole affair is a reminder of why B.C. needs a heritage fund for a chunk of B.C.’s energy revenues.
The B.C. government cut the price of some of our natural gas reserves in 2003 to encourage companies to get the resources out of the ground quickly.
Across the country, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is raising prices on his province’s offshore oil reserves. If the energy companies don’t want to pay, that’s fine, he says. The oil will be worth more in the future anyway.
It’s a dilemma faced by anyone setting prices, even if you’re just trying to sell an old car. Too high and buyers may go elsewhere. Too low, and you give away money that you could have had. There's no easy formula.
The government put some of B.C.’s gas reserves on sale in mid-2003, cutting prices to encourage companies to step up their operations. The deals have cost taxpayers about $240 million. But the ministry figures that the activity they sparked was worth $900 million in additional revenue to the province — plus a lot of jobs in the northeast.
The discounts seem sensible. Companies got a lower rate for drilling deeper wells to get gas, for example, as an incentive to take on the challenge.
Another program cut royalty rates once the amount of gas coming from a well fell below a threshold. The idea was that companies would be encouraged to keep on pumping gas, instead of capping wells. Even at a lower rate, the province would get more money.
Based on the ministry’s analysis, the discounts worked.
But the Liberals’ claim the NDP was “clueless” for questioning the cuts looks shaky. This week the Alberta government announced it’s changing four royalty programs because oil and gas companies aren’t paying enough. The changes will bring in an extra $186 million a year.
Alberta’s equivalent of the deep-well and low-volume well discounts that I just described are getting an overhaul to increase the amount the oil companies pay. Alberta’s Conservative government and the NDP are on the same page.
Ultimately government has to makes the pricing decisions based on the best advice of professional staff.
But there is a built-in conflict of interest.
These are non-renewable resources that will appreciate in value. It may be in the overall public interest to hold out for the best price, even if that means waiting.
But governments face short-term pressures. They may be tempted to cut royalties to get cash quickly to pay tor today’s problems - even if it’s not in the province’s long-term interest.
A heritage fund reduces that pressure. If a chunk of oil and gas revenues are going into a fund to cushion future economic bumps, then governments face less temptation to cut royalties in a bid for quick cash.
A heritage fund also helps prepare for the day the oil and gas run out. There’s been a steady growth in identified gas reserves, but B.C’s. known reserves only support 16 more years of production at current rates. The government’s natural gas revenues were $100 million a decade ago. This year they will be $2.3 billion. In 20 years, no one knows.
And a fund would acknowledge that these resources should be creating benefits for future generations, not just for the people who happened to around while they lasted. It’s not a wacky idea. The BC Progress Board said last year the government should be looking at a heritage fund.
Now is the time to start.
Footnote: Neufeld says the measures have worked. More than 1,400 oil and gas wells were drilled in B.C. last year, more than double the 2002 total, the last full year before the royalty cuts. But it’s difficult to isolate the effect of the discounts. Natural gas prices were almost four times higher in 2005 than they were in 2002, a large factor in companies’ eagerness to develop the resource.
The NDP says royalty rate cuts worth about $240 million to oil companies since 2003 have been too generous. The Liberals say the New Democrats are “clueless” and the industry wouldn’t be as active without the special deals.
The whole affair is a reminder of why B.C. needs a heritage fund for a chunk of B.C.’s energy revenues.
The B.C. government cut the price of some of our natural gas reserves in 2003 to encourage companies to get the resources out of the ground quickly.
Across the country, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is raising prices on his province’s offshore oil reserves. If the energy companies don’t want to pay, that’s fine, he says. The oil will be worth more in the future anyway.
It’s a dilemma faced by anyone setting prices, even if you’re just trying to sell an old car. Too high and buyers may go elsewhere. Too low, and you give away money that you could have had. There's no easy formula.
The government put some of B.C.’s gas reserves on sale in mid-2003, cutting prices to encourage companies to step up their operations. The deals have cost taxpayers about $240 million. But the ministry figures that the activity they sparked was worth $900 million in additional revenue to the province — plus a lot of jobs in the northeast.
The discounts seem sensible. Companies got a lower rate for drilling deeper wells to get gas, for example, as an incentive to take on the challenge.
Another program cut royalty rates once the amount of gas coming from a well fell below a threshold. The idea was that companies would be encouraged to keep on pumping gas, instead of capping wells. Even at a lower rate, the province would get more money.
Based on the ministry’s analysis, the discounts worked.
But the Liberals’ claim the NDP was “clueless” for questioning the cuts looks shaky. This week the Alberta government announced it’s changing four royalty programs because oil and gas companies aren’t paying enough. The changes will bring in an extra $186 million a year.
Alberta’s equivalent of the deep-well and low-volume well discounts that I just described are getting an overhaul to increase the amount the oil companies pay. Alberta’s Conservative government and the NDP are on the same page.
Ultimately government has to makes the pricing decisions based on the best advice of professional staff.
But there is a built-in conflict of interest.
These are non-renewable resources that will appreciate in value. It may be in the overall public interest to hold out for the best price, even if that means waiting.
But governments face short-term pressures. They may be tempted to cut royalties to get cash quickly to pay tor today’s problems - even if it’s not in the province’s long-term interest.
A heritage fund reduces that pressure. If a chunk of oil and gas revenues are going into a fund to cushion future economic bumps, then governments face less temptation to cut royalties in a bid for quick cash.
A heritage fund also helps prepare for the day the oil and gas run out. There’s been a steady growth in identified gas reserves, but B.C’s. known reserves only support 16 more years of production at current rates. The government’s natural gas revenues were $100 million a decade ago. This year they will be $2.3 billion. In 20 years, no one knows.
