VICTORIA - Nine things things to look for as we head into another year of politics, and perhaps both federal and provincial elections.
First, can NDP leader Carole James escape the party's past and her own fuzzy image in voters' minds and achieve some sort of breakthrough in the May election?
My guess would be that an election today would produce a clear Liberal majority, with about 45 seats to the New Democrats' 35 or so. Bad news for the 30 Liberals who stand to lose their seats, but a convincing win.
But there are 15 weeks before voting day, and a lot can change. The ability of James to win voters' confidence is a key variable. Right now about 32 per cent of voters approve of James' work as opposition leader, and 27 per cent disapprove, according to the latest Mustel poll.
Those are likely the voters already committed to a party. James' ability to convince the 40 per cent who haven't made up their minds that she's a credible leader - or her good fortune in coming up with a Gordon Wilson-type breakthrough moment - could change things dramatically.
Second, will an NDP candidate list that includes too many tarnished veterans - like Glen Clark advisor Adrian Dix and former MLA Harry Lali - make it easy for the Liberals to convince voters that the voting New Democrat is risking a return to the incompetent past?
Third, can Gordon Campbell convince voters that his government isn't mean-spirited, does have a social agenda and can be trusted? The polls indicate voters have serious doubts about the government's interest in struggling British Columbians and don't believe Campbell when he promises a new direction. (The big broken promises on gambling, BC Rail and respecting contracts haven't helped.)
Fourth, can the Liberals stick together? The party - a coalition of free enterprisers with a wide range of views on health, education and social policy - has stayed unified. But they were helped because they were focused on cutting taxes and spending. Now the surpluses are large, and the choices more diverse. The divide between the traditional small 'l' liberals, who want to spend on a social agenda, and the conservatives who don't really see much of a role for government, is threatening to widen .
Fifth, can the Liberals deal with their own candidate problems? The emergence of social conservatives - like Mary Polak and Cindy Silver - is already being criticized by sitting Liberal MLAs. Stephen Harper learned painfully how much damage that candidates who are seen as extreme social conservatives can do to a party's hopes.
Sixth, will the B.C. economy continue to perform? Most indicators point to decent growth in 2005, with the only worrying factor the risk of a decline in U.S. housing starts and problems for the forest industry. Economic growth means more jobs and gives voters a reason to stay the course with the current government.
Seventh, will the BC Rail scandal emerge as a significant issue. The corruption charges are serious and allege that the $1-billion sale was compromised, and that taxpayers and other bidders lost money as a result. The Liberals' claim that this somehow had nothing to do with government makes no sense. A huge public asset was sold in a tainted process, prosecutors charge, and that has everything to do with government. The fact that the case is before the courts will help the Liberals deflect questions, but it also means regular headlines.
Eighth, will Paul Martin's minority government survive the year? The best bet is that it will, and that British Columbians can expect more attention from the federal Liberals in preparation for a vote in 2006. But the problem for Martin is that the longer the governs, the more adrift the federal Liberals seem to be. The strategy of putting off the eventual election is looking politically dangerous.
And ninth, will a positive referendum vote on electoral reform change everything in B.C.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The other things to watch for are the risk of school disruptions as the BCTF negotiates its contract and the potential for mounting problems in the health care system. Health and education are critical areas for voters who are already skeptical of the Liberal record.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Time for transportation push for B.C.'s regions
VICTORIA - B.C.'s regions should be pushing hard to make sure a new Progress Board report on transportation issues doesn't end up gathering dust.
Communities outside the Lower Mainland need lots of help to prepare for current and coming challenges. but transportation improvements offer one of the best bets for economic development and diversification.
Make it possible for people and goods to move efficiently and cheaply and all kinds of opportunities - from tourism to resource development to small business - are opened up.
The Progress Board is useful creation of the Campbell government, set up to provide regular independent reports on how things are really going in B.C. and occasional special bulletins.
The transportation study, by UBC prof Michael Goldberg, offers a challenge to the provincial government and to communities to come up with transportation strategies - and actually execute them - that will boost regional economies.
Much of it is not complicated. But the report's recommendations are sweeping and will test both the provincial government's commitment and communities willingness to work together.
That's going to be especially true in the area of air transportation. Goldberg has a number of recommendations aimed at opening up B.C. to more international flights as part of a global trade push.
But he also says it's time for more consolidation within the province's regions. Almost three dozen airports have some form of scheduled service, he says, and that leaves many too small to cope with increasing security costs and other infrastructure demands.
Some airports - Comox, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George - need to expand, Goldberg says. Others - like Williams Lake and Castlegar - are the right size.
But others need to shrink or even close, with service consolidated in a nearby centre, he suggests. Smithers, Terrace/Kitimat and Prince Rupert all have airports, he says, but the region would be best-served by one larger airport in Terrace. Castlegar should be the airport for Trail and Nelson. Williams Lake should serve Quesnel. And either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek should emerge as the region's airport, the report says.
It's always a tough sell to get communities to set aside their local interests and focus on the region. But the principle makes sense.
The short-term blow to communities that see their airports downgraded could be cushioned by other recommendations in the report, which include a call for improved highways.
"A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extend possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," the report says. Priority should be given Trans-Canada Highway improvements in the Rockies, four-laning portions of Hwy 97 from Prince George to the U.S. and a lot of improvements in the Lower Mainland.
And to pay for the roadwork, the government should look to more tolls, the report says.
The report also makes a case for a much larger role for the Port of Prince Rupert, a change that would require major expansion of the port number of other projects. Rail tunnels need higher ceilings to accommodate modern container cars and highway improvements in the northwest corridor are also needed.
And Prince Rupert's port needs to be supported with an inland container handling facility in Prince George, Kamloops or the Fraser Valley - a big boost for one or more of those communities.
The report also recommends that a new Pacific Port authority be created to take on responsibility for all five ports in the province, with the ability to borrow money, build facilities and manage the entire system.
Tax breaks for airlines and rail and trucking companies are also recommended, along with a big push to ensure that effective security controls are put in place without compromising the flow of goods.
It's a good blueprint. But communities will have to push if they want to see action on problems that have been around for a decade.
Footnote: The report confirms Prince Rupert's advantage as a gateway that gets goods to mid-America far more quickly than any U.S. port. But the port is hurt because shippers bringing goods from Asia now have to return empty, because there is little outbound trade through the port.
Communities outside the Lower Mainland need lots of help to prepare for current and coming challenges. but transportation improvements offer one of the best bets for economic development and diversification.
Make it possible for people and goods to move efficiently and cheaply and all kinds of opportunities - from tourism to resource development to small business - are opened up.
The Progress Board is useful creation of the Campbell government, set up to provide regular independent reports on how things are really going in B.C. and occasional special bulletins.
The transportation study, by UBC prof Michael Goldberg, offers a challenge to the provincial government and to communities to come up with transportation strategies - and actually execute them - that will boost regional economies.
Much of it is not complicated. But the report's recommendations are sweeping and will test both the provincial government's commitment and communities willingness to work together.
That's going to be especially true in the area of air transportation. Goldberg has a number of recommendations aimed at opening up B.C. to more international flights as part of a global trade push.
But he also says it's time for more consolidation within the province's regions. Almost three dozen airports have some form of scheduled service, he says, and that leaves many too small to cope with increasing security costs and other infrastructure demands.
Some airports - Comox, Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George - need to expand, Goldberg says. Others - like Williams Lake and Castlegar - are the right size.
But others need to shrink or even close, with service consolidated in a nearby centre, he suggests. Smithers, Terrace/Kitimat and Prince Rupert all have airports, he says, but the region would be best-served by one larger airport in Terrace. Castlegar should be the airport for Trail and Nelson. Williams Lake should serve Quesnel. And either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek should emerge as the region's airport, the report says.
It's always a tough sell to get communities to set aside their local interests and focus on the region. But the principle makes sense.
The short-term blow to communities that see their airports downgraded could be cushioned by other recommendations in the report, which include a call for improved highways.
"A key strategic consideration should be establishing a workable timeframe for improving - to the greatest extend possible - key segments of east-west and north-south highways to 'shrink the distance' between major centres and to enhance external market connectivity," the report says. Priority should be given Trans-Canada Highway improvements in the Rockies, four-laning portions of Hwy 97 from Prince George to the U.S. and a lot of improvements in the Lower Mainland.
And to pay for the roadwork, the government should look to more tolls, the report says.
The report also makes a case for a much larger role for the Port of Prince Rupert, a change that would require major expansion of the port number of other projects. Rail tunnels need higher ceilings to accommodate modern container cars and highway improvements in the northwest corridor are also needed.
And Prince Rupert's port needs to be supported with an inland container handling facility in Prince George, Kamloops or the Fraser Valley - a big boost for one or more of those communities.
The report also recommends that a new Pacific Port authority be created to take on responsibility for all five ports in the province, with the ability to borrow money, build facilities and manage the entire system.
Tax breaks for airlines and rail and trucking companies are also recommended, along with a big push to ensure that effective security controls are put in place without compromising the flow of goods.
It's a good blueprint. But communities will have to push if they want to see action on problems that have been around for a decade.
Footnote: The report confirms Prince Rupert's advantage as a gateway that gets goods to mid-America far more quickly than any U.S. port. But the port is hurt because shippers bringing goods from Asia now have to return empty, because there is little outbound trade through the port.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Enough about same sex marriage, already
VICTORIA - It's probably wrong to classify the same sex marriage debate as completely irrelevant.
But where are our priorities? Children are going hungry, drug addiction is a national crisis, our health care faces big challenges over the next 20 years, our political system is wounded - and we're wringing our hands over a word.
This isn't a debate about whether gays and lesbians in a committed relationship should have all the rights of heterosexuals. Every significant participant, including Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper, agree that they already do, and should.
It isn't a debate about whether churches should be somehow forced to recognize same sex marriages. Every serious participant agrees they shouldn't.
All this thrashing and political posturing is about whether two people can get a piece of paper from a government office that says they are married. Some people would like a different word on the piece of paper; some think that marriage is OK. That's it.
The courts - from the BC Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - have ruled that the gay and lesbians have a right to be married. The federal Liberals plan to change the law to recognize that right.
And for all the fuss, the new law doesn't have any real impact.
Churches would not have to perform same sex marriages. The legal or economic status of the couples would be unaffected, since the economic rights of people living together have already been established. With or without the piece of paper, same sex couples will be living together, raising children, going about their business.
Nothing really changes. That's what's puzzling about the claims that this represents some big threat.
Same-sex couples will be able to get a form from a government office that says they are married. That's it. That piece of paper will have the meaning and significance that they - and others - choose to give it. No one is forced to share their view.
Many people believe same sex relationships are wrong, or that real marriage can only involve a man and a woman. They are fully entitled to continue to hold those beliefs. I have a friend whose grandmother went to her grave refusing to acknowledge his marriage, or his children, because his wife was from outside their religion. It was sad, but she had a right to that belief.
As people will have right to believe that same sex marriages aren't 'real.'
The arguments against same sex marriage seem weak.
Gay relationships are less stable, some argue, stable relationships are good for children, so gay marriage is damaging to society.
Except that gay and lesbian couples will still choose to raise families, with or without the piece of paper. There's no change. If anything, marriage vows encourage stability.
Others - like Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who is floundering badly on this issue - argue that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are simply saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out.
Other opponents of the change resort to tired slippery slope arguments, the last refuge of those unable to support their position. Allow one change to the definition of marriage, they say, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their cats. It's foolish. No sensible person could believe a court would uphold such a definition, or that Parliament would pass such a law.
I figure that if two men or women want to marry, as they define it, more power to them. It's a blessing to find someone to share this life. If you disagree, I respect your view and you're continued right to hold that opinion.
But this isn't a big change. Let's move on to more serious problems.
Footnote: Why not then, if this is not significant, leave things as they are? We can't. The charter of rights provides a right to same-sex marriage. The only way to wipe out that right requires an extraordinary use of the notwithstanding clause to waive the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians. And that's dangerous.
But where are our priorities? Children are going hungry, drug addiction is a national crisis, our health care faces big challenges over the next 20 years, our political system is wounded - and we're wringing our hands over a word.
This isn't a debate about whether gays and lesbians in a committed relationship should have all the rights of heterosexuals. Every significant participant, including Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper, agree that they already do, and should.
It isn't a debate about whether churches should be somehow forced to recognize same sex marriages. Every serious participant agrees they shouldn't.
All this thrashing and political posturing is about whether two people can get a piece of paper from a government office that says they are married. Some people would like a different word on the piece of paper; some think that marriage is OK. That's it.
The courts - from the BC Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - have ruled that the gay and lesbians have a right to be married. The federal Liberals plan to change the law to recognize that right.
And for all the fuss, the new law doesn't have any real impact.
Churches would not have to perform same sex marriages. The legal or economic status of the couples would be unaffected, since the economic rights of people living together have already been established. With or without the piece of paper, same sex couples will be living together, raising children, going about their business.
Nothing really changes. That's what's puzzling about the claims that this represents some big threat.
Same-sex couples will be able to get a form from a government office that says they are married. That's it. That piece of paper will have the meaning and significance that they - and others - choose to give it. No one is forced to share their view.
Many people believe same sex relationships are wrong, or that real marriage can only involve a man and a woman. They are fully entitled to continue to hold those beliefs. I have a friend whose grandmother went to her grave refusing to acknowledge his marriage, or his children, because his wife was from outside their religion. It was sad, but she had a right to that belief.
As people will have right to believe that same sex marriages aren't 'real.'
The arguments against same sex marriage seem weak.
Gay relationships are less stable, some argue, stable relationships are good for children, so gay marriage is damaging to society.
Except that gay and lesbian couples will still choose to raise families, with or without the piece of paper. There's no change. If anything, marriage vows encourage stability.
Others - like Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who is floundering badly on this issue - argue that the real issue is whether laws should be made in the courts or Parliament.
But the courts are simply saying that Parliament has to make laws that don't conflict with each other. Parliament passed the charter of rights, and a marriage definition law that conflicts with it. That had to be sorted out.
Other opponents of the change resort to tired slippery slope arguments, the last refuge of those unable to support their position. Allow one change to the definition of marriage, they say, and the next thing you know people will be marrying their cats. It's foolish. No sensible person could believe a court would uphold such a definition, or that Parliament would pass such a law.