And a fund would acknowledge that these resources should be creating benefits for future generations, not just for the people who happened to around while they lasted. It’s not a wacky idea. The BC Progress Board said last year the government should be looking at a heritage fund.
Now is the time to start.
Footnote: Neufeld says the measures have worked. More than 1,400 oil and gas wells were drilled in B.C. last year, more than double the 2002 total, the last full year before the royalty cuts. But it’s difficult to isolate the effect of the discounts. Natural gas prices were almost four times higher in 2005 than they were in 2002, a large factor in companies’ eagerness to develop the resource.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Battling researcher proves a sea-lice point
VICTORIA - Alexandra Morton has taken some serious abuse for her research showing that sea lice from fish farms were killing wild salmon.
“Questionable research methods,” critics said. “Blatant misrepresentations.” Unqualified and biased.
Turns out she was right. The question now is what are the federal and provincial governments are going to do about it?
Morton lives in the Broughton Archipelago, the dense scattering of islands off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. She moved there to study whales 27 years ago and has been doing research ever since.
In the last few years she has been alarmed at the spread of sea lice from salmon farms on to migrating wild salmon. The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they’re a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they’re life-threatening.
Morton didn’t just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean. Her work has been peer-reviewed and published.
But the critics kept sniping. The provincial government ordered some fish farms along the migration emptied for a few months as a precautionary measure. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong. Governments said nothing was proven.
So Morton launched a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act, charging a company and federal and provincial governments with releasing sea lice into the salmon habitat, harming the wild fish.
Private prosecutions rarely go ahead. Generally, the Crown takes over the case and stays the charges.
This time, because the province was charged, an outside lawyer, Bill Smart, was named special prosecutor. He decided to hire an independent science expert to review Morton’s research and look at the allegations.
And the expert, Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, found she was right.
Morton alleged the salmon farm was releasing millions of sea lice a month. Whoriskey calculated the farm would produce 55 million sea lice eggs per year. Studies had found 95 per cent of sea lice off a section of Ireland’s coast came from salmon farms.
Morton charged that sea lice from the farm infected passing young salmon. Whoriskey, after reviewing her research and studies from around the world, concluded that is also true.
And Morton alleged that the pink salmon smolts were vulnerable to sea lice and many were killed. There hasn’t been a definitive study, Whoriskey reported, but sea lice infestations have found to weaken and kill young salmon.
Whoriskey summed up. “The evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon,” he found.
And the independent expert also commented on her research. “Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work,” he wrote. It meets “the globally accepted procedure for good science.”
Smart, the special prosecutor, said Morton’s charges were sound and raised an important public issue. “It appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton’s assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago”, he reported. “There may be debates about the extent of the problem or risk, those debates cannot obscure the existence of the problem itself.“
Smart still decided the prosecution shouldn’t go ahead because convictions were unlikely. The law prohibits the release of harmful species, but the sea lice weren’t really released. And the company could argue that it had obeyed all the governments’ rules.
But he noted that while he had to apply a strict test in deciding whether to go ahead with case, governments don’t when it comes to “addressing the potential environmental consequences of fish farms.”
Morton won the important victory. An independent review by the government’s own prosecutor found the evidence showed the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks.
Now it’s up to government to say what it’s going to do about that reality.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the legislative committee looking at the aquaculture industry is heading back out for another round of hearings this fall. The committee, which has an NDP majority, has been hearing completely contradictory and equally passionate views from the industry’s supporters and opponents. It’s trying for an interim report before the end of the year and a full report next May.
“Questionable research methods,” critics said. “Blatant misrepresentations.” Unqualified and biased.
Turns out she was right. The question now is what are the federal and provincial governments are going to do about it?
Morton lives in the Broughton Archipelago, the dense scattering of islands off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. She moved there to study whales 27 years ago and has been doing research ever since.
In the last few years she has been alarmed at the spread of sea lice from salmon farms on to migrating wild salmon. The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they’re a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they’re life-threatening.
Morton didn’t just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean. Her work has been peer-reviewed and published.
But the critics kept sniping. The provincial government ordered some fish farms along the migration emptied for a few months as a precautionary measure. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong. Governments said nothing was proven.
So Morton launched a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act, charging a company and federal and provincial governments with releasing sea lice into the salmon habitat, harming the wild fish.
Private prosecutions rarely go ahead. Generally, the Crown takes over the case and stays the charges.
This time, because the province was charged, an outside lawyer, Bill Smart, was named special prosecutor. He decided to hire an independent science expert to review Morton’s research and look at the allegations.
And the expert, Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, found she was right.
Morton alleged the salmon farm was releasing millions of sea lice a month. Whoriskey calculated the farm would produce 55 million sea lice eggs per year. Studies had found 95 per cent of sea lice off a section of Ireland’s coast came from salmon farms.
Morton charged that sea lice from the farm infected passing young salmon. Whoriskey, after reviewing her research and studies from around the world, concluded that is also true.
And Morton alleged that the pink salmon smolts were vulnerable to sea lice and many were killed. There hasn’t been a definitive study, Whoriskey reported, but sea lice infestations have found to weaken and kill young salmon.
Whoriskey summed up. “The evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon,” he found.
And the independent expert also commented on her research. “Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work,” he wrote. It meets “the globally accepted procedure for good science.”
Smart, the special prosecutor, said Morton’s charges were sound and raised an important public issue. “It appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton’s assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago”, he reported. “There may be debates about the extent of the problem or risk, those debates cannot obscure the existence of the problem itself.“
Smart still decided the prosecution shouldn’t go ahead because convictions were unlikely. The law prohibits the release of harmful species, but the sea lice weren’t really released. And the company could argue that it had obeyed all the governments’ rules.
But he noted that while he had to apply a strict test in deciding whether to go ahead with case, governments don’t when it comes to “addressing the potential environmental consequences of fish farms.”
Morton won the important victory. An independent review by the government’s own prosecutor found the evidence showed the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks.
Now it’s up to government to say what it’s going to do about that reality.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the legislative committee looking at the aquaculture industry is heading back out for another round of hearings this fall. The committee, which has an NDP majority, has been hearing completely contradictory and equally passionate views from the industry’s supporters and opponents. It’s trying for an interim report before the end of the year and a full report next May.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Park development a bad idea
VICTORIA - There are some passable arguments for promoting development in provincial parks, but ultimately it remains a bad idea. The government is opening the door to development in a dozen parks this month, encouraging everything from cabins for hikers to lodges with up to 100 beds. The first calls for proposals have already gone out, and they include wilderness parks like Cape Scott at the northern tip of Vancouver Island.
Environment Minister Barry Penner says it’s all about access. Just because people can’t sleep in a tent doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get to stay in a wilderness park, he says. British Columbians are getting older and more rickety and want somewhere comfy to stay, and Penner says the environment ministry has to meet the need. And he promises that the government is being careful to make sure that any development won’t wreck the parks.
The problem is that once you begin constructing lodges and cabins and the various facilities needed to support them, you no longer have a wilderness park. Paving the West Coast Trail and creating little lodges along the way would make it more accessible. It would also destroy it.
Penner doesn’t mention the money, but that’s also behind this drive for commercial development. The government is counting on companies to pay for the right to build and operate businesses inside parks. The successful developers will get 30-year leases.
You can make a weak case for development in some parks, I suppose, particularly ones already on major highways or partially developed.
But the best policy would be to recognize the importance of preservation and the responsibility to keep parks whole.
That doesn’t mean that parks have to be exclusively for the fit and able-bodied.
If greater access is the goal – and if there is consumer demand - then development could be encouraged just outside parks, in communities that would be glad of the economic activity and additional tax base. Instead of plunking a lodge down inside a park, services could be provided just outside the park boundaries and steps taken to improve access for visitors.
And if developers want a shot at operating a true wilderness lodge, there are thousands of square kilometres of Crown and private land available outside parks. Negotiate a lease and build away.
That’s what some operators have already done. And those projects have shown that development inevitably brings significant change. It’s not just the construction of a lodge or cabins. The operator needs to transport supplies into the park; staff have to be housed; visitors will almost certainly demand more services or better roads. The government claims it consulted with the public on the plan to expand commercial development in parks, but it’s hard to find supporters.
The opposition, however, is remarkably broad-based. More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups oppose the plan. The B.C. Wildlife Association, which represents fishermen and hunters, thinks it’s a bad idea. So do wilderness tourism operators.
And they all fear that these proposals are just the start and that development will be encouraged in more provincial parks across the province.
These aren’t the extremists, the people who would be happiest if no one – or at most a handful of people - ever ventured into parks. They recognize that parks, while vital in protecting wilderness, are also for people.
But they believe that access can be offered without unnecessary commercial development inside park boundaries. Penner says the public will get a say on whether the specific proposals go ahead. But the government’s official policy on park development, released last month, is alarmingly vague on how the public will have a meaningful chance to offer its views. There are no provisions for public hearings or formal consultation.
B.C. has a magnificent park system, which we hold in trust for future generations.
We shouldn’t permanently damage that heritage, especially when there are alternative ways of improving access.
Footnote: The 12 parks covered in the first new development wave are Mount Robson in the Omineca Region, Elk Lakes, Mount Assiniboine and Nancy Greene in the Kootenays, Wells Gray (in the Cariboo, Foch-Giltoyees in the Skeena region, Cape Scott on northern Vancouver Island, Maxhamish Lake in the Peace, Golden Ears in the Lower Mainland and Fintry, Silver Star and Myra Bellevue in the Okanagan.
Environment Minister Barry Penner says it’s all about access. Just because people can’t sleep in a tent doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get to stay in a wilderness park, he says. British Columbians are getting older and more rickety and want somewhere comfy to stay, and Penner says the environment ministry has to meet the need. And he promises that the government is being careful to make sure that any development won’t wreck the parks.
The problem is that once you begin constructing lodges and cabins and the various facilities needed to support them, you no longer have a wilderness park. Paving the West Coast Trail and creating little lodges along the way would make it more accessible. It would also destroy it.
Penner doesn’t mention the money, but that’s also behind this drive for commercial development. The government is counting on companies to pay for the right to build and operate businesses inside parks. The successful developers will get 30-year leases.
You can make a weak case for development in some parks, I suppose, particularly ones already on major highways or partially developed.
But the best policy would be to recognize the importance of preservation and the responsibility to keep parks whole.
That doesn’t mean that parks have to be exclusively for the fit and able-bodied.
If greater access is the goal – and if there is consumer demand - then development could be encouraged just outside parks, in communities that would be glad of the economic activity and additional tax base. Instead of plunking a lodge down inside a park, services could be provided just outside the park boundaries and steps taken to improve access for visitors.
And if developers want a shot at operating a true wilderness lodge, there are thousands of square kilometres of Crown and private land available outside parks. Negotiate a lease and build away.