I figure that if two men or women want to marry, as they define it, more power to them. It's a blessing to find someone to share this life. If you disagree, I respect your view and you're continued right to hold that opinion.
But this isn't a big change. Let's move on to more serious problems.
Footnote: Why not then, if this is not significant, leave things as they are? We can't. The charter of rights provides a right to same-sex marriage. The only way to wipe out that right requires an extraordinary use of the notwithstanding clause to waive the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians. And that's dangerous.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Making your life, and the world, a better place
VICTORIA - It's the season to remember that a lot of what we're so busy worrying about doesn't really matter all that much.
And more importantly, that we may not be paying enough attention to the things, and people, that really do matter.
I am a fine one to talk, of course. I've written about 280,000 words on B.C. politics and policies this year, about the equivalent of two hefty novels. I've tried to write about things that matter, the decisions and issues that can change peoples' lives.
But the legislature's historic building doesn't just look like a fortress. Sometimes working here can be a bit like living a fantasy castle, its own little magic kingdom. The rest of the world - the real world - looks blurry and distant through the 100-year-old leaded glass windows. So some of those words were probably about issues and events that really didn't matter all that much.
It's easy to get caught up in the discouraging aspects of political life, the squabbling and the foolishness and the silly evasions. (And it gets especially discouraging because the people are so much better than than that individually; they seem to fall under some powerful curse when they enter the legislature.)
All of us can too easily get caught up in the urgent, and the discouraging, the problems and missteps and frustrations that dog our existence at work, or at home. They pile up like a tangled, weighty mass of cordwood and we spend every day pushing at them, rearranging the shape of the heap without actually changing much.
And pretty soon all we can see is the pile.
For the last few years I've given up on a traditional New Year's resolutions - for one thing, most years I seem to be still trying to decide on a resolution in April and by then it's late enough to abandon the whole idea.
Instead, each year I simply resolve to pay attention.
The foundation of a better life - for you, your family, your community, the world - might just lie in making a resolution to pay attention to the people around you, and the world that lies just a little farther away.
It's too easy to miss someone's pain, or sadness, or joy, simply because we're not really paying attention at that moment. The chances to notice that a child is lost or sad, or a parent is alone or frightened come and go. Miss them once, and they may be gone forever, and with them your chance to respond, to make the simple small gesture that can change everything.
I'm convinced that when people notice, when they pay attention, they are mostly compelled to act. That's the reason this kind of work, is worth doing, and those 280,000 words make sense. If people see a wrong, or a sadness, they will respond. It is a fact of our fundamental collective decency.
But it takes that first step in really seeing the people sprawled on the sidewalk in the cold outside the local shelter, or the children struggling to find their place in a world that doesn't seem to really want them.
When we pay attention, we hurt, or we rejoice, but we act.
We also get something very precious. Because the chance to pay attention can be as brief as a shooting star. Another person may for just one moment be ready to talk about her hopes or pain, and if it it is missed the chance to share in a life life, and change it, is gone forever.
It's not just about helping others. Paying attention means noticing the way the sun strikes a flower, or the rain sounds on the roof, or the pure comfort of a warm kitchen when the wind is pushing at the trees. we need to recognize the wonder and joy that can be part of our lives at almost every moment.
And that is important too. We need solace and joy and hope to make our way in this world. And the surest way to find those things is to make a point of looking for them in the people and places and moments of every day.
It is a gift. And I wish it for you this year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assessed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement. That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
And more importantly, that we may not be paying enough attention to the things, and people, that really do matter.
I am a fine one to talk, of course. I've written about 280,000 words on B.C. politics and policies this year, about the equivalent of two hefty novels. I've tried to write about things that matter, the decisions and issues that can change peoples' lives.
But the legislature's historic building doesn't just look like a fortress. Sometimes working here can be a bit like living a fantasy castle, its own little magic kingdom. The rest of the world - the real world - looks blurry and distant through the 100-year-old leaded glass windows. So some of those words were probably about issues and events that really didn't matter all that much.
It's easy to get caught up in the discouraging aspects of political life, the squabbling and the foolishness and the silly evasions. (And it gets especially discouraging because the people are so much better than than that individually; they seem to fall under some powerful curse when they enter the legislature.)
All of us can too easily get caught up in the urgent, and the discouraging, the problems and missteps and frustrations that dog our existence at work, or at home. They pile up like a tangled, weighty mass of cordwood and we spend every day pushing at them, rearranging the shape of the heap without actually changing much.
And pretty soon all we can see is the pile.
For the last few years I've given up on a traditional New Year's resolutions - for one thing, most years I seem to be still trying to decide on a resolution in April and by then it's late enough to abandon the whole idea.
Instead, each year I simply resolve to pay attention.
The foundation of a better life - for you, your family, your community, the world - might just lie in making a resolution to pay attention to the people around you, and the world that lies just a little farther away.
It's too easy to miss someone's pain, or sadness, or joy, simply because we're not really paying attention at that moment. The chances to notice that a child is lost or sad, or a parent is alone or frightened come and go. Miss them once, and they may be gone forever, and with them your chance to respond, to make the simple small gesture that can change everything.
I'm convinced that when people notice, when they pay attention, they are mostly compelled to act. That's the reason this kind of work, is worth doing, and those 280,000 words make sense. If people see a wrong, or a sadness, they will respond. It is a fact of our fundamental collective decency.
But it takes that first step in really seeing the people sprawled on the sidewalk in the cold outside the local shelter, or the children struggling to find their place in a world that doesn't seem to really want them.
When we pay attention, we hurt, or we rejoice, but we act.
We also get something very precious. Because the chance to pay attention can be as brief as a shooting star. Another person may for just one moment be ready to talk about her hopes or pain, and if it it is missed the chance to share in a life life, and change it, is gone forever.
It's not just about helping others. Paying attention means noticing the way the sun strikes a flower, or the rain sounds on the roof, or the pure comfort of a warm kitchen when the wind is pushing at the trees. we need to recognize the wonder and joy that can be part of our lives at almost every moment.
And that is important too. We need solace and joy and hope to make our way in this world. And the surest way to find those things is to make a point of looking for them in the people and places and moments of every day.
It is a gift. And I wish it for you this year.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assessed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement. That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
BC Rail corruption charges raise doubts about whole deal
VICTORIA - The charges alleging corruption in the BC Rail sale are very bad news for the Liberal government.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
The talk around the legislature for months has been that there was less to the case than meets the eye. Charges - if there were any - would be petty offences, based on the boastful tendencies of would-be political wheels.
Wrong. The charges are explicit, and raise doubts about the legitimacy not just of the sale of BC Rail's Roberts Bank spur, but of the whole $1-billion deal to sell the Crown corporation.
They are just unproven charges. But they are very serious, taking the case far beyond the Roberts Bank spur or allegations that provincial government staffers tried to trade favours in return for jobs with the Paul Martin Liberals.
Dave Basi - then the top aide to former finance minister Gary Collins - is charged with accepting "money, meals, travel and employment opportunities" to help OmniTRAX in its bid for BC Rail. Bob Virk - ministerial assistant to then transportation minister Judith Reid - is charged with a similar offence, except he is not alleged to have received money along with the other benefits.
Both men are charged with leaking confidential information about the deal.
Most seriously the Crown is alleging Basi and Virk "recklessly put at risk the bidding process " for BC Rail by leaking confidential government documents and other information. Their actions defrauded taxpayers, CN Rail, CP Rail and CIBC World Markets, the financial institution arranging the sale, the prosecutors charge.
This charge isn't about the Roberts Bank spur line sale, a $70-million side deal. It alleges that the whole controversial sale of the Crown corporation was compromised, and taxpayers - among others - lost out as a result.
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon killed the Roberts Bank deal - at a cost of $1 million to taxpayers - after police warned him it had been compromised.
But Falcon always maintained there were no worries or concerns about the main BC Rail deal. Now you have to decide who was right - the minister or the police and Crown prosecutors who conducted a 15-month investigation.
Look, the government has maintained, the concern was that OmniTRAX had the inside track, and the company didn't even succeed in winning the competition to buy BC Rail. That should show no harm was done.
But no matter who wins, a compromised bidding process - as alleged by the charges - hurts taxpayers and the participants that don't have inside information. If even one participant is moved to reduce its offer because of something it knows, or fears, the whole bidding process goes wrong.
And the Crown is suggesting that is exactly what happened, and that you lost as a result.
The charges even introduced a new player, Aneal Basi, a former Liberal youth wing executive who was hired as a communications staffer in 2002. Aneal, who was introduced in the legislature just before the election by Collins, faces two charges of laundering money accepted by his cousin Dave Basi.
No one has been convicted, and prosecutors often lay a big batch of charges while they figure out which ones might stick.
But this is very bad. (Imagine, for a moment, the Liberals' reaction in opposition to similar charges against NDP political staff.)
The charges leave unanswered questions. If Basi received money, and his cousin laundered it, as the Crown charges, who gave it to him? The charges indicates the payment was in return for assisting OmniTRAX, but don't reveal who put up the money.
The case will move slowly through the courts, and information will gradually emerge.
But meanwhile a huge, controversial and defining deal of the Liberals' first term is under a dark cloud. The Crown says the deal was criminally compromised and the government did not succeed in dealing with the damage.
And while the actions were all by individuals, it is governments that take responsibility.
Footnote: Expect the case to move slowly. All three men appeared before a justice of the peace this week. They'll appear in court at the end of January, with the main order of business likely to be arrangements for the Crown to disclose its evidence to the senior defence lawyers representing each of the three men. A trial is likely more than a year away.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Softwood ruling hammers B.C. - where's Ottawa?
VICTORIA - Things are looking grim on the softwood front, and it's time for Canada to take the big risk of getting tough with the U.S.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assesed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement.par That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
The latest ruling confirms - again - that the Americans aren't going to settle this dispute based on NAFTA or WTO rulings. It's purely political. The American lumber producers have the political clout to influence the U.S. government, and the money to keep coming up with clever strategies to maintain the duties.
This week's ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department found a way to keep duties at 21 per cent. The ruling was "perverted," Forest Minister Mike de Jong said, twisting the facts and using discredited methods to keep the duty 60 per cent higher than even the U.S. had said was warranted only a few months ago.
But it gets much worse than the first media reports - including mine - revealed.
For the first time, the U.S. has targeted B.C. Producers here have now been singled out as the big offenders, and alleged to have earned duties more than twice as high as the average for other provinces.
The change is significant, and bad. The five other provinces covered by the trade penalties were judged to have earned an average 13-per-cent duty, the level expected based on earlier decisions.
But B.C. producers were assesed with a 27-per-cent duty, twice as much the average for the other provinces. B.C. is accused of providing the largest subsidies to its forest companies by undercharging for trees on Crown land, and thus faces the harshest penalties. The U.S. Commerce Department compared log prices on both sides of the border - a comparison already rejected in an earlier World Trade Organization ruling - to reach the conclusion that companies operating in B.C. get a break.
So far, the duties to be paid by B.C. companies will be based on the national average. But producers in other provinces can now be expected to press for a deal that advances their individual interests.
The legal details don't really matter in this battle. The dispute is about profit and politics, not trade agreements and the law.
Canadian and U.S. industry representatives were supposed to meet in Chicago last week to see if they could negotiate a deal. Canada pulled out after the ruling came down.
That's reasonable. There's no prospect of a fair negotiated settlement right now.
What's less reasonable is the belief that a big NAFTA win, expected as early as March, will bring the dispute to an conclusion. That ruling is supposed to mark the end of the appeal process for the U.S., which has lost a string of earlier decisions.
But it won't. The NAFTA panel has just been appointed, and the American lumber industry has already launched a clever attack. It has hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh to argue that the whole NAFTA dispute resolution process Canada is counting on violates the U.S. constitution. (The panel includes representatives of both countries, and Thornburgh argues that the constitution bars foreigners from any body that imposes binding decisions on the U.S.)
Thornburgh has written every senator and congressman, and can be expected to have the ear of President George Bush; he was attorney general in the administration of Bush senior.
It doesn't matter if the legal argument is strong or weak. It plays nicely to American preoccupations - remember how much mileage Bush got out of claiming John Kerry would subject military action to a foreign veto - and sets the stage for long legal wrangling that would stall any settlement.par That leaves Canada with few choices.
The government can fight, and threaten trade retaliation, or a refusal to co-operate on missile defence or other U.S. priorities. It's risky - the trade relationship is much more important to Canada than it is to the U.S.
But it's also the only option left to defend the industry in B.C., and the families and communities that depend on it.
Footnote: Paul Martin pledged that a Liberal government would pay attention to B.C.'s concerns and problems. But he failed to push the softwood issue successfully during Bush's brief Canadian visit and his government has been silent on this week's attack on B.C. Ottawa needs to offer either a counter-attack, or an aid plan.
Teachers should welcome new plan to reach contracts
VICTORIA - Teachers made a big mistake in immediately trashing a proposal for a new way of bargaining contracts.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
I don't blame them for being mad at the way they've been treated by this government. And elements of the proposal are going to be tough for them to swallow.
But on balance commissioner Don Wright has come up with a plan that could fix what is a hopelessly broken bargaining process between the BC Teachers' Federation and the Public School Employers' Association.
Wright, a former deputy minister, was asked to look at the bargaining process by Labour Minister Graham Bruce.
He found a fundamental problem. Teachers bargain as if they have a right to strike. But they don't.
It's a destructive fiction. The threat of strike - or lockout - is part of normal collective bargaining. Both sides know from the beginning that disaster awaits if they can't reach a deal. As a result they're motivated to compromise and bargain and find solutions.
Teachers cling to the notion that they have the right to strike. But parents consider education an essential service and no one is prepared to see 650,000 students with nowhere to go. As a result any government - left, right or in-between - will quickly use legislation to send them back to work.
That's reality. And it works against a negotiated deal. If school districts think the government will ultimately side with them in an imposed settlement, they have no reason to compromise. If teachers think the government is on their side, they hang tough.
That's why there hasn't been a successfully negotiated deal in 12 years.
Wright proposes a system that would force good faith negotiations. The two sides would get a set time to bargain. If they weren't successful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's positions. That in itself should encourage reasonableness; neither side should want to look like the problem.
The process would continue with mediation, but if a deal wasn't reached both sides would have to submit final positions on all issues to the commissioner. He would pick one in its entirety to form the new contract.