That’s what some operators have already done. And those projects have shown that development inevitably brings significant change. It’s not just the construction of a lodge or cabins. The operator needs to transport supplies into the park; staff have to be housed; visitors will almost certainly demand more services or better roads. The government claims it consulted with the public on the plan to expand commercial development in parks, but it’s hard to find supporters.
The opposition, however, is remarkably broad-based. More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups oppose the plan. The B.C. Wildlife Association, which represents fishermen and hunters, thinks it’s a bad idea. So do wilderness tourism operators.
And they all fear that these proposals are just the start and that development will be encouraged in more provincial parks across the province.
These aren’t the extremists, the people who would be happiest if no one – or at most a handful of people - ever ventured into parks. They recognize that parks, while vital in protecting wilderness, are also for people.
But they believe that access can be offered without unnecessary commercial development inside park boundaries. Penner says the public will get a say on whether the specific proposals go ahead. But the government’s official policy on park development, released last month, is alarmingly vague on how the public will have a meaningful chance to offer its views. There are no provisions for public hearings or formal consultation.
B.C. has a magnificent park system, which we hold in trust for future generations.
We shouldn’t permanently damage that heritage, especially when there are alternative ways of improving access.
Footnote: The 12 parks covered in the first new development wave are Mount Robson in the Omineca Region, Elk Lakes, Mount Assiniboine and Nancy Greene in the Kootenays, Wells Gray (in the Cariboo, Foch-Giltoyees in the Skeena region, Cape Scott on northern Vancouver Island, Maxhamish Lake in the Peace, Golden Ears in the Lower Mainland and Fintry, Silver Star and Myra Bellevue in the Okanagan.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Surprise shuffle all aimed at children and families
VICTORIA - So the revolving door spins again at the ministry of children and familes, sweeping Stan Hagen out and Tom Christensen in.
Based on past history, he shouldn’t unpack. Christensen is the fourth minister in less than six years for the Liberals; tenth in the last decade if you include the NDP follies.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s shuffle caught everyone by surprise Tuesday. He was supposed to be on holidays and all was to be quiet. The only warning was a news release at 12:15 p.m. that said there would be a shuffle in Vancouver less than two hours later.
It wasn’t a giant shift. Four ministers got new jobs, with the change at children and families driving the rest.
The premier wanted Mike de Jong to replace Christensen at aboriginal affairs, an important ministry for the Liberals now.
That left a hole at labour. Richmond MLA Olga Ilich, who had been minister for tourism, sports and culture, got the labour job, which not coincidentally left her pleasant ministry as a landing spot for Hagen.
Campbell didn’t just shuffle, he added. Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg is back in cabinet as a junior minister responsible for getting us all to eat right, exercise and quit smoking. Hogg, who resigned as childen and families minister in 2004 after a troubled tenure, is to champion the ActNow BC program announced by Campbell last year.
The most significant changes are in children and families and aboriginal relations.
The Liberals’ 2001 platform included a promise to stop the endless shuffling and re-organizations at the children and families ministry. They’ve failed badly. Hogg resigned after three chaotic years of stumbles; Christy Clark lasted about nine months before quitting; and Hagen has been in the job less than two years. Community groups desperate to get the minister’s attention are constantly starting work all over again.
Hagen had said that he wanted to keep the job. It was important to provide some stability while making the changes flowing from Ted Hughes’ report on ministry problems, he said.
But Campbell didn’t agree. The premier’s office has already installed its chosen deputy minister in children and families. Leslie du Toit was recruited from South Africa to work as an advisor to the premier before being installed in the ministry. She’s in charge of the ministry’s rather vague future direction.
And now she gets a new minister.
Christensen looks like a good choice. It’s been tough to judge his effectiveness in aboriginal affairs, in part because the premier’s office has played such a large role. But he succeeded in bringing people together when he followed Christy Clark into education. Now he has the chance to tackle one of the government’s critical problem areas. (And his experience in aboriginal affairs will be useful; the children and families’ ministry has large aboriginal focus and significant challenges in dealing with First Nations communities.)
De Jong is a reasonable choice to move into aboriginal affairs. He showed in the labour job that he could temper his natural tendency to love to give reporters a good quote. Caution will be a good thing in aboriginal affairs.
Ilich’s promotion is surprising. She was considered a strong candidate in 2005. But she hasn’t made any particular impression in her current tourism, sports and culture post. The elevation to labour - even at a time when things are likely to be pretty quiet - is a surprise.
But her promotion did open up a place fo Hagen.
I don’t know what to say about Hogg’s return. It seems odd that the Liberals, once the champions of small government, are now creating a fitness minister. The gesture will cost another $200,000 and it’s hard to know what the minister will actually do beyond some cheerleading. And it’s baffling that the junior minister is under tourism, sports and culture, where he will be lost, and not health.
But who can argue against getting people to exercise more, eat less and quit smoking and drinking?
It shouldn’t be hard to tell if this cabinet shuffle was successful. If Christensen is still minister of children and families in three years, and if the ministry is adequately funded and delivering effective services, then it succeeded.
If not, it is just another in a long series of failed efforts.
Based on past history, he shouldn’t unpack. Christensen is the fourth minister in less than six years for the Liberals; tenth in the last decade if you include the NDP follies.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s shuffle caught everyone by surprise Tuesday. He was supposed to be on holidays and all was to be quiet. The only warning was a news release at 12:15 p.m. that said there would be a shuffle in Vancouver less than two hours later.
It wasn’t a giant shift. Four ministers got new jobs, with the change at children and families driving the rest.
The premier wanted Mike de Jong to replace Christensen at aboriginal affairs, an important ministry for the Liberals now.