That too is an incentive to a reasonable position. Get too extreme, and you lose everything. (The method, final offer selection, is probably best known as the solution in major league baseball salary disputes when player and team can't agree on a contract.)
Wright also attempts to address, less successfully, the other major concern of teachers.
They want bargaining to deal with issues like maximum class sizes and the number of support staff in schools. Those were included in the teachers' previous contract, but legislated out by the Liberal government, which argued that school districts need the freedom to decide how best to provide education with the funds available. The new law specifically bars negotiation of those types of issues.
It is a thorny problem. Teachers lost the right to negotiate critical elements of their working conditions. (And also lost rights that they had already bargained for, and the employer and government had accepted. Teachers gave up wage increases in return for class size limits, for example, and are right to feel cheated.)
Wright proposes a new system that would bring together teachers, school districts and the province outside the negotiating process "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a good attempt at compromise.
Teachers have legitimate grievances. This Liberals promised to honour contracts, then used legislation to gut the teachers' agreement. They have been confrontational and provocative, treating the BCTF as an enemy rather than a participant in improving results for students.
But whatever government is in power, the bargaining problems remain.
Wright has proposed a new, realistic model that offers a chance for more effective collective bargaining, with power balanced between teachers and school districts.
And that is in everyone's interests.
Footnote: Labour Minister Graham Bruce reserved comment on the report. But he'll have to address one major problem. The government has shown already that it won't honour arbitration decisions if it doesn't like the result. There's no reason for the BCTF to accept a binding process that is really only binding if the government wins.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Why Collins quit, and what comes next
VICTORIA - So why did Gary Collins pack it in after less than one term in government, giving up the finance minister's job to run a fledgling airline?
To start with, Collins will easily triple his income. Cabinet ministers are paid about $110,000; airline CEOs get more, and have a chance at big bonuses and stock options. For a middle-aged man with a two-year-old son and another child due in February - and no pension plan - that's tough to resist. (And while he will continue to work long hours, his home and office will at least be in the same city.)
For another, Collins has also been in provincial politics for 13 years now, a long time to have the same demanding and somewhat weird job.
Even two weeks ago, when Collins unveiled the second quarter financial report predicting a record surplus, he seemed somewhat detached, to the point that a reporter asked if he would be running in the next election. (Of course, Collins said.)
He's a good catch for his new employer, Harmony Airways. The two-year-old business has been without a CEO for two months. So far, it's flown some routes within Canada, and to Mexico and Hawaii and Las Vegas.
But company owner David Ho has his sights set on a much bigger prize. He wants Harmony to win the right, along with Air Canada, to fly into China, targeting several booming cities.
That will require a major effort in lobbying the federal government. Collins, with good federal Liberal ties and support from the B.C. government, is a good choice to make that happen.
What struck me at the second quarter presentation was a sense that Collins may have thought his work here was done. Taxes were cut, the budget was balanced, the government had made a plan and executed it. It's a good record for a finance minister.
Collins isn't noted as a policy or issues guy. You can't go back into Hansard from the days when the Liberals were in opposition and find him speaking passionately about health, or education or forestry. He had no apparent agenda for the second term.
What does it mean politically?
A bit of scrambling, for sure. Collins was the Liberal campaign co-chair, and he's a close advisor to the premier. That's a loss.
His departure also gives a boost to NDP star candidate Gregor Robertson, running in Collins' riding of Vancouver-Fairview. His election chances have just soared.
But the Liberals score some big benefits too.
Collins did the work that left more than 60 per cent of British Columbians convinced the Liberals balanced the budget on the back of the poor and vulnerable.
Now Colin Hansen, the new finance minister, can bring a kinder, gentler face to the job. At the Collins' resignation press conference, Hansen was already talking about the importance of health and education and social services. "For me, government is about providing services to people," he said.
And in turn, new health minister Shirley Bond can bring a new face to that job.
Hansen has done a good job in the challenging health ministry, but the bitter battle with HEU and other tough issues from the first three years still hang over him.
Now the appointment of Shirley Bond as the new health minister gives the Liberals a fresh start there as well. Health is the top issue for voters, who also think the New Democrats would do a better job of managing health care than the Liberals. Bond's considerable challenge - as well as guiding the system - is changing that perception. It would have been an impossible task for Hansen, in the five months left before the election; Bond at least has a shot.
Collins should leave with head held high. For three years he directed the preparation of a financial plan, and the government hit its targets.
And ultimately, that's the test of the finance minister.
Footnote: I - like most journalists - will miss Collins. He was prickly and partisan, but never shied away from an interview and always had command of the facts and numbers. If he said you were wrong about something, you almost certainly were.
To start with, Collins will easily triple his income. Cabinet ministers are paid about $110,000; airline CEOs get more, and have a chance at big bonuses and stock options. For a middle-aged man with a two-year-old son and another child due in February - and no pension plan - that's tough to resist. (And while he will continue to work long hours, his home and office will at least be in the same city.)
For another, Collins has also been in provincial politics for 13 years now, a long time to have the same demanding and somewhat weird job.
Even two weeks ago, when Collins unveiled the second quarter financial report predicting a record surplus, he seemed somewhat detached, to the point that a reporter asked if he would be running in the next election. (Of course, Collins said.)
He's a good catch for his new employer, Harmony Airways. The two-year-old business has been without a CEO for two months. So far, it's flown some routes within Canada, and to Mexico and Hawaii and Las Vegas.
But company owner David Ho has his sights set on a much bigger prize. He wants Harmony to win the right, along with Air Canada, to fly into China, targeting several booming cities.
That will require a major effort in lobbying the federal government. Collins, with good federal Liberal ties and support from the B.C. government, is a good choice to make that happen.
What struck me at the second quarter presentation was a sense that Collins may have thought his work here was done. Taxes were cut, the budget was balanced, the government had made a plan and executed it. It's a good record for a finance minister.
Collins isn't noted as a policy or issues guy. You can't go back into Hansard from the days when the Liberals were in opposition and find him speaking passionately about health, or education or forestry. He had no apparent agenda for the second term.
What does it mean politically?
A bit of scrambling, for sure. Collins was the Liberal campaign co-chair, and he's a close advisor to the premier. That's a loss.
His departure also gives a boost to NDP star candidate Gregor Robertson, running in Collins' riding of Vancouver-Fairview. His election chances have just soared.
But the Liberals score some big benefits too.
Collins did the work that left more than 60 per cent of British Columbians convinced the Liberals balanced the budget on the back of the poor and vulnerable.
Now Colin Hansen, the new finance minister, can bring a kinder, gentler face to the job. At the Collins' resignation press conference, Hansen was already talking about the importance of health and education and social services. "For me, government is about providing services to people," he said.
And in turn, new health minister Shirley Bond can bring a new face to that job.
Hansen has done a good job in the challenging health ministry, but the bitter battle with HEU and other tough issues from the first three years still hang over him.
Now the appointment of Shirley Bond as the new health minister gives the Liberals a fresh start there as well. Health is the top issue for voters, who also think the New Democrats would do a better job of managing health care than the Liberals. Bond's considerable challenge - as well as guiding the system - is changing that perception. It would have been an impossible task for Hansen, in the five months left before the election; Bond at least has a shot.
Collins should leave with head held high. For three years he directed the preparation of a financial plan, and the government hit its targets.
And ultimately, that's the test of the finance minister.
Footnote: I - like most journalists - will miss Collins. He was prickly and partisan, but never shied away from an interview and always had command of the facts and numbers. If he said you were wrong about something, you almost certainly were.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Communities need trust fund for pine beetle disaster
VICTORIA - It's time to ditch all the politics and start coming up with a plan to rescue communities across B.C. from the coming pine beetle disaster.
It's hard for politicians to resist blaming the other guys for real or imagined errors.
But this is much too important. A natural disaster is going to slam into dozens of forest communities, far bigger than the 2003 fires or floods or anything else we've experienced. We know it's inevitable. And we have to be ready.
The pine beetle is infesting trees today, and those trees are dying. It's no real problem for us now. We can keep harvesting the timber, which holds its value for perhaps a decade.
But the crisis is smashing the natural cycle of harvest and regeneration. Almost 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine are expected to die. Once those trees are gone - either harvested or left to rot - the next generation will be decades away from harvest.
Across the province, communities are facing 20 per cent to 40 per cent reductions in their annual allowable cuts within the next 15 to 20 years. That means huge job losses in communities where forestry is the dominant kingpin of the economy. In some case, mills will simply close. And in every case the damage will last for years, perhaps decades.
In the Quesnel area, to take one example, the timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 area jobs are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of some calamity wiping out 300,000 jobs in the Lower Mainland.
One response is obvious. Both the Liberals and NDP agree that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the crisis, paying for their efforts to develop other economic opportunities.
It doesn't need to take a big bite out of spending on other programs. Part of the government's plan to address the problem is an increase in harvesting across the province to capture the value of the infested wood. Annual allowable cuts have been increased by up to 40 per cent.
It's proving hard to increase harvest levels quickly. Companies aren't prepared for extra volumes, and markets are uncertain. But by the end of next year harvest levels are expected to be significantly higher.
That means more stumpage and tax revenues for government, money that would - without the crisis - have not flowed into its coffers until well into the future.
And that's the money that could be the start of a permanent funds to help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could work at tourism promotion, or improve their infrastructure, or support retraining programs. They could pay for studies on alternate economic opportunities, or efforts to attract new industries.
And they could come up with assessments of some of the hard truths. Not all the economic damage can likely be avoided, and families, municipalities, school districts and businesses all need time to make informed decisions about their futures.
There even seems to be rare bipartisan agreement on the value of a legacy fund. Both NDP leader Carole James and Roger Harris, the junior forest minister responsible for responding to the crisis, back the idea. Harris says advisory group is working on plans.
The sooner they report, and the quicker the government response, the better.
The crisis sounds a long way off. But the kinds of economic shifts that are required is immense. Progress will be slow, and victories will be hard-won.
The extra stumpage probably isn't enough money to fund the needed transition, and certainly won't flow quickly enough. But it is a start; a reasonable guess is that the extra harvesting will produce some $15 million a year.
The coming crisis is very bad news, far more damaging than the softwood lumber dispute, or the SARS scare.
The only good news is that for once we have time to prepare.
Footnote: Harris will meet with the 13-member advisory group - representatives of municipalities, First Nations, industry, environmental groups and academics -in January. Communities should expect word on the economic futures fund and other measures after that meeting. And they should demand a firm commitment before the May election.
It's hard for politicians to resist blaming the other guys for real or imagined errors.
But this is much too important. A natural disaster is going to slam into dozens of forest communities, far bigger than the 2003 fires or floods or anything else we've experienced. We know it's inevitable. And we have to be ready.
The pine beetle is infesting trees today, and those trees are dying. It's no real problem for us now. We can keep harvesting the timber, which holds its value for perhaps a decade.
But the crisis is smashing the natural cycle of harvest and regeneration. Almost 80 per cent of the province's lodgepole pine are expected to die. Once those trees are gone - either harvested or left to rot - the next generation will be decades away from harvest.
Across the province, communities are facing 20 per cent to 40 per cent reductions in their annual allowable cuts within the next 15 to 20 years. That means huge job losses in communities where forestry is the dominant kingpin of the economy. In some case, mills will simply close. And in every case the damage will last for years, perhaps decades.
In the Quesnel area, to take one example, the timber supply is expected to be cut by almost one-third. About 75 per cent of the 12,000 area jobs are tied to the forest industry, which means more than 2,500 jobs will vanish. That's the equivalent of some calamity wiping out 300,000 jobs in the Lower Mainland.
One response is obvious. Both the Liberals and NDP agree that a legacy or development fund would help communities prepare for the crisis, paying for their efforts to develop other economic opportunities.
It doesn't need to take a big bite out of spending on other programs. Part of the government's plan to address the problem is an increase in harvesting across the province to capture the value of the infested wood. Annual allowable cuts have been increased by up to 40 per cent.
It's proving hard to increase harvest levels quickly. Companies aren't prepared for extra volumes, and markets are uncertain. But by the end of next year harvest levels are expected to be significantly higher.
That means more stumpage and tax revenues for government, money that would - without the crisis - have not flowed into its coffers until well into the future.
And that's the money that could be the start of a permanent funds to help communities prepare for the coming crisis. They could work at tourism promotion, or improve their infrastructure, or support retraining programs. They could pay for studies on alternate economic opportunities, or efforts to attract new industries.
And they could come up with assessments of some of the hard truths. Not all the economic damage can likely be avoided, and families, municipalities, school districts and businesses all need time to make informed decisions about their futures.
There even seems to be rare bipartisan agreement on the value of a legacy fund. Both NDP leader Carole James and Roger Harris, the junior forest minister responsible for responding to the crisis, back the idea. Harris says advisory group is working on plans.
The sooner they report, and the quicker the government response, the better.
The crisis sounds a long way off. But the kinds of economic shifts that are required is immense. Progress will be slow, and victories will be hard-won.
The extra stumpage probably isn't enough money to fund the needed transition, and certainly won't flow quickly enough. But it is a start; a reasonable guess is that the extra harvesting will produce some $15 million a year.
The coming crisis is very bad news, far more damaging than the softwood lumber dispute, or the SARS scare.
The only good news is that for once we have time to prepare.
Footnote: Harris will meet with the 13-member advisory group - representatives of municipalities, First Nations, industry, environmental groups and academics -in January. Communities should expect word on the economic futures fund and other measures after that meeting. And they should demand a firm commitment before the May election.
Poll shows dead heat, big woes for both parties
VICTORIA - There's plenty in the most recent poll to scare the pants off strategists for both the New Democrats and the Liberals.
With five months to go before the May election, the two parties are effectively tied with about 43 per cent of the vote each, according to the Ipsos-Reid poll.
That's astonishing, really. The Liberals have lost more support during their first time than most people would have believed possible, and the New Democrats have managed to clamber out of the trash can the voters dumped them in.
But Ipsos offered up a lot more than just the basic polling data this time.
So we learned that 63 per cent of British Columbians don't think Gordon Campbell and the Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises, and about the same number think they balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.
It's not much cheerier for Carole James. About 60 per cent of voters think she and the NDP are too closely tied to unions, and 45 per cent agree that the New Democrats today are really the same as the old regime.
Those are big negatives. But there's more.
Ipsos-Reid asked which party would do a better job on specific issues.
On health care and education the James and the NDP were judged better able to do the job by about 50 per cent of voters - twice the number who thought the Liberals were the best choice. On social services, the gap was even wider. Almost 60 per cent of voters thought the NDP would do a better job; only 18 per cent thought the Liberals would be more competent.
When it came to the economy and managing the government's finances, the situation was reversed. About 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Liberals are more competent; about 22 per cent picked the NDP.
There are other factors, like leadership. Carole James is judged to be doing a better job as opposition leader than Campbell is as premier. But Campbell was selected as the best choice for premier by 48 per cent of decided voters, compared with 35 per cent for James and 18 per cent for Green leader Adriane Carr.
Liberal supporters should be the most worried by the polls.
The New Democrats are scoring highest on their ability to manage the issues people care about the most. In the most recent Mustel Group poll about 45 per cent of British Columbians picked health or education as the top issues facing the province. Only about 25 per cent picked the economy and government. (That could help explain the Liberals' inability to break clear of the NDP despite an improved economy.)
And while James has big issues to confront, around leadership and competence and an ability to govern for all British Columbians, she also has five months to try and win voters over.
Campbell has five months too, of course. But remember that almost two out of three voters don't believe he can be trusted to keep his promises. That's a huge problem for a leader trying to persuade voters that they are wrong, that he is the right person to deliver the services they want.
Another interesting trend is a sharp reduction in the regional divide. The Liberals still lead the NDP in the Lower Mainland, with 46 per cent support compared ti the NDP's 39 per cent. But the gap has narrowed since an Ipsos poll in July.
And the Liberals in turn have gained ground in a big way across the rest of the province, especially in the North where they now lead the NDP comfortably. (Ipsos defines the North as Williams Lake and above.)
It all points to a closer election than expected, a ferocious campaign and a bid advantage for the party that does the best job of persuading campaign workers and voters to show up.
Footnote: The poll put a simple proposition to voters - that British Columbia can’t afford another four years of Liberal or NDP government. Almost exactly half the voters agreed with assertion. But 12 per cent - one in eight British Columbians - said the province couldn't afford four years under either of the parties.
With five months to go before the May election, the two parties are effectively tied with about 43 per cent of the vote each, according to the Ipsos-Reid poll.
That's astonishing, really. The Liberals have lost more support during their first time than most people would have believed possible, and the New Democrats have managed to clamber out of the trash can the voters dumped them in.
But Ipsos offered up a lot more than just the basic polling data this time.
So we learned that 63 per cent of British Columbians don't think Gordon Campbell and the Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises, and about the same number think they balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.
It's not much cheerier for Carole James. About 60 per cent of voters think she and the NDP are too closely tied to unions, and 45 per cent agree that the New Democrats today are really the same as the old regime.
Those are big negatives. But there's more.
Ipsos-Reid asked which party would do a better job on specific issues.
On health care and education the James and the NDP were judged better able to do the job by about 50 per cent of voters - twice the number who thought the Liberals were the best choice. On social services, the gap was even wider. Almost 60 per cent of voters thought the NDP would do a better job; only 18 per cent thought the Liberals would be more competent.
When it came to the economy and managing the government's finances, the situation was reversed. About 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Liberals are more competent; about 22 per cent picked the NDP.
There are other factors, like leadership. Carole James is judged to be doing a better job as opposition leader than Campbell is as premier. But Campbell was selected as the best choice for premier by 48 per cent of decided voters, compared with 35 per cent for James and 18 per cent for Green leader Adriane Carr.
Liberal supporters should be the most worried by the polls.
The New Democrats are scoring highest on their ability to manage the issues people care about the most. In the most recent Mustel Group poll about 45 per cent of British Columbians picked health or education as the top issues facing the province. Only about 25 per cent picked the economy and government. (That could help explain the Liberals' inability to break clear of the NDP despite an improved economy.)
And while James has big issues to confront, around leadership and competence and an ability to govern for all British Columbians, she also has five months to try and win voters over.
Campbell has five months too, of course. But remember that almost two out of three voters don't believe he can be trusted to keep his promises. That's a huge problem for a leader trying to persuade voters that they are wrong, that he is the right person to deliver the services they want.
Another interesting trend is a sharp reduction in the regional divide. The Liberals still lead the NDP in the Lower Mainland, with 46 per cent support compared ti the NDP's 39 per cent. But the gap has narrowed since an Ipsos poll in July.
And the Liberals in turn have gained ground in a big way across the rest of the province, especially in the North where they now lead the NDP comfortably. (Ipsos defines the North as Williams Lake and above.)
It all points to a closer election than expected, a ferocious campaign and a bid advantage for the party that does the best job of persuading campaign workers and voters to show up.
Footnote: The poll put a simple proposition to voters - that British Columbia can’t afford another four years of Liberal or NDP government. Almost exactly half the voters agreed with assertion. But 12 per cent - one in eight British Columbians - said the province couldn't afford four years under either of the parties.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Nominations creating problems for NDP and Liberals
VICTORIA - I bet the Liberals did a little dance when they heard Adrian Dix had won the NDP nomination in Vancouver-Kingsway.
For Gordon Campbell, it’s like Christmas came three weeks early. Figure the Dix nomination is good for a few Liberal wins in close seats, as well as big laugh lines in campaign speeches.
I’ve nothing against Dix, who seems a decent enough person.
But he’s got two huge strikes against him.
Dix is best known as a powerful figure in the former NDP government, generally seen as Glen Clark’s closest political advisor.
That’s not a real strong resume item. The Clark government stumbled from crisis to crisis, lacked clear political focus and managed to fall to astonishingly low approval ratings. It’s like going out on a job interview and telling people you were responsible for Enron’s financial strategies.
And then there’s the famous memo to file. Right after police raided Clark’s home he produced a memo, written by Dix. Look, Clark said, this shows that I had nothing to do with the casino application of his friend Dimitrios Pilarinos.
Clark said the memo proved that he had spoken about the issue with Dix almost a year earlier. “The premier asked me to ensure that he take no part in any aspect of the decision on Burnaby casinos,” Dix wrote in a memo, dated July 17, 1998, which he then filed away.
It was an important piece of evidence. But it was, in one critical way, fake. Dix didn’t write the memo in July; he wrote it months later, got the office date stamp from a secretary’s desk, and rolled the date back.
That’s no crime. But it shows remarkably bad judgment.
Dix’s candidacy is a gift to the Liberals. NDP leader Carole James faces the critical task of assuring voters that the New Democrats have changed if the party is to do well at the polls next May.
Now every Liberal campaign speech can remind voters that Clark’s top advisor could end up in an NDP cabinet, and to talk about the famous memo-to-file and the casino scandal.
Dix has a right to run, and the active New Democrats in his riding picked him over three other candidates.
But that’s no consolation for James. (And it is interesting that she chose not to, or wasn’t able, to persuade Dix not to run for the sake of the party’s overall prospects.)
The Liberals have their own nomination worries.
Less than two months ago Gordon Campbell put a brave face on the party’s defeat in the Surrey byelection, and vowed that candidate Mary Polak would win the riding in the election next May.
Polak apparently isn’t so sure. She’s decided to try and get the Liberal nomination in Langley, where former cabinet minister Lynn Stephens isn’t going to run again.
It’s hardly a vote of confidence in the Liberals’ prospects in Surrey, where Polak has been a high-profile and controversial school board chair, responsible for an expensive legal battle over children’s books that depict gay parents.
Polak’s move has also exposed the divide within the provincial Liberals.
She’s seen as a social conservative, the kind of person who would find a home in the federal Conservative party (or even more comfortably in the old Canadian Alliance).
Stephens represents of the wing of the Campbell party that would be more comfortable in the federal Liberals. She says Polak is too right wing to represent Langley and should stay in her own riding.
A similar spat is shaping up in North Vancouver, where MLA Dan Jarvis - who has been critical of the government - faces a challenge from school trustee Cindy Silver, a lawyer and staunch social conservative who has argued against same sex marriages.
It is, as the federal Conservatives painfully found out, risky business to have candidates seen as conservative ideologues.
The process has barely begun, and both parties have reasons to worry.
Footnote: One plus for the NDP is that people actually want the nominations. In 2001 it took arm-twisting to get sacrificial victims to be battered by voters. A minus is gender equity; only three of 16 nominated candidates are women.
For Gordon Campbell, it’s like Christmas came three weeks early. Figure the Dix nomination is good for a few Liberal wins in close seats, as well as big laugh lines in campaign speeches.
I’ve nothing against Dix, who seems a decent enough person.
But he’s got two huge strikes against him.
Dix is best known as a powerful figure in the former NDP government, generally seen as Glen Clark’s closest political advisor.
That’s not a real strong resume item. The Clark government stumbled from crisis to crisis, lacked clear political focus and managed to fall to astonishingly low approval ratings. It’s like going out on a job interview and telling people you were responsible for Enron’s financial strategies.
And then there’s the famous memo to file. Right after police raided Clark’s home he produced a memo, written by Dix. Look, Clark said, this shows that I had nothing to do with the casino application of his friend Dimitrios Pilarinos.
Clark said the memo proved that he had spoken about the issue with Dix almost a year earlier. “The premier asked me to ensure that he take no part in any aspect of the decision on Burnaby casinos,” Dix wrote in a memo, dated July 17, 1998, which he then filed away.
It was an important piece of evidence. But it was, in one critical way, fake. Dix didn’t write the memo in July; he wrote it months later, got the office date stamp from a secretary’s desk, and rolled the date back.
That’s no crime. But it shows remarkably bad judgment.
Dix’s candidacy is a gift to the Liberals. NDP leader Carole James faces the critical task of assuring voters that the New Democrats have changed if the party is to do well at the polls next May.
Now every Liberal campaign speech can remind voters that Clark’s top advisor could end up in an NDP cabinet, and to talk about the famous memo-to-file and the casino scandal.
Dix has a right to run, and the active New Democrats in his riding picked him over three other candidates.
But that’s no consolation for James. (And it is interesting that she chose not to, or wasn’t able, to persuade Dix not to run for the sake of the party’s overall prospects.)
The Liberals have their own nomination worries.
Less than two months ago Gordon Campbell put a brave face on the party’s defeat in the Surrey byelection, and vowed that candidate Mary Polak would win the riding in the election next May.
Polak apparently isn’t so sure. She’s decided to try and get the Liberal nomination in Langley, where former cabinet minister Lynn Stephens isn’t going to run again.
It’s hardly a vote of confidence in the Liberals’ prospects in Surrey, where Polak has been a high-profile and controversial school board chair, responsible for an expensive legal battle over children’s books that depict gay parents.
Polak’s move has also exposed the divide within the provincial Liberals.
She’s seen as a social conservative, the kind of person who would find a home in the federal Conservative party (or even more comfortably in the old Canadian Alliance).
Stephens represents of the wing of the Campbell party that would be more comfortable in the federal Liberals. She says Polak is too right wing to represent Langley and should stay in her own riding.
A similar spat is shaping up in North Vancouver, where MLA Dan Jarvis - who has been critical of the government - faces a challenge from school trustee Cindy Silver, a lawyer and staunch social conservative who has argued against same sex marriages.
It is, as the federal Conservatives painfully found out, risky business to have candidates seen as conservative ideologues.
The process has barely begun, and both parties have reasons to worry.
Footnote: One plus for the NDP is that people actually want the nominations. In 2001 it took arm-twisting to get sacrificial victims to be battered by voters. A minus is gender equity; only three of 16 nominated candidates are women.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Economy good enough to be good news for Campbell
VICTORIA - It was a lot of economic good news for the Liberals in one day.
First StatsCan reported that B.C.'s unemployment rate had hit its lowest level in 23 years.
And then the panel of independent economists that advises Finance Minister Gary Collins predicted that B.C.'s economic growth for the next five years would likely be better than the Canadian average. Not spectacular growth, but welcome, especially in light of the huge risks posed by rising oil prices and the collapsing U.S. dollar.
The unemployment news is mostly symbolic. They November drop in the unemployment rate to 6.4 per cent meant good headlines for the Liberals, but it didn't really reflect a stronger economy or help for B.C.'s hardest hit regions.
The unemployment number didn't go down because more people got jobs. Instead, it fell because a large number of the people who had been looking gave up.
StatsCan gets the unemployment rate by calculating the number of people without jobs as a percentage of those who are working or actively looking. If people quit looking the pool is smaller, and the rate goes down.
In November about 23,000 fewer people had full-time jobs than in October; about the same number got part-time jobs; total employment stayed the same.
But about 11,000 people quit looking for work, pushing down the jobless rate.
StatsCan doesn't track the reasons for the drop in people in the labour force. People get discouraged, go back to school, move to Alberta.
The end result is the same. The unemployment rate goes down, but the number of people working actually stays the same. The total they are earning - and spending in the local economy - may even drop, if part-time work replaces full-time jobs.
The trend should be a special concern for the province's regions. It's may sound encouraging that no region of the province had double-digit unemployment last month. But if the reason is that people have given up and moved away, it's much less positive.
Still, the employment trend since the election has been positive, despite some terrific blows to the economy. About 2.1 million people were working in November, up 150,000 from the time the Liberals were elected. (The economy produced a little over 100,000 jobs in the comparable period at the end of the NDP era.) Debate wage levels and part-time work if you like, but more jobs is a good thing.
The report from the province's Independent Economic Forecast Council was more solidly encouraging. The council - 13 independent economists from the private sector - was set up to ensure the province's budgets are based on realistic projections. Their latest update predicts B.C. will outperform the Canadian economy in all but one of the next five years.
It's not soaring growth. The council predicts GDP growth of 3.3 per cent next year, a slight decline from this year. But B.C.'s economy will grow faster than the Canadian average, which the economists project at three per cent.
They predict B.C. will match the national average in 2006, with three-per-cent growth., and then stay slightly ahead of Canadian average through 2009.
Boom times its not; the annual growth rate for the period is only slightly better than the growth during the five years of the Clark government.
But the B.C. economy was better than the Canadian average only once during the Clark years; it's predicted to consistently beat that target ove the next five years. And most other things being in balance, that is good news for British Columbians.
It's impossible to know how much governments deserve credit for good times, or blame for bad times. The Liberals' critics will claim that they're simply the beneficiaries of a booming world economy, low interest rates and high commodity prices.
But those same critics have been bashing the government for being too pro-business. Surely they have to concede that some of that pro-business approach may be attracting investment.