That left a hole at labour. Richmond MLA Olga Ilich, who had been minister for tourism, sports and culture, got the labour job, which not coincidentally left her pleasant ministry as a landing spot for Hagen.
Campbell didn’t just shuffle, he added. Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg is back in cabinet as a junior minister responsible for getting us all to eat right, exercise and quit smoking. Hogg, who resigned as childen and families minister in 2004 after a troubled tenure, is to champion the ActNow BC program announced by Campbell last year.
The most significant changes are in children and families and aboriginal relations.
The Liberals’ 2001 platform included a promise to stop the endless shuffling and re-organizations at the children and families ministry. They’ve failed badly. Hogg resigned after three chaotic years of stumbles; Christy Clark lasted about nine months before quitting; and Hagen has been in the job less than two years. Community groups desperate to get the minister’s attention are constantly starting work all over again.
Hagen had said that he wanted to keep the job. It was important to provide some stability while making the changes flowing from Ted Hughes’ report on ministry problems, he said.
But Campbell didn’t agree. The premier’s office has already installed its chosen deputy minister in children and families. Leslie du Toit was recruited from South Africa to work as an advisor to the premier before being installed in the ministry. She’s in charge of the ministry’s rather vague future direction.
And now she gets a new minister.
Christensen looks like a good choice. It’s been tough to judge his effectiveness in aboriginal affairs, in part because the premier’s office has played such a large role. But he succeeded in bringing people together when he followed Christy Clark into education. Now he has the chance to tackle one of the government’s critical problem areas. (And his experience in aboriginal affairs will be useful; the children and families’ ministry has large aboriginal focus and significant challenges in dealing with First Nations communities.)
De Jong is a reasonable choice to move into aboriginal affairs. He showed in the labour job that he could temper his natural tendency to love to give reporters a good quote. Caution will be a good thing in aboriginal affairs.
Ilich’s promotion is surprising. She was considered a strong candidate in 2005. But she hasn’t made any particular impression in her current tourism, sports and culture post. The elevation to labour - even at a time when things are likely to be pretty quiet - is a surprise.
But her promotion did open up a place fo Hagen.
I don’t know what to say about Hogg’s return. It seems odd that the Liberals, once the champions of small government, are now creating a fitness minister. The gesture will cost another $200,000 and it’s hard to know what the minister will actually do beyond some cheerleading. And it’s baffling that the junior minister is under tourism, sports and culture, where he will be lost, and not health.
But who can argue against getting people to exercise more, eat less and quit smoking and drinking?
It shouldn’t be hard to tell if this cabinet shuffle was successful. If Christensen is still minister of children and families in three years, and if the ministry is adequately funded and delivering effective services, then it succeeded.
If not, it is just another in a long series of failed efforts.
Harper dips into the pork barrel on defence deal
VICTORIA - How does it happen? How do we vote for a whole new approach to government and end up with the same old politics?
Like or loathe them, what Stephen Harper and the Conservatives mostly promised was something different. No more political pandering, just good common sense. An end to politicians interfering in the awarding of government contracts, for example. From now on, the goal would be to get the best deal for taxpayers.
But not a year in power and it looks like same old, same old in some troubling ways.
The Conservative government plans some big military spending. Top of the shopping list are 16 Chinook helicopters and four C-17 transport planes from Boeing. The deal will cost you something like $8 billion, including 20 years of support.
The Canadian government wants some of that money to stay here, so the contracts are going to specify that half the total spending has to be in Canada. Boeing will want to keep the manufacturing at home; Canadian firms are most likely to be able to bid for the maintenance contracts.
That should mean companies across Canada would get a chance to compete for the work. The ones that came up with the best proposals to keep the aircraft flying safely at the lowest cost would get the work.
That’s even supposed to be the rule. In 1994 Ottawa and the provinces signed a deal to ensure all Canadian suppliers had equal access to government procurement. Provinces weren’t allowed to overlook the best bid just because it came from outside their boundaries. The federal government agreed it wouldn’t hand out contracts to favoured companies or regions.
But there was an exception. The federal government could over-ride the commitment to open bidding “to protect national security or to maintain international peace and security."
And that’s the clause the government has invoked in the Boeing deals. It has become a matter of national security to protect the government’s right to steer contracts to chosen companies, even if their work costs more or is of inferior quality.
You’d think the Conservatives would have learned, since they’ve been down this road before. Back in 1986 a consortium led by Bristol Aircraft in Winnipeg had submitted the best bid on a contract to maintain the military’s CF-18 jet fighters, according to the Defence Ministry.
But at the last minute the Mulroney government over-ruled the military and handed the deal to another group headed by Canadair of Montreal. The decision was seen as an insult to the West; really it was an insult to taxpayers and the pilots who would fly the planes.
Now the current Conservative government has chosen the same path, invoking the “national security” loophole to let it parcel out the goodies.
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier says it’s not about patronage. But the government is going to set quotas, still to be decided, on where the work has to go. Quebec, the West, Atlantic Canada all have to get a taste - even if that means taxpayers are subsidizing companies by paying higher prices.
The decision embraces the culture of the old Ottawa. Companies that want to get these contracts can’t just concentrate on having the best technology or workforce.
They have to find the best lobbyists, the ones with the tightest ties to senior bureaucrats and politicians. Influence in pushing the quota system and steering work their way matters as much as their competence or ability to deliver value for money.
How can the Conservatives have forgotten so quickly? The Liberals were defeated in part because Canadians were tired of this way of doing business. They wanted the political influence, the lobbying and the efforts to favour one region taken out of spending decisions.
Instead, they got a new government that seems quickly to be sliding into the ways of its predecessors, despite all the talk about a new way of doing business.
Footnote: Why not guarantee all regions get some of the work? It increases costs, opens the door to political patronage and to rewards for friends and doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of regional development. Propping up uncompetitive businesses with government money is just an expensive way to delay the inevitable. (Think Skeena Cellulose.)
Like or loathe them, what Stephen Harper and the Conservatives mostly promised was something different. No more political pandering, just good common sense. An end to politicians interfering in the awarding of government contracts, for example. From now on, the goal would be to get the best deal for taxpayers.
But not a year in power and it looks like same old, same old in some troubling ways.
The Conservative government plans some big military spending. Top of the shopping list are 16 Chinook helicopters and four C-17 transport planes from Boeing. The deal will cost you something like $8 billion, including 20 years of support.
The Canadian government wants some of that money to stay here, so the contracts are going to specify that half the total spending has to be in Canada. Boeing will want to keep the manufacturing at home; Canadian firms are most likely to be able to bid for the maintenance contracts.
That should mean companies across Canada would get a chance to compete for the work. The ones that came up with the best proposals to keep the aircraft flying safely at the lowest cost would get the work.
That’s even supposed to be the rule. In 1994 Ottawa and the provinces signed a deal to ensure all Canadian suppliers had equal access to government procurement. Provinces weren’t allowed to overlook the best bid just because it came from outside their boundaries. The federal government agreed it wouldn’t hand out contracts to favoured companies or regions.
But there was an exception. The federal government could over-ride the commitment to open bidding “to protect national security or to maintain international peace and security."
And that’s the clause the government has invoked in the Boeing deals. It has become a matter of national security to protect the government’s right to steer contracts to chosen companies, even if their work costs more or is of inferior quality.
You’d think the Conservatives would have learned, since they’ve been down this road before. Back in 1986 a consortium led by Bristol Aircraft in Winnipeg had submitted the best bid on a contract to maintain the military’s CF-18 jet fighters, according to the Defence Ministry.
But at the last minute the Mulroney government over-ruled the military and handed the deal to another group headed by Canadair of Montreal. The decision was seen as an insult to the West; really it was an insult to taxpayers and the pilots who would fly the planes.
Now the current Conservative government has chosen the same path, invoking the “national security” loophole to let it parcel out the goodies.
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier says it’s not about patronage. But the government is going to set quotas, still to be decided, on where the work has to go. Quebec, the West, Atlantic Canada all have to get a taste - even if that means taxpayers are subsidizing companies by paying higher prices.
The decision embraces the culture of the old Ottawa. Companies that want to get these contracts can’t just concentrate on having the best technology or workforce.
They have to find the best lobbyists, the ones with the tightest ties to senior bureaucrats and politicians. Influence in pushing the quota system and steering work their way matters as much as their competence or ability to deliver value for money.
How can the Conservatives have forgotten so quickly? The Liberals were defeated in part because Canadians were tired of this way of doing business. They wanted the political influence, the lobbying and the efforts to favour one region taken out of spending decisions.
Instead, they got a new government that seems quickly to be sliding into the ways of its predecessors, despite all the talk about a new way of doing business.
Footnote: Why not guarantee all regions get some of the work? It increases costs, opens the door to political patronage and to rewards for friends and doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of regional development. Propping up uncompetitive businesses with government money is just an expensive way to delay the inevitable. (Think Skeena Cellulose.)
Friday, August 11, 2006
Harper's certainty worrying Canadians
VICTORIA - Maybe decisiveness isn’t such a great thing in a prime minister.
Critics complained Jean Chretien put off decisions until they didn’t matter anymore and Paul Martin was dubbed ‘Mr. Dithers’ for his indecision.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a new style, quick, decisive, with no wavering.
It worked for a while, when the issues were simple. But the action-man pose is starting look like a liability as more complex issues emerge, like Canada’s role in Afghanistan, the current fighting in the Mideast or even the softwood lumber dispute.
Decisiveness and certainty are generally seen as good things in leaders. But in Harper’s case, they seem to be making many Canadians nervous. It’s not even that they disagree with his positions. But they’re worried that Harper’s certainty reflects a mind closed to reasonable self-doubt.
Harper’s attempts to rally support for the Afghanistan mission highlighted the problem. Canadians don’t “cut and run,” he told troops in Kandahar in March, choosing to echo George Bush. "It's not my way, and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble,” Harper said. “We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country.”
But Canadians do cut and run. The term comes from naval history, when ships facing a surprise attack would cut their anchor lines to escape quickly. It’s a common-sense response to imminent danger when fighting makes no sense.
Even Canadians who support the mission in Afghanistan - and there are many - want a thoughtful, worried approach from the prime minister, not slogans.
Our lives aren’t simple. Every day, we fret about choices at work, or our children. Living is complicated and we only rarely sure if we’ve done the right thing. (Or I am, anyway.)
Our elected leaders face choices that should be even more daunting, ones that affect the lives and well-being of millions. We want our leaders to have difficulty with them, to struggle with uncertainty.
But Harper isn’t showing uncertainty or doubt, even on the most difficult decisions. Canada has joined the U.S. in arguing that Israel should be given time to eliminate Hezbollah before any ceasefire is imposed in Lebanon.
That’s defensible. Hezbollah is a political movement and military force, with strong support in Lebanon and backing from Iran and other Arab countries. It is committed to the destruction of Israel and wages a small, deadly war. A delayed ceasefire was supposed to give Israel time to invade Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah. That would save Israel from future attacks.
But there’s a cost. Israel has bombed roads and buildings in Lebanon; people with no connection with Hezbollah have been killed; civilians have been warned that staying in their homes may mean death.