Footnote: Politically, the economy only matters when things turn really bad, because voters are unsure how much of a difference government makes. The Mustel Group tracks the top issues on voters' minds in its polling. Only one in six voters pick the economy as the top issue, with health care the dominant top choice.
First StatsCan reported that B.C.'s unemployment rate had hit its lowest level in 23 years.
And then the panel of independent economists that advises Finance Minister Gary Collins predicted that B.C.'s economic growth for the next five years would likely be better than the Canadian average. Not spectacular growth, but welcome, especially in light of the huge risks posed by rising oil prices and the collapsing U.S. dollar.
The unemployment news is mostly symbolic. They November drop in the unemployment rate to 6.4 per cent meant good headlines for the Liberals, but it didn't really reflect a stronger economy or help for B.C.'s hardest hit regions.
The unemployment number didn't go down because more people got jobs. Instead, it fell because a large number of the people who had been looking gave up.
StatsCan gets the unemployment rate by calculating the number of people without jobs as a percentage of those who are working or actively looking. If people quit looking the pool is smaller, and the rate goes down.
In November about 23,000 fewer people had full-time jobs than in October; about the same number got part-time jobs; total employment stayed the same.
But about 11,000 people quit looking for work, pushing down the jobless rate.
StatsCan doesn't track the reasons for the drop in people in the labour force. People get discouraged, go back to school, move to Alberta.
The end result is the same. The unemployment rate goes down, but the number of people working actually stays the same. The total they are earning - and spending in the local economy - may even drop, if part-time work replaces full-time jobs.
The trend should be a special concern for the province's regions. It's may sound encouraging that no region of the province had double-digit unemployment last month. But if the reason is that people have given up and moved away, it's much less positive.
Still, the employment trend since the election has been positive, despite some terrific blows to the economy. About 2.1 million people were working in November, up 150,000 from the time the Liberals were elected. (The economy produced a little over 100,000 jobs in the comparable period at the end of the NDP era.) Debate wage levels and part-time work if you like, but more jobs is a good thing.
The report from the province's Independent Economic Forecast Council was more solidly encouraging. The council - 13 independent economists from the private sector - was set up to ensure the province's budgets are based on realistic projections. Their latest update predicts B.C. will outperform the Canadian economy in all but one of the next five years.
It's not soaring growth. The council predicts GDP growth of 3.3 per cent next year, a slight decline from this year. But B.C.'s economy will grow faster than the Canadian average, which the economists project at three per cent.
They predict B.C. will match the national average in 2006, with three-per-cent growth., and then stay slightly ahead of Canadian average through 2009.
Boom times its not; the annual growth rate for the period is only slightly better than the growth during the five years of the Clark government.
But the B.C. economy was better than the Canadian average only once during the Clark years; it's predicted to consistently beat that target ove the next five years. And most other things being in balance, that is good news for British Columbians.
It's impossible to know how much governments deserve credit for good times, or blame for bad times. The Liberals' critics will claim that they're simply the beneficiaries of a booming world economy, low interest rates and high commodity prices.
But those same critics have been bashing the government for being too pro-business. Surely they have to concede that some of that pro-business approach may be attracting investment.
Footnote: Politically, the economy only matters when things turn really bad, because voters are unsure how much of a difference government makes. The Mustel Group tracks the top issues on voters' minds in its polling. Only one in six voters pick the economy as the top issue, with health care the dominant top choice.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
High school testing up to government, not union
VICTORIA - You've got two different issues in the current spat between the B.C. government and the teachers' union over province-wide testing for Grade 10 students.
On one level the debate is about whether the tests makes sense and will help students leave school with a better education.
At the same time, it's about who runs the school system and sets standards - the BC Teachers' Federation or the government.
I have my own unpleasant memories of provincial exams. I moved from Ontario to Quebec for my last year of high school, happy product of a system in which you didn't have to write any final exam at all if you muddled through the school year with half-decent marks.
But in Quebec - as well as having to wear a jacket, shirt and tie in a public high school - I found that in every course, your mark was based entirely on a single provincial exam. Bad news for those people who panicked, or happened to have the flu that day.
B.C. isn't going nearly that far. The newest provincial exams, for Grade 10 students, cover math, sciences and English language skills. They only count for 20 per cent of a students' mark for the year, and it's not necessary to pass the test - or even write it, for that matter - to pass the year. When the tests were used on a pilot basis last year, the pass rate ranged from a high of 89 per cent in English to a low of 76 per cent in science.
The education ministry says the exams will help make sure all students are leaving high school with basic skills.
The test results will also continue to be available by school and district, like the FSA tests they have replaced, so parents - and districts - can see how they are doing at educating students.
It seems like a reasonable set of goals.
But the BC Teachers' Federation disagrees, and is urging its members not to mark the essay answers that are part of the English exams. (Everything else is marked by machines.) If ordered to mark the exams, teachers are supposed to "comply with the order under protest."
The union's objections is only partly to the exams themselves. They also oppose a change that requires students to pass Grade 10 courses in English, Science, Social Studies, Math, Planning and Phys Ed as part of the qualifications for a high school diploma.
The Grade 10 courses are tougher than some of the options available to students in Grade 11 and 12, the teachers' federation says. Now, students can be fail the Grade 10 courses and be enrolled in less demanding courses in Grade 11 and 12. They can still pass those, and get a high school diploma. Without that alternative, the struggling students may just drop out.
It's a legitimate debate, and one that teachers have an important role in. A high school diploma has to mean something in terms of basic skills; the issue is whether the bar being set in requiring all students to pass a half-dozen Grade 10 courses is reasonable and useful. (Does it really make sense, for example, to deny a student a high school diploma because she failed Grade 10 phys ed or the traditionally lame Planning course?)
But teachers are just one voice in the discussion, and their opinions are compromised by their consistent opposition to any sort of external testing or evaluation of students - and implicitly of the relative effectiveness of teachers and schools. Parents and the community have a right to independent assessment of just how well children are learning.
The dispute comes against a background of wretched relations between this government and the teachers' federation. Both sides share the blame for that state of affairs.
But ultimately, the decision on what testing is required to ensure educational success rests with the government, not the BC Teachers' Federation.
Footnote: The wider issue is the ridiculous emphasis put on highly unreliable high school marks as an indicator of future success. Universities and colleges rely almost entirely on Grade 12 marks to admit students, a process that leaves some of the brightest and best stranded on the sidelines.
On one level the debate is about whether the tests makes sense and will help students leave school with a better education.
At the same time, it's about who runs the school system and sets standards - the BC Teachers' Federation or the government.
I have my own unpleasant memories of provincial exams. I moved from Ontario to Quebec for my last year of high school, happy product of a system in which you didn't have to write any final exam at all if you muddled through the school year with half-decent marks.
But in Quebec - as well as having to wear a jacket, shirt and tie in a public high school - I found that in every course, your mark was based entirely on a single provincial exam. Bad news for those people who panicked, or happened to have the flu that day.
B.C. isn't going nearly that far. The newest provincial exams, for Grade 10 students, cover math, sciences and English language skills. They only count for 20 per cent of a students' mark for the year, and it's not necessary to pass the test - or even write it, for that matter - to pass the year. When the tests were used on a pilot basis last year, the pass rate ranged from a high of 89 per cent in English to a low of 76 per cent in science.
The education ministry says the exams will help make sure all students are leaving high school with basic skills.
The test results will also continue to be available by school and district, like the FSA tests they have replaced, so parents - and districts - can see how they are doing at educating students.
It seems like a reasonable set of goals.
But the BC Teachers' Federation disagrees, and is urging its members not to mark the essay answers that are part of the English exams. (Everything else is marked by machines.) If ordered to mark the exams, teachers are supposed to "comply with the order under protest."
The union's objections is only partly to the exams themselves. They also oppose a change that requires students to pass Grade 10 courses in English, Science, Social Studies, Math, Planning and Phys Ed as part of the qualifications for a high school diploma.
The Grade 10 courses are tougher than some of the options available to students in Grade 11 and 12, the teachers' federation says. Now, students can be fail the Grade 10 courses and be enrolled in less demanding courses in Grade 11 and 12. They can still pass those, and get a high school diploma. Without that alternative, the struggling students may just drop out.
It's a legitimate debate, and one that teachers have an important role in. A high school diploma has to mean something in terms of basic skills; the issue is whether the bar being set in requiring all students to pass a half-dozen Grade 10 courses is reasonable and useful. (Does it really make sense, for example, to deny a student a high school diploma because she failed Grade 10 phys ed or the traditionally lame Planning course?)
But teachers are just one voice in the discussion, and their opinions are compromised by their consistent opposition to any sort of external testing or evaluation of students - and implicitly of the relative effectiveness of teachers and schools. Parents and the community have a right to independent assessment of just how well children are learning.
The dispute comes against a background of wretched relations between this government and the teachers' federation. Both sides share the blame for that state of affairs.
But ultimately, the decision on what testing is required to ensure educational success rests with the government, not the BC Teachers' Federation.
Footnote: The wider issue is the ridiculous emphasis put on highly unreliable high school marks as an indicator of future success. Universities and colleges rely almost entirely on Grade 12 marks to admit students, a process that leaves some of the brightest and best stranded on the sidelines.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Government is a pimp for desperate women from other countries
VICTORIA - Most Canadians would be dead ashamed to know that their government is playing pimp to desperate women from around the world.
But it is, helping to recruiting 665 women last year to come to Canada and work in sleazy strip clubs, doing lap dances and more for half-drunk men.
Federal Immigration Minister Judy Sgro is in trouble for allegedly giving preferential treatment to one of those women, a Romanian stripper who worked on her election campaign.
But that's not the real scandal.
For seven years now the Canadian government has been a partner in the global sex trade, offering special two-year immigration permits to women recruited to come here and work in strip clubs. Send a naked picture to immigration officials - that's demanded to prove that you're willing to do the work - and the usually tough immigration rules are relaxed.
The special visa program is supposed to cover jobs that Canadians can't or won't do.
But strip club owners have managed to convince the federal government that they should have the right to hunt the world for desperate women to work the floors of their bars. It is a national disgrace.
It's no coincidence that the program started seven years ago. University of Toronto la professor Audrey Macklin, who has studied the issue, says that's when strip clubs began demanding contact with customers and sex acts from dancers. They couldn't find Canadian women willing to enter this new branch of the sex trade, so they appealed to the Liberal government for help. And to their shame, the government said yes.
Anyone who spent even one moment thinking about the implications of this program for the women would know it's a disaster. Young women are recruited from Costa Rica or Mexico or Romania, either by local agents or brokers who travel from Canada to find them and recruit them to work in Canadian bars.
It's all legal. The government issues visas - once immigration officials see the nude photo and a job offer - and the women are brought here. They know no one, often speak little English and are completely dependent on the brokers, who arrange apartments - often over-priced - tell them where to work and generally control their lives. They are sent back home if they stop working, or complain about being forced into the sex trade.
It is a formula for exploitation.
The government can't plead ignorance. Almost from the time the program began, police and others have been warning that the women were being exploited and coerced into the sex trade.
Six years ago the RCMP, immigration officials and Toronto-area police launched a major investigation that found many of the women were sex slaves, exploited and abused with no way out. They were recruited to dance - or in some cases told they would be cleaning, or singing in clubs - and ended up working as prostitutes.
Other investigations have revealed the same pattern of abuse and exploitation. Once they are here, the women are controlled and pressured to perform sex acts with the bar's customers. Saying no means deportation, at best. Canadians could walk away from the demands; these women can't
Incredibly, Sgro still defends the program. Strip bars are "a strong industry," she says, and if they need help recruiting young women from poor countries as fresh meat, then the Canadian government will be there for them.
Imagine someone you love so desperate that she agrees to be treated this way, and how you would feel about the government that was a partner in her debasement.
Others claim the program offers the women an opportunity. But if Canada cared for one second about the women, it could offer visa programs that would allow them a chance to use other skills in in this country. Instead, it wants sex trade workers.
Canada mouth its opposition to the global sex trade, and trafficking in women.
But its actions show it for just another pimp.
Footnote: The sex bar business does have clout; Sgro's top aide went to a strip bar to meet with a disgruntled owner. But it's time politicians heard from Canadians who don't want their government sponsoring global trafficking in women for the sex trade. Sgro's email address is sgro.j@parl.gc.ca and Prime Minister Paul Martin's is martin.p@parl.gc.ca.
But it is, helping to recruiting 665 women last year to come to Canada and work in sleazy strip clubs, doing lap dances and more for half-drunk men.
Federal Immigration Minister Judy Sgro is in trouble for allegedly giving preferential treatment to one of those women, a Romanian stripper who worked on her election campaign.
But that's not the real scandal.
For seven years now the Canadian government has been a partner in the global sex trade, offering special two-year immigration permits to women recruited to come here and work in strip clubs. Send a naked picture to immigration officials - that's demanded to prove that you're willing to do the work - and the usually tough immigration rules are relaxed.
The special visa program is supposed to cover jobs that Canadians can't or won't do.
But strip club owners have managed to convince the federal government that they should have the right to hunt the world for desperate women to work the floors of their bars. It is a national disgrace.
It's no coincidence that the program started seven years ago. University of Toronto la professor Audrey Macklin, who has studied the issue, says that's when strip clubs began demanding contact with customers and sex acts from dancers. They couldn't find Canadian women willing to enter this new branch of the sex trade, so they appealed to the Liberal government for help. And to their shame, the government said yes.
Anyone who spent even one moment thinking about the implications of this program for the women would know it's a disaster. Young women are recruited from Costa Rica or Mexico or Romania, either by local agents or brokers who travel from Canada to find them and recruit them to work in Canadian bars.
It's all legal. The government issues visas - once immigration officials see the nude photo and a job offer - and the women are brought here. They know no one, often speak little English and are completely dependent on the brokers, who arrange apartments - often over-priced - tell them where to work and generally control their lives. They are sent back home if they stop working, or complain about being forced into the sex trade.
It is a formula for exploitation.
The government can't plead ignorance. Almost from the time the program began, police and others have been warning that the women were being exploited and coerced into the sex trade.
Six years ago the RCMP, immigration officials and Toronto-area police launched a major investigation that found many of the women were sex slaves, exploited and abused with no way out. They were recruited to dance - or in some cases told they would be cleaning, or singing in clubs - and ended up working as prostitutes.
Other investigations have revealed the same pattern of abuse and exploitation. Once they are here, the women are controlled and pressured to perform sex acts with the bar's customers. Saying no means deportation, at best. Canadians could walk away from the demands; these women can't
Incredibly, Sgro still defends the program. Strip bars are "a strong industry," she says, and if they need help recruiting young women from poor countries as fresh meat, then the Canadian government will be there for them.
Imagine someone you love so desperate that she agrees to be treated this way, and how you would feel about the government that was a partner in her debasement.
Others claim the program offers the women an opportunity. But if Canada cared for one second about the women, it could offer visa programs that would allow them a chance to use other skills in in this country. Instead, it wants sex trade workers.
Canada mouth its opposition to the global sex trade, and trafficking in women.
But its actions show it for just another pimp.
Footnote: The sex bar business does have clout; Sgro's top aide went to a strip bar to meet with a disgruntled owner. But it's time politicians heard from Canadians who don't want their government sponsoring global trafficking in women for the sex trade. Sgro's email address is sgro.j@parl.gc.ca and Prime Minister Paul Martin's is martin.p@parl.gc.ca.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Surplus good news, but puts Liberals to test
VICTORIA - It should be unalloyed good news that the B.C. government is heading towards a $2.2 billion surplus this year.
Instead, the pot of cash holds some big headaches for the Liberals.
Finance Minister Gary Collins and a clutch of finance ministry officials presented the latest budget mid-year report Monday in the basement of the legislature.
It was good news. The surplus, which Collins predicted would be $200 million at the beginning of the fiscal year, looks to be $2.2 billion. Part of that is due to an $800-million one-time boost from Ottawa, but that still leaves a $1.4-billion surplus.
And the latest forecasts show B.C. with the second strongest provincial economy this year and next, trailing only Alberta.
"This is exactly where governments want to be," enthused Collins.
It is handy to be heading into an election with money to spend, but the surplus carries some political risks.
The Liberals are going to be defined by what they decide to do with the money, and it is hugely important to their prospects in the May election.
There are three options, and infinite variations on how they are weighted. Governments can spend surpluses on programs and services to make life better for citizens. They can cut taxes, reducing the revenue governments take in and shrinking future surpluses. Or they can pay down the debt.
What the public wants, based on consultations by the legislature's finance committee, is more spending on health, education, social services and other needs. The committee's responses showed British Columbians wanted 80 cents on any surplus dollars to go to services. Debt repayment should get 14 cents and tax cuts six cents, the said.
Though that's only one indicator, as Collins rightly noted Monday, it highlights the problem for the Campbell party
What the Liberals have said over the past three years is that they have not wanted to cut budgets for ministries like children and families. It has been a necessary evil, forced by a lack of money.
What their critics have suggested is that the Liberals simply don't like government, and would prefer a much smaller role for it on principle. (And that they in fact forced that outcome with their first day 25-per-cent tax cut.)
Now both theories will be put to the test. If the Liberals really didn't want to cut the children and families' budget, or funding to women's centres, they can now put the money back. If they never really thought the programs were worth much, they can pay down the debt or offer more tax cuts.
There's no magic formula or right answer. It's always sensible to pay down debt. But the government has already committed $350 million this year and B.C.'s debt is low compared with other provinces, and easily manageable. Some targeted tax cuts might encourage investment, but broadly B.C. is competitive.
That leaves spending increases.
Those are tricky too. A benefit - perhaps intended - of the Liberals' tax cuts is that they forced ministries to reduce spending. It is one rough way of cutting, forcing managers to find a way to get by with less money.
Now the government has a lot of room to spend money on making peoples' lives better.
The LIberals' plan already calls for a program spending increase of almost two per cent in the pre-election budget coming in February. But with the new financial forecasts, the government could easily add six per cent to its spending - enough to eliminate surgical wait lists for most procedures, or offer universal child care, or a huge literacy initiative.
It's a time for real choices, and those are never easy. There are those within the Liberal party who would put both tax cuts and paying down the debt ahead of improving services.
If they win the day then the party will suffer at the polls in May.
Footnote: Collins is now set to earn a place in the B.C. record books as the finance minister who delivered both the largest surplus and the largest deficit in the province's history, in one term. It's a remarkable indication of how extraordinarily volatile the province's economy can be.
Instead, the pot of cash holds some big headaches for the Liberals.
Finance Minister Gary Collins and a clutch of finance ministry officials presented the latest budget mid-year report Monday in the basement of the legislature.
It was good news. The surplus, which Collins predicted would be $200 million at the beginning of the fiscal year, looks to be $2.2 billion. Part of that is due to an $800-million one-time boost from Ottawa, but that still leaves a $1.4-billion surplus.
And the latest forecasts show B.C. with the second strongest provincial economy this year and next, trailing only Alberta.
"This is exactly where governments want to be," enthused Collins.
It is handy to be heading into an election with money to spend, but the surplus carries some political risks.
The Liberals are going to be defined by what they decide to do with the money, and it is hugely important to their prospects in the May election.
There are three options, and infinite variations on how they are weighted. Governments can spend surpluses on programs and services to make life better for citizens. They can cut taxes, reducing the revenue governments take in and shrinking future surpluses. Or they can pay down the debt.
What the public wants, based on consultations by the legislature's finance committee, is more spending on health, education, social services and other needs. The committee's responses showed British Columbians wanted 80 cents on any surplus dollars to go to services. Debt repayment should get 14 cents and tax cuts six cents, the said.
Though that's only one indicator, as Collins rightly noted Monday, it highlights the problem for the Campbell party
What the Liberals have said over the past three years is that they have not wanted to cut budgets for ministries like children and families. It has been a necessary evil, forced by a lack of money.
What their critics have suggested is that the Liberals simply don't like government, and would prefer a much smaller role for it on principle. (And that they in fact forced that outcome with their first day 25-per-cent tax cut.)
Now both theories will be put to the test. If the Liberals really didn't want to cut the children and families' budget, or funding to women's centres, they can now put the money back. If they never really thought the programs were worth much, they can pay down the debt or offer more tax cuts.
There's no magic formula or right answer. It's always sensible to pay down debt. But the government has already committed $350 million this year and B.C.'s debt is low compared with other provinces, and easily manageable. Some targeted tax cuts might encourage investment, but broadly B.C. is competitive.
That leaves spending increases.
Those are tricky too. A benefit - perhaps intended - of the Liberals' tax cuts is that they forced ministries to reduce spending. It is one rough way of cutting, forcing managers to find a way to get by with less money.
Now the government has a lot of room to spend money on making peoples' lives better.
The LIberals' plan already calls for a program spending increase of almost two per cent in the pre-election budget coming in February. But with the new financial forecasts, the government could easily add six per cent to its spending - enough to eliminate surgical wait lists for most procedures, or offer universal child care, or a huge literacy initiative.
It's a time for real choices, and those are never easy. There are those within the Liberal party who would put both tax cuts and paying down the debt ahead of improving services.
If they win the day then the party will suffer at the polls in May.
Footnote: Collins is now set to earn a place in the B.C. record books as the finance minister who delivered both the largest surplus and the largest deficit in the province's history, in one term. It's a remarkable indication of how extraordinarily volatile the province's economy can be.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Public smoking ban a simple way to save lives, MLAs say
VICTORIA - Pretty brave, those Liberal backbenchers on the health committee who took a stiff shot at their government's smoking policy.
It's been almost three years since the Liberals over-ruled the WCB and said people could go on smoking in bars and restaurants, despite the health risk
The result, based on the latest report from the legislature's health committee, has been more sickness, death and hundreds of millions in health costs.
The committee - 12 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - has just weighed in with its latest report, focusing on ways of preventing illness and injury.
And although the skittish Liberals stopped short of calling for smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places, they might as well have.
The committee said municipalities should ban smoking, since a provincial government ban might seem too intrusive to some people. (Never mind that other provinces seem to have found the will.)
"More communities should consider banning smoking in all public buildings, particularly in bars and restaurants," the committee recommended.
The most direct beneficiaries would be the people who work in those businesses.
"This move is most important to protect restaurant and bar workers, who must inhale secondhand smoke and risk harm by tobacco's hundreds of toxic elements," the committee warned.
Why do they have to risk harm from toxins? Because the Liberals gave in to a fierce lobby from the industry and - for the first time ever - over-ruled the Workers Compensation Board order that employees not have to work in smoke-filled rooms.
It's not just the employees who are at risk. The committee reports that legislation banning smoking may be the greatest help to smokers who have the most difficulty quitting. A public health study found that 36 per cent of ex-smokers cited legal bans as the prime motivation; smokers who tried to quit were three times more likely to succeed when a ban was in place.
It's not really a question of an individual's right to choose to risk illness. As the committee noted, the current policy puts the health of employees in bars and restaurants at risk.
And anything that encourages smoking, or makes it harder for people to quit, costs us all money. The committee report says that about 16 per cent of British Columbians now smoke; getting that down to 12 per cent would save $160 million a year in direct and indirect health costs, plus much more in lost productivity and social costs.
Sadly, the committee wimped out on advocating a province-wide ban. Instead individual communities should ban smoking, it suggested.
But they've had the chance to do that, and many of them haven't. (Sixteen municipalities across the province have ordered full or partial bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces.) Many of the holdouts complain that a municipal ban penalizes local businesses. If smokers can simply drive outside the city boundaries and smoke in a bar, then establishments in the city will be unfairly penalized.
The committee has delivered a useful report taking aim at our individual responsibility for our own health.
The public debate around health often centres on waiting lists and drug costs and what kind of care we can afford.
But it needs to shift to focus much more on obesity and exercise and healthy food choices, all things that can enhance our individual health and save the system a fortune. Even modest progress on preventing chronic diseases and avoidable injuries, increasing physical activity and reducing obesity and smoking could save close to $1 billion a year.
We spend almost $11 billion on health care in B.C., with more than 97 per cent of that going to treat people when they're already hurt or sick, often from preventable causes. "We have a sickness care system, not a health care system," the committee reported.
The committee wants spending on prevention doubled, to six per cent or $660 million a year.
The government should quickly promise to meet that goal.
Footnote: The committee found up to 40 per cent of chronic diseases could be prevented. Obesity is on track to replace tobacco as the number one preventable killer. More exercise and healthier food choices could do more for health that a dozen MRI machines.
It's been almost three years since the Liberals over-ruled the WCB and said people could go on smoking in bars and restaurants, despite the health risk
The result, based on the latest report from the legislature's health committee, has been more sickness, death and hundreds of millions in health costs.
The committee - 12 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - has just weighed in with its latest report, focusing on ways of preventing illness and injury.
And although the skittish Liberals stopped short of calling for smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places, they might as well have.
The committee said municipalities should ban smoking, since a provincial government ban might seem too intrusive to some people. (Never mind that other provinces seem to have found the will.)
"More communities should consider banning smoking in all public buildings, particularly in bars and restaurants," the committee recommended.
The most direct beneficiaries would be the people who work in those businesses.
"This move is most important to protect restaurant and bar workers, who must inhale secondhand smoke and risk harm by tobacco's hundreds of toxic elements," the committee warned.
Why do they have to risk harm from toxins? Because the Liberals gave in to a fierce lobby from the industry and - for the first time ever - over-ruled the Workers Compensation Board order that employees not have to work in smoke-filled rooms.
It's not just the employees who are at risk. The committee reports that legislation banning smoking may be the greatest help to smokers who have the most difficulty quitting. A public health study found that 36 per cent of ex-smokers cited legal bans as the prime motivation; smokers who tried to quit were three times more likely to succeed when a ban was in place.
It's not really a question of an individual's right to choose to risk illness. As the committee noted, the current policy puts the health of employees in bars and restaurants at risk.
And anything that encourages smoking, or makes it harder for people to quit, costs us all money. The committee report says that about 16 per cent of British Columbians now smoke; getting that down to 12 per cent would save $160 million a year in direct and indirect health costs, plus much more in lost productivity and social costs.
Sadly, the committee wimped out on advocating a province-wide ban. Instead individual communities should ban smoking, it suggested.
But they've had the chance to do that, and many of them haven't. (Sixteen municipalities across the province have ordered full or partial bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces.) Many of the holdouts complain that a municipal ban penalizes local businesses. If smokers can simply drive outside the city boundaries and smoke in a bar, then establishments in the city will be unfairly penalized.
The committee has delivered a useful report taking aim at our individual responsibility for our own health.
The public debate around health often centres on waiting lists and drug costs and what kind of care we can afford.
But it needs to shift to focus much more on obesity and exercise and healthy food choices, all things that can enhance our individual health and save the system a fortune. Even modest progress on preventing chronic diseases and avoidable injuries, increasing physical activity and reducing obesity and smoking could save close to $1 billion a year.
We spend almost $11 billion on health care in B.C., with more than 97 per cent of that going to treat people when they're already hurt or sick, often from preventable causes. "We have a sickness care system, not a health care system," the committee reported.
The committee wants spending on prevention doubled, to six per cent or $660 million a year.
The government should quickly promise to meet that goal.
Footnote: The committee found up to 40 per cent of chronic diseases could be prevented. Obesity is on track to replace tobacco as the number one preventable killer. More exercise and healthier food choices could do more for health that a dozen MRI machines.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Autism ruling sound; now the province should pay up
VICTORIA - OK, the province doesn't have to pay for treatment that could save autistic children from disastrous lives.
But it should.
The Supreme Court of Canada disappointed parents who hoped it would uphold B.C. court decisions requiring the provincial government to pay for intensive treatment for their autistic children.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't guarantee that Canadians will receive the health care they need, the court ruled, only that the provinces will provide core services - the things doctors do, and the care offered by hospitals. Other treatments are optional, and the province's right to say no will be increased if the treatment is new or controversial.
Painful for the families, who say that if their children had cancer they would get treatment without question.
But the ruling is realistic. Governments are elected to make decisions on how much money should be spent, and on what. The charter, and in this case the Canada Health Act, offer minimum guarantees and bar discrimination, but the politicians retain much of the power.
However their exercise of that power should reflect our will, and most British Columbians would support the parents' push for treatment on the grounds of both compassion and common sense.
The parents of four infants diagnosed with autism argued in this case that the government should pay for Lovaas therapy for autistic children, a program that requires intense one-on-one work and costs $45,000 to $60,000 a year. The government will now provide a maximum of $20,000 per year for treatment for children under six. Parents can either scrape up the rest of the money, or accept lesser care.