There are endless arguments about the dispute. But for now, for Canada, the problem is deciding how to balance the costs of each day’s fighting against the hope for future peace. How many families should we allow to die in the interests of long-term stability? The toll so far is about 1,000 Lebanese, and 100 Israelis.
Harper hasn’t really blazed any new policy directions. Past governments may have been more equivocal, but ultimately would not have taken a much different position on the conflict. (Not that Canada’s view much matters.)
What’s mostly different is Harper’s tone, his certainty in supporting the war and accepting the civilian deaths as necessary for a greater good.
Many Canadians would ultimately accept that analysis. But they would struggle with it. They would expect their prime minister, faced with the real life-and-death decisions, to struggle as well. It should not be clear cut or easy to decide on a course that means death and destruction for civilians.
Certainty and decisiveness are over-rated. Canadians know the world is a mass of greys, not black and white. We know our leaders have to make hard decisions.
But we want them to struggle with those decisions, just as we would.
Footnote: Harper's approach is not playing well. A Strategic Counsel poll found 45 per cent of Canadians disagreed with Harper’s support for allowing the conflict to continue until Israel achieves its military objectives. About one-third supported his position. Three-quarters of those surveyed said Canada should be neutral in the dispute.
Critics complained Jean Chretien put off decisions until they didn’t matter anymore and Paul Martin was dubbed ‘Mr. Dithers’ for his indecision.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a new style, quick, decisive, with no wavering.
It worked for a while, when the issues were simple. But the action-man pose is starting look like a liability as more complex issues emerge, like Canada’s role in Afghanistan, the current fighting in the Mideast or even the softwood lumber dispute.
Decisiveness and certainty are generally seen as good things in leaders. But in Harper’s case, they seem to be making many Canadians nervous. It’s not even that they disagree with his positions. But they’re worried that Harper’s certainty reflects a mind closed to reasonable self-doubt.
Harper’s attempts to rally support for the Afghanistan mission highlighted the problem. Canadians don’t “cut and run,” he told troops in Kandahar in March, choosing to echo George Bush. "It's not my way, and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble,” Harper said. “We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country.”
But Canadians do cut and run. The term comes from naval history, when ships facing a surprise attack would cut their anchor lines to escape quickly. It’s a common-sense response to imminent danger when fighting makes no sense.
Even Canadians who support the mission in Afghanistan - and there are many - want a thoughtful, worried approach from the prime minister, not slogans.
Our lives aren’t simple. Every day, we fret about choices at work, or our children. Living is complicated and we only rarely sure if we’ve done the right thing. (Or I am, anyway.)
Our elected leaders face choices that should be even more daunting, ones that affect the lives and well-being of millions. We want our leaders to have difficulty with them, to struggle with uncertainty.
But Harper isn’t showing uncertainty or doubt, even on the most difficult decisions. Canada has joined the U.S. in arguing that Israel should be given time to eliminate Hezbollah before any ceasefire is imposed in Lebanon.
That’s defensible. Hezbollah is a political movement and military force, with strong support in Lebanon and backing from Iran and other Arab countries. It is committed to the destruction of Israel and wages a small, deadly war. A delayed ceasefire was supposed to give Israel time to invade Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah. That would save Israel from future attacks.
But there’s a cost. Israel has bombed roads and buildings in Lebanon; people with no connection with Hezbollah have been killed; civilians have been warned that staying in their homes may mean death.
There are endless arguments about the dispute. But for now, for Canada, the problem is deciding how to balance the costs of each day’s fighting against the hope for future peace. How many families should we allow to die in the interests of long-term stability? The toll so far is about 1,000 Lebanese, and 100 Israelis.
Harper hasn’t really blazed any new policy directions. Past governments may have been more equivocal, but ultimately would not have taken a much different position on the conflict. (Not that Canada’s view much matters.)
What’s mostly different is Harper’s tone, his certainty in supporting the war and accepting the civilian deaths as necessary for a greater good.
Many Canadians would ultimately accept that analysis. But they would struggle with it. They would expect their prime minister, faced with the real life-and-death decisions, to struggle as well. It should not be clear cut or easy to decide on a course that means death and destruction for civilians.
Certainty and decisiveness are over-rated. Canadians know the world is a mass of greys, not black and white. We know our leaders have to make hard decisions.
But we want them to struggle with those decisions, just as we would.
Footnote: Harper's approach is not playing well. A Strategic Counsel poll found 45 per cent of Canadians disagreed with Harper’s support for allowing the conflict to continue until Israel achieves its military objectives. About one-third supported his position. Three-quarters of those surveyed said Canada should be neutral in the dispute.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Making the Senate work
VICTORIA - It's worth giving the Senate one more chance.
There are lots of people - Premier Gordon Campbell among them - who don't want to spend more time talking about Senate reform. It's time to just get rid of it and move on, they say. You can see their point. Start with a basic issue - representation. B.C. gets six senators, the same as Newfoundland, which has 12 per cent of our province's population. New Brunswick, with 750,000 people to B.C.'s 4.2 million, has four more seats. Each B.C. senator represents 700,000 people. Each New Brunswick senator, 75,000.
It's hard to claim legitimacy for any legislative body that is so wildly unrepresentative. Add to that the Senate's inability to demonstrate real usefulness and public anger at patronage appointments and the future looks bleak for the so-called upper house.