The therapy was controversial when the court case began under the NDP government, but B.C. courts found that in "some cases" it could produce "significant results."
For a parent, that's enough. Autism remains a baffling syndrome, one that too often locks its victims behind walls, unable to communicate with other people or form relationships, shunned because of odd behaviour. What we do know, the Supreme Court noted, is that 90 percent of untreated autistic children end up in group homes or other residential facilities.
That's not something you or I want for our children. And it is not something, that as a society, we wish upon other people's children.
It's also not something that makes any kind of business sense. The therapy costs about the same, per year, as residential care. A half-dozen years of treatment can head off decades of costly care. The right, and smart, thing to do is to help families help their children when it can make the most difference.
The Liberals used to think that too. About a year before the election Linda Reid - now the junior minister for early childhood development, then the children and families critic - said the province should be paying for the Lovaas therapy if families find it to be the most effective treatment.
"It doesn't work for every child," she said at an autism conference. "In the view of the opposition this has to be a choice for families.'' The NDP - which began the court fight against having to provide the care - was dithering while children and families suffered, Reid said.
None of this is simple. Governments have to choose among competing priorities all the time. Attorney General Geoff Plant says the therapy could cost $250 million a year, instead of the $30 million now spent on autism treatment for about 2,600 children. (Parents put the extra cost much lower, under $100 million.)
But if the treatment could save thousands of children from a difficult and costly life it seems a bargain - just as the Liberals used to argue.
The Supreme Court ruling does reinforce an important principle. We elect governments to make choices about what is important to us as a society, balancing our priorities and concerns.
That's their job, not the courts, and it's a reminder of why politics should matter to us all.
Footnote: The Supreme Court is still weighing an even more critical case about government's obligations. A Quebec man is challenging that province's failure to deliver basic medical care in a timely fashion. The ruling could tilt the health care debate in a whole new direction.
But it should.
The Supreme Court of Canada disappointed parents who hoped it would uphold B.C. court decisions requiring the provincial government to pay for intensive treatment for their autistic children.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't guarantee that Canadians will receive the health care they need, the court ruled, only that the provinces will provide core services - the things doctors do, and the care offered by hospitals. Other treatments are optional, and the province's right to say no will be increased if the treatment is new or controversial.
Painful for the families, who say that if their children had cancer they would get treatment without question.
But the ruling is realistic. Governments are elected to make decisions on how much money should be spent, and on what. The charter, and in this case the Canada Health Act, offer minimum guarantees and bar discrimination, but the politicians retain much of the power.
However their exercise of that power should reflect our will, and most British Columbians would support the parents' push for treatment on the grounds of both compassion and common sense.
The parents of four infants diagnosed with autism argued in this case that the government should pay for Lovaas therapy for autistic children, a program that requires intense one-on-one work and costs $45,000 to $60,000 a year. The government will now provide a maximum of $20,000 per year for treatment for children under six. Parents can either scrape up the rest of the money, or accept lesser care.
The therapy was controversial when the court case began under the NDP government, but B.C. courts found that in "some cases" it could produce "significant results."
For a parent, that's enough. Autism remains a baffling syndrome, one that too often locks its victims behind walls, unable to communicate with other people or form relationships, shunned because of odd behaviour. What we do know, the Supreme Court noted, is that 90 percent of untreated autistic children end up in group homes or other residential facilities.
That's not something you or I want for our children. And it is not something, that as a society, we wish upon other people's children.
It's also not something that makes any kind of business sense. The therapy costs about the same, per year, as residential care. A half-dozen years of treatment can head off decades of costly care. The right, and smart, thing to do is to help families help their children when it can make the most difference.
The Liberals used to think that too. About a year before the election Linda Reid - now the junior minister for early childhood development, then the children and families critic - said the province should be paying for the Lovaas therapy if families find it to be the most effective treatment.
"It doesn't work for every child," she said at an autism conference. "In the view of the opposition this has to be a choice for families.'' The NDP - which began the court fight against having to provide the care - was dithering while children and families suffered, Reid said.
None of this is simple. Governments have to choose among competing priorities all the time. Attorney General Geoff Plant says the therapy could cost $250 million a year, instead of the $30 million now spent on autism treatment for about 2,600 children. (Parents put the extra cost much lower, under $100 million.)
But if the treatment could save thousands of children from a difficult and costly life it seems a bargain - just as the Liberals used to argue.
The Supreme Court ruling does reinforce an important principle. We elect governments to make choices about what is important to us as a society, balancing our priorities and concerns.
That's their job, not the courts, and it's a reminder of why politics should matter to us all.
Footnote: The Supreme Court is still weighing an even more critical case about government's obligations. A Quebec man is challenging that province's failure to deliver basic medical care in a timely fashion. The ruling could tilt the health care debate in a whole new direction.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Offshore report weak, bad news for Liberal plans
VICTORIA - That was a disappointing report from the Priddle panel on offshore oil and gas development.
And it's going to pose a huge problem for the Liberals' hopes for offshore riches.
The federal panel was supposed to find out what British Columbians think about development off the B.C. coast, and come up with conclusions and recommendations.
The hearings went OK. But the panel members did a poor job of bringing their expertise to the task of analysing the information and coming up with useful recommendations.
Instead, the panel focused mainly on a count. How many presenters were for lifting the moratorium, and how many against.
Mostly people and organizations were against. Three out of four of the almost 4,000 people who presented to the panel opposed lifting the 30-year-old moratorium on offshore development.
But the panel didn't consider the size of the organizations being represented by presenters. Comments by one concerned person, perhaps with only a limited rationale, were given the same weight as major presentations by organizations like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee or the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.
The panel didn't attempt to analyze the issues, and decide which were critical. And it failed to come up with a clear recommendation on what should happen next. Instead, the panel outlined four options and threw the problem back to the governments.
The report is still useful. It notes, for example, just how deep the divisions are between people on the opposite sides of the issue and warns of the near impossibility of compromise right now. The panel also found that there hasn't been any sort of broad discussion of the issues involved, and said that needs to begin.
But the report is a lot less useful than it should have been. The panel had the expertise. Roland Priddle is a former National Energy Board chair; Diana Valiela practises environmental and natural resource law, and is expert in salmon management and habitat management; and Don Scott is a former Prince Rupert mayor, with a lot of experience in the economic issues of the north coast.
They didn't do enough.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld reacted crabbily to the report, which poses a big threat to Liberal hopes to have offshore development by 2010.
The federal Liberals are already split on the issue, and in no hurry to lift the ban. They now have more reason to delay, able to point to the lack of support within B.C. for any change. (They'll will also be mindful of the potential lost votes in the Lower Mainland when Paul Martin's minority government once again faces the voters.)
The report makes it extremely unlikely that the moratorium will be lifted without a lot more time and work.
That's also the view of former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford, who has been through the process of opening the offshore. Peckford, who lives on Vancouver Island now, says that without broader support governments won't be able to go ahead with offshore drilling. He proposes a two-year review, led by a three-person panel representing both governments and First Nations.
Their job would be to get more information out, encourage discussion, fill the scientific gaps and come up with a recommendation on next steps.
The provincial government wants to go quicker. It sees the potential of tapping offshore oil resources worth up to $110 billion - ten times the potential of the Hibernia field that brought a boom to Canada's East Coast. And it points to the energy industry's success in drilling safely on coastal waters around the world and generally positive scientific reviews on the risks in B.C.
But the moratorium is not going to be lifted anytime soon.
Even with its flaws, the panel's report showed that the B.C. government has to do a much more effective job of increasing public awareness of the issues, and building support, if it hopes to tap the wealth under the ocean floor.
Footnote: The panel came under heavy attack by environmental groups during the hearings, as they complained about Priddle's energy industry connections and Scott's past support for a review of the moratorium. The enviros ended up very happy with the final result.
And it's going to pose a huge problem for the Liberals' hopes for offshore riches.
The federal panel was supposed to find out what British Columbians think about development off the B.C. coast, and come up with conclusions and recommendations.
The hearings went OK. But the panel members did a poor job of bringing their expertise to the task of analysing the information and coming up with useful recommendations.
Instead, the panel focused mainly on a count. How many presenters were for lifting the moratorium, and how many against.
Mostly people and organizations were against. Three out of four of the almost 4,000 people who presented to the panel opposed lifting the 30-year-old moratorium on offshore development.
But the panel didn't consider the size of the organizations being represented by presenters. Comments by one concerned person, perhaps with only a limited rationale, were given the same weight as major presentations by organizations like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee or the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.
The panel didn't attempt to analyze the issues, and decide which were critical. And it failed to come up with a clear recommendation on what should happen next. Instead, the panel outlined four options and threw the problem back to the governments.
The report is still useful. It notes, for example, just how deep the divisions are between people on the opposite sides of the issue and warns of the near impossibility of compromise right now. The panel also found that there hasn't been any sort of broad discussion of the issues involved, and said that needs to begin.
But the report is a lot less useful than it should have been. The panel had the expertise. Roland Priddle is a former National Energy Board chair; Diana Valiela practises environmental and natural resource law, and is expert in salmon management and habitat management; and Don Scott is a former Prince Rupert mayor, with a lot of experience in the economic issues of the north coast.
They didn't do enough.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld reacted crabbily to the report, which poses a big threat to Liberal hopes to have offshore development by 2010.
The federal Liberals are already split on the issue, and in no hurry to lift the ban. They now have more reason to delay, able to point to the lack of support within B.C. for any change. (They'll will also be mindful of the potential lost votes in the Lower Mainland when Paul Martin's minority government once again faces the voters.)
The report makes it extremely unlikely that the moratorium will be lifted without a lot more time and work.
That's also the view of former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford, who has been through the process of opening the offshore. Peckford, who lives on Vancouver Island now, says that without broader support governments won't be able to go ahead with offshore drilling. He proposes a two-year review, led by a three-person panel representing both governments and First Nations.
Their job would be to get more information out, encourage discussion, fill the scientific gaps and come up with a recommendation on next steps.
The provincial government wants to go quicker. It sees the potential of tapping offshore oil resources worth up to $110 billion - ten times the potential of the Hibernia field that brought a boom to Canada's East Coast. And it points to the energy industry's success in drilling safely on coastal waters around the world and generally positive scientific reviews on the risks in B.C.
But the moratorium is not going to be lifted anytime soon.
Even with its flaws, the panel's report showed that the B.C. government has to do a much more effective job of increasing public awareness of the issues, and building support, if it hopes to tap the wealth under the ocean floor.
Footnote: The panel came under heavy attack by environmental groups during the hearings, as they complained about Priddle's energy industry connections and Scott's past support for a review of the moratorium. The enviros ended up very happy with the final result.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Court First Nations' rulings set stage for progress
VICTORIA - It's no cure-all, but the Supreme Court of Canada has just made a big contribution to ending some of the uncertainty about land use and First Nations in B.C.
The court weighed in Thursday with two important decisions.
In one, the court rejected the provincial government's claim that it had no legal duty to consult with First Nations before handing over land that they were claiming for development.
The government has an obligation to act honourably, the court said. And it is dishonourable to ignore the rights of people who have lived on the land for centuries and never signed away or sold their rights. (The NDP and Liberals took the same position in this long-running case.)
Score one for the First Nations. It is now law that they have a right to serious consultation and accommodation when changes are planned for any land they are claiming. They have the right to expect proposals to be changed, or cancelled, based on their concerns.
But the court also ruled that First Nations have an obligation to participate in discussions and negotiations aimed at balancing their interests with other factors, including jobs and economic development. They can't just say no, or refuse to enter into talks. They have no veto, and ultimately the government has the right to make land use decisions.
Score one for the government.
The rulings still leave problem areas, which will likely be tested in future court cases.
What is a serious attempt at consultation, and when can government decide it's done all it can to accommodate and simply go ahead?
That depends, the Supreme Court ruled, on how strong the claim is to the land and how serious the long-term effects of development. If there's evidence to suggest that a First Nation has a strong claim to a piece of land, it has a greater right to a be involved in land use decisions. And a First Nation would get a greater say over a mine development than over a temporary road.
The standards aren't definitive, and the government would be wise to accept the court's recommendation that some form of dispute resolution be established. But at least the need for consultation has been established, and some broad guidelines set out.
The Supreme Court also ruled - usefully - that private companies don't have a legal duty to accommodate First Nations' interests. They have the right to rely on the government's efforts when they are granted the right to operate on Crown land.
All those principles were set out in a case involving a dispute between the Haida First Nation and the province and Weyerhaeuser over a timber licence on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
At the same time the court ruled on another similar issue, involving the Tlingit First Nation's opposition to a road needed to re-open a mine in the Taku River valley. The court ruled that the Tlingit had a reasonable claim to the land, and a right to consultation. But the court found that the government had made a reasonable effort to accommodate the band during a three-year environmental assessment review.
Business, First Nations and government all welcome the rulings, each praising a different aspect.
The bottom line is that the decisions remove uncertainty and force government and First Nations to face up to their obligation to deal with critical development issues.
The decisions could also help create pressure for more activity and faster progress at the treaty tables. First Nations can strengthen their right to consultation by showing the strength of their claim to traditional lands, effectively staking their claims.
And government has a powerful incentive to push forward with treaties now that it faces an increased obligation to deal with First Nations even before any agreements are in place.
Solutions are still going to be found through negotiation, not in the courts. But the Supreme Court rulings increase the chance that will happen.
Footnote: A BC Business Council report earlier this year called for the establishment of an "Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Panel" that would bring First Nations, the BC Treaty Commission, federal and provincial governments and the business council together to sort out development issues. The idea looks even more useful now..
The court weighed in Thursday with two important decisions.
In one, the court rejected the provincial government's claim that it had no legal duty to consult with First Nations before handing over land that they were claiming for development.
The government has an obligation to act honourably, the court said. And it is dishonourable to ignore the rights of people who have lived on the land for centuries and never signed away or sold their rights. (The NDP and Liberals took the same position in this long-running case.)
Score one for the First Nations. It is now law that they have a right to serious consultation and accommodation when changes are planned for any land they are claiming. They have the right to expect proposals to be changed, or cancelled, based on their concerns.
But the court also ruled that First Nations have an obligation to participate in discussions and negotiations aimed at balancing their interests with other factors, including jobs and economic development. They can't just say no, or refuse to enter into talks. They have no veto, and ultimately the government has the right to make land use decisions.
Score one for the government.
The rulings still leave problem areas, which will likely be tested in future court cases.
What is a serious attempt at consultation, and when can government decide it's done all it can to accommodate and simply go ahead?
That depends, the Supreme Court ruled, on how strong the claim is to the land and how serious the long-term effects of development. If there's evidence to suggest that a First Nation has a strong claim to a piece of land, it has a greater right to a be involved in land use decisions. And a First Nation would get a greater say over a mine development than over a temporary road.
The standards aren't definitive, and the government would be wise to accept the court's recommendation that some form of dispute resolution be established. But at least the need for consultation has been established, and some broad guidelines set out.
The Supreme Court also ruled - usefully - that private companies don't have a legal duty to accommodate First Nations' interests. They have the right to rely on the government's efforts when they are granted the right to operate on Crown land.
All those principles were set out in a case involving a dispute between the Haida First Nation and the province and Weyerhaeuser over a timber licence on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
At the same time the court ruled on another similar issue, involving the Tlingit First Nation's opposition to a road needed to re-open a mine in the Taku River valley. The court ruled that the Tlingit had a reasonable claim to the land, and a right to consultation. But the court found that the government had made a reasonable effort to accommodate the band during a three-year environmental assessment review.
Business, First Nations and government all welcome the rulings, each praising a different aspect.
The bottom line is that the decisions remove uncertainty and force government and First Nations to face up to their obligation to deal with critical development issues.
The decisions could also help create pressure for more activity and faster progress at the treaty tables. First Nations can strengthen their right to consultation by showing the strength of their claim to traditional lands, effectively staking their claims.
And government has a powerful incentive to push forward with treaties now that it faces an increased obligation to deal with First Nations even before any agreements are in place.
Solutions are still going to be found through negotiation, not in the courts. But the Supreme Court rulings increase the chance that will happen.
Footnote: A BC Business Council report earlier this year called for the establishment of an "Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Panel" that would bring First Nations, the BC Treaty Commission, federal and provincial governments and the business council together to sort out development issues. The idea looks even more useful now..
MLAs' budget hearings a magical mystery tour
VICTORIA - That was a weird report from the legislative committee that toured the province getting ideas for the coming budget.
They were supposed to listen, and report on the results of the consultations.
But the committee - 14 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - seemed to get lost between the time they listened to people across the province and the time they wrote their report.
"During the public consultations, the finance committee heard another loud and clear message from rural British Columbia for the provincial government to invest more money in economic development," the MLAs dutifully reported. "Most of the public’s suggestions stressed the importance of enhancing opportunities for smaller, traditionally resource-based communities to diversify their local economies."
Since lots of the MLAs, including chair Bill Belsey of Prince Rupert, hail from those communities, you would think they would heed that "loud and clear" message.
Nope. Their 19 recommendations don't include coming up with economic development help for resource communities. Maybe, the committee suggests, the government could restore funding cut from a program that mapped geological formations. Oh, and it could keep building roads. But no proposal for an economic development plan targeting the needs of B.C.'s regions.
It's not just economic development.
"One message the committee heard in regards to K-to-12 education was the importance of having a class size that is optimal for both students and teachers. Parents and teachers from both rural and urban parts of the province, as well as local chambers of commerce, called for government to reduce the teacher/student ratio," the committee reported. Surely that message got through.
Nope. The committee recommended more money for special education, but offered nothing on class sizes.
How about health care? "Another plea heard by the finance committee was for funding to upgrade or, in some cases, utilize existing diagnostic and other equipment more effectively. The need for more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment was mentioned repeatedly."
But alas, the committee didn't recommend more funding for needed equipment. Instead it called for the health ministry to "encourage the health authorities to utilize existing diagnostic equipment and surgical facilities more efficiently." (A prize awaits a reader who can explain what that means.)
The committee's task was to listen to British Columbians and "report on the results of those consultations." It heard from almost 2,000 people and organizations. While it is obviously not going to act on the demands of every presenter, you'd expect some reflection of what they heard in the recommendations.
Yet in each of these three critical examples there was a consensus about what needed to happen to improve life in B.C. And without explanation the committee blew those people off.
The committee did have concrete recommendations.
It called for a debt reduction plan, which is useful enough but didn't seem to be a big theme in public presentations. (B.C.'s debt is easily manageable, but it's just common sense to pay down your debts.)
The committee says the government needs to increase funding for intermediate and long-term care beds for seniors, and provide more care and respite help services for people who are staying in their own homes. (The Liberals have failed to deliver on their promise for 5,000 new beds in this sector.)
It called for an end to the cuts that have reduced community living services for people with disabilities and more support for people with multiple barriers to employment.
And - after cuts to women's centres across the province - the committee recommended more services for women and children leaving abusive relations.
I like and admire MLAs for their willingness to take on a tough job and serve.
But despite the usefulness of some of the recommendations, this is a lame report. British Columbians went to some effort to tell the committee what they wanted for the province's future. Their commitment and passion and hope aren't reflected in the committee's recommendations.
Footnote: Based on the committee's findings, the sales tax cut should be the last tax reduction. People who used an on-line form thought only six per cent of expected surpluses should be used to fund tax cuts. They said thought 28 per cent should to health care; 34 per cent to education; and 18 per cent to other spending priorities. They said 14 per cent should go to debt repayment.
They were supposed to listen, and report on the results of the consultations.
But the committee - 14 Liberal backbenchers and New Democrat Joy MacPhail - seemed to get lost between the time they listened to people across the province and the time they wrote their report.
"During the public consultations, the finance committee heard another loud and clear message from rural British Columbia for the provincial government to invest more money in economic development," the MLAs dutifully reported. "Most of the public’s suggestions stressed the importance of enhancing opportunities for smaller, traditionally resource-based communities to diversify their local economies."
Since lots of the MLAs, including chair Bill Belsey of Prince Rupert, hail from those communities, you would think they would heed that "loud and clear" message.
Nope. Their 19 recommendations don't include coming up with economic development help for resource communities. Maybe, the committee suggests, the government could restore funding cut from a program that mapped geological formations. Oh, and it could keep building roads. But no proposal for an economic development plan targeting the needs of B.C.'s regions.
It's not just economic development.
"One message the committee heard in regards to K-to-12 education was the importance of having a class size that is optimal for both students and teachers. Parents and teachers from both rural and urban parts of the province, as well as local chambers of commerce, called for government to reduce the teacher/student ratio," the committee reported. Surely that message got through.
Nope. The committee recommended more money for special education, but offered nothing on class sizes.
How about health care? "Another plea heard by the finance committee was for funding to upgrade or, in some cases, utilize existing diagnostic and other equipment more effectively. The need for more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment was mentioned repeatedly."
But alas, the committee didn't recommend more funding for needed equipment. Instead it called for the health ministry to "encourage the health authorities to utilize existing diagnostic equipment and surgical facilities more efficiently." (A prize awaits a reader who can explain what that means.)
The committee's task was to listen to British Columbians and "report on the results of those consultations." It heard from almost 2,000 people and organizations. While it is obviously not going to act on the demands of every presenter, you'd expect some reflection of what they heard in the recommendations.
Yet in each of these three critical examples there was a consensus about what needed to happen to improve life in B.C. And without explanation the committee blew those people off.
The committee did have concrete recommendations.
It called for a debt reduction plan, which is useful enough but didn't seem to be a big theme in public presentations. (B.C.'s debt is easily manageable, but it's just common sense to pay down your debts.)
The committee says the government needs to increase funding for intermediate and long-term care beds for seniors, and provide more care and respite help services for people who are staying in their own homes. (The Liberals have failed to deliver on their promise for 5,000 new beds in this sector.)
It called for an end to the cuts that have reduced community living services for people with disabilities and more support for people with multiple barriers to employment.
And - after cuts to women's centres across the province - the committee recommended more services for women and children leaving abusive relations.
I like and admire MLAs for their willingness to take on a tough job and serve.
But despite the usefulness of some of the recommendations, this is a lame report. British Columbians went to some effort to tell the committee what they wanted for the province's future. Their commitment and passion and hope aren't reflected in the committee's recommendations.
Footnote: Based on the committee's findings, the sales tax cut should be the last tax reduction. People who used an on-line form thought only six per cent of expected surpluses should be used to fund tax cuts. They said thought 28 per cent should to health care; 34 per cent to education; and 18 per cent to other spending priorities. They said 14 per cent should go to debt repayment.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Martens' case shows need for right-to-die law
VICTORIA - It strikes me as cruel and wrong that if I am sick and suffering, with no prospects of recovery, I can't take practical steps to end my own life.
It's not a choice I would make for anyone else. And I applaud the efforts to improve palliative care, so death comes with less violence to dignity, and less suffering.
But surely each individual capable of making an informed, rational decision, has the right to decide when it is time to end their own suffering.
We have not really accepted that right in Canada. And it is time people were given the freedom to decide how much suffering they wish to bear.
I stalled on writing about the trial of Evelyn Martens, the 73-year-old woman zealously prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide, a charge that can carry a 14-year jail term. It's an issue that inevitably raises issues of belief not readily dealt with in 700 words.
Martens was acquitted this month after a long and trial and longer investigation. She was accused of helping two women commit suicide. One was a 64-year-old nun suffering from chronic pain from a spinal condition; the other was a 57-year-old woman suffering from stomach cancer, who had planned her own farewell for friends
The law is the law, and if prosecutors believed there was enough evidence to ensure a conviction they have a duty to lay charges. But the energy that went into this investigation was extraordinary. An undercover RCMP officer even pretended to be the goddaughter of one of the dead women, sobbing as she told Martens that she felt guilty about not being more caring, while secretly taping the conversation.
Suicide isn't illegal. We have accepted the individual's right to choose, at least in theory.
But practically we've robbed people of that right. Sick and weakened, how is someone to figure out the means, and gather the necessary materials? It's illegal for your doctor to provide you with effective drugs. It's tough to buy heroin from your sickbed. It's hard to find a self-inflicted death that doesn't also inflict pain on others. By the time you recognize the need, it is too late to arrange the means. (I was struck by a magazine article this year on doctors' training. The author, a physician, noted that almost all of the surgeons he had spoken to had their own means of exit in place, in case.)
It's not simple. People must be protected from moments of irrationality, or outside pressure.
But doing nothing is much crueler.
If we do nothing people will suffer in their last days, against their wills and in violation of the way they had lived every day of their lives. Or they will seek out the help of someone like Martens, with no controls or guidelines or safety.
It's not a question of throwing open the doors to all forms of assisted suicide.
Oregon has had a Death with Dignity Act since 1998, and 171 people - 30 a year - have chosen to kill themselves with legally prescribed drugs. Most of them have been cancer patients.
The safeguards ensure informed choice. The law allows the prescription of lethal drugs, but only if two doctors confirm the person has less than six months and is mentally competent to make the request.
The law is a good cautious first step.
Encouragingly almost one-third of the people who received a prescription for the lethal drugs last year didn't feel the need to use them; death came in way they could accept.
There are no simple answers.
But what are doing now is wrong.
People can decide they have had enough - when the pain, and the indignities and the hopelessness and the terror are too much. Or they can decide that each second is to be counted.
It should be a right to make that choice. And we are taking that right away from them, with crude and cruel laws.
Footnote: The Oregon law faces a challenge as a result of the U.S. election. The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law, arguing that assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” and that doctors take an oath to heal patients. Belgium and the Netherlands have different right-to-die laws.
It's not a choice I would make for anyone else. And I applaud the efforts to improve palliative care, so death comes with less violence to dignity, and less suffering.
But surely each individual capable of making an informed, rational decision, has the right to decide when it is time to end their own suffering.
We have not really accepted that right in Canada. And it is time people were given the freedom to decide how much suffering they wish to bear.
I stalled on writing about the trial of Evelyn Martens, the 73-year-old woman zealously prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide, a charge that can carry a 14-year jail term. It's an issue that inevitably raises issues of belief not readily dealt with in 700 words.
Martens was acquitted this month after a long and trial and longer investigation. She was accused of helping two women commit suicide. One was a 64-year-old nun suffering from chronic pain from a spinal condition; the other was a 57-year-old woman suffering from stomach cancer, who had planned her own farewell for friends
The law is the law, and if prosecutors believed there was enough evidence to ensure a conviction they have a duty to lay charges. But the energy that went into this investigation was extraordinary. An undercover RCMP officer even pretended to be the goddaughter of one of the dead women, sobbing as she told Martens that she felt guilty about not being more caring, while secretly taping the conversation.
Suicide isn't illegal. We have accepted the individual's right to choose, at least in theory.
But practically we've robbed people of that right. Sick and weakened, how is someone to figure out the means, and gather the necessary materials? It's illegal for your doctor to provide you with effective drugs. It's tough to buy heroin from your sickbed. It's hard to find a self-inflicted death that doesn't also inflict pain on others. By the time you recognize the need, it is too late to arrange the means. (I was struck by a magazine article this year on doctors' training. The author, a physician, noted that almost all of the surgeons he had spoken to had their own means of exit in place, in case.)
It's not simple. People must be protected from moments of irrationality, or outside pressure.
But doing nothing is much crueler.
If we do nothing people will suffer in their last days, against their wills and in violation of the way they had lived every day of their lives. Or they will seek out the help of someone like Martens, with no controls or guidelines or safety.
It's not a question of throwing open the doors to all forms of assisted suicide.
Oregon has had a Death with Dignity Act since 1998, and 171 people - 30 a year - have chosen to kill themselves with legally prescribed drugs. Most of them have been cancer patients.
The safeguards ensure informed choice. The law allows the prescription of lethal drugs, but only if two doctors confirm the person has less than six months and is mentally competent to make the request.
The law is a good cautious first step.
Encouragingly almost one-third of the people who received a prescription for the lethal drugs last year didn't feel the need to use them; death came in way they could accept.
There are no simple answers.
But what are doing now is wrong.
People can decide they have had enough - when the pain, and the indignities and the hopelessness and the terror are too much. Or they can decide that each second is to be counted.
It should be a right to make that choice. And we are taking that right away from them, with crude and cruel laws.
Footnote: The Oregon law faces a challenge as a result of the U.S. election. The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law, arguing that assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” and that doctors take an oath to heal patients. Belgium and the Netherlands have different right-to-die laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