A pair of senators is making a bid to address the representation problem. Jack Austin, a Liberal from B.C, and Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia Conservative, hope to win changes that would recognize that B.C. and the West are short-changed in the Senate. Their plan would add 12 new members to the Senate, taking it to 117. B.C. would get six more senators and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would also gain. B.C. would still be under-represented, but the reform would be a big, positive change. Austin and Murray have already introduced their proposal in the Senate. They say other provinces should go along because they won't lose any seats and the changes are fair. Not likely. This kind of change requires a constitutional amendment. That means the change requires the support of Parliament, the Senate and at least seven province with 50 per cent of the Canadian population. And that, despite the optimism of the two senators, isn't going to happen. Other provinces would not lose seats under the proposal, but they would lose influence. Quebec has 23 per cent of Senate seats today; it would have 21 per cent in the proposed expanded version. No Quebec government could take the political heat involved in even that tiny loss of power.
And the four Atlantic provinces would also likely say no to change. The Senate's composition was negotiated as part of the terms of Confederation, they maintain. The small provinces were promised the seats to ensure their interests weren't forgotten. (The argument has worked; the West last got more seats in 1915.)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to agree that major Senate reform is too tough an issue. Harper's first stab at changing the way the Senate works is useful, but tiny. Under his plan, senators would be appointed for eight-year terms. They now keep the job until they turn 75.
That's more tinkering than reform, surprising given Harper's past life in the old Reform/Alliance party which wanted a "Triple E" senate - elected, equal and effective.
Harper's desire to avoid another constitutional debate is understandable. But he could still be doing more. Harper could start the process of shifting to an elected Senate without any legislative or constitutional changes. All he has to do is announce that he'll be guided in naming future senators by the results of any legitimate provincial vote.
Alberta has already had three Senate 'elections,' adding the question to provincial election ballots. The first successful candidate even made it into the upper chamber when Brian Mulroney honoured the voters' choice in 1990. (Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ignored the results of Alberta's Senate elections.)
Why not just let the Senate go?
Despite its failings, the Senate could be useful. There is merit to the idea of a legislative body where members are able to take the long view of issues, unworried about their prospects of re-election in a few years (or months).
That's especially true if senators are selected from outside the usual ranks of political partisans for their intellect or experience of compassion or expertise.
But time is running out.
Footnote: Campbell's abolitionist position is shared by Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, Manitoba's Gary Doer and Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert. An Ipsos-Reid poll this summer found about one-third of those surveyed said the Senate should be abolished and 44 per cent said senators should be elected. British Columbians were among its strongest supporters.
There are lots of people - Premier Gordon Campbell among them - who don't want to spend more time talking about Senate reform. It's time to just get rid of it and move on, they say. You can see their point. Start with a basic issue - representation. B.C. gets six senators, the same as Newfoundland, which has 12 per cent of our province's population. New Brunswick, with 750,000 people to B.C.'s 4.2 million, has four more seats. Each B.C. senator represents 700,000 people. Each New Brunswick senator, 75,000.
It's hard to claim legitimacy for any legislative body that is so wildly unrepresentative. Add to that the Senate's inability to demonstrate real usefulness and public anger at patronage appointments and the future looks bleak for the so-called upper house.
A pair of senators is making a bid to address the representation problem. Jack Austin, a Liberal from B.C, and Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia Conservative, hope to win changes that would recognize that B.C. and the West are short-changed in the Senate. Their plan would add 12 new members to the Senate, taking it to 117. B.C. would get six more senators and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would also gain. B.C. would still be under-represented, but the reform would be a big, positive change. Austin and Murray have already introduced their proposal in the Senate. They say other provinces should go along because they won't lose any seats and the changes are fair. Not likely. This kind of change requires a constitutional amendment. That means the change requires the support of Parliament, the Senate and at least seven province with 50 per cent of the Canadian population. And that, despite the optimism of the two senators, isn't going to happen. Other provinces would not lose seats under the proposal, but they would lose influence. Quebec has 23 per cent of Senate seats today; it would have 21 per cent in the proposed expanded version. No Quebec government could take the political heat involved in even that tiny loss of power.
And the four Atlantic provinces would also likely say no to change. The Senate's composition was negotiated as part of the terms of Confederation, they maintain. The small provinces were promised the seats to ensure their interests weren't forgotten. (The argument has worked; the West last got more seats in 1915.)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to agree that major Senate reform is too tough an issue. Harper's first stab at changing the way the Senate works is useful, but tiny. Under his plan, senators would be appointed for eight-year terms. They now keep the job until they turn 75.
That's more tinkering than reform, surprising given Harper's past life in the old Reform/Alliance party which wanted a "Triple E" senate - elected, equal and effective.
Harper's desire to avoid another constitutional debate is understandable. But he could still be doing more. Harper could start the process of shifting to an elected Senate without any legislative or constitutional changes. All he has to do is announce that he'll be guided in naming future senators by the results of any legitimate provincial vote.
Alberta has already had three Senate 'elections,' adding the question to provincial election ballots. The first successful candidate even made it into the upper chamber when Brian Mulroney honoured the voters' choice in 1990. (Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ignored the results of Alberta's Senate elections.)
Why not just let the Senate go?
Despite its failings, the Senate could be useful. There is merit to the idea of a legislative body where members are able to take the long view of issues, unworried about their prospects of re-election in a few years (or months).
That's especially true if senators are selected from outside the usual ranks of political partisans for their intellect or experience of compassion or expertise.
But time is running out.
Footnote: Campbell's abolitionist position is shared by Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, Manitoba's Gary Doer and Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert. An Ipsos-Reid poll this summer found about one-third of those surveyed said the Senate should be abolished and 44 per cent said senators should be elected. British Columbians were among its strongest supporters.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Whitmore case highlights justice system flaws
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
