By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
Monday, February 23, 2004
An easy way to save young drivers' lives
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - They've been dying at an alarming rate, the young people around Victoria.
For the last 12 months it seems like every few weeks I open the newspaper to read about them, another young person killed in a car crash. Their friends manage to get up some sort of roadside shrine. But I've got kids; I'm not interested in more shrines.
Partly, it's a streak of bad luck. Across B.C., the number of young people killed in car crashes fell by almost 40 per cent between 1995 and 2001.
But that's not much comfort when you're looking at the high school grad photo of another young person who didn't have to die.
We can't solve the problem. But we could save lives, with one simple, unintrusive change to the driving rules.
Vancouver Island has had an RCMP crash team for nine months, so far studying the details of six major crashes. They don't call them accidents. That suggests some inexplicable mechanical failure, or fate. In every case reviewed so far, the crash was no accident. Someone made a bad choice and caused the wreck.
The team looks at every aspect of the crashes. Not just the road conditions, or the driver's actions, but the type of car, the role of the passengers or the friends who let someone leave a party.
All the crashes share "an incredible amount of risk-taking," says Staff Sgt. Ted Smith. Speed, drugs and alcohol, crowded cars, hot cars - all are part of the equation.
And the drivers most likely to take those risks are young. Anyone who looks back honestly will acknowledge a certain combination of stupidity and self-confidence; men will remember a sense of invincibility and a huge inability to calculate consequences.
Tough to change.
But all six crashes share one common element we could address. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute - there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," Smith recently told Victoria media.
And we can change that. For drivers with 'New' or 'Learner' status, we can make seatbelt use effectively mandatory. The offence carries a $75 fine. But the regulations could be changed to impose a 90-day licence suspension for any inexperienced caught not wearing one, with serious enforcement.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive. At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will reinforce the idea that driving is an activity with some significant risks, that calls for care and caution.
There's no discrimination here. The rules would apply to all new drivers, not young drivers. And the law requiring seatbelt use is already in place.
At the same time, the province should make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries points for drivers, instead of just a fine. Most other offences already do - including some that don't involve an actual driving error. If we're serious about the law, it's a reasonable step.
It's tough to be exact about seatbelt use. ICBC estimates about 87 per cent usage for the province as a whole. A Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C., seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
That translates into a lot of needless deaths and injuries, a significant burden on the health care system and too many tragedies for families.
There are lots of things we could consider. Vancouver Island's chief medical health officer - along with many police officers - has said the return of photo radar would save lives. The government's planned changes to impaired driving laws - killed too quickly by an ill-informed public outcry - would also have helped.
But meanwhile, changing the seatbelt rules shouldn't be difficult, or controversial. A few simple regulatory changes, a clear mandate to police ? and we've saved some lives.
Footnote: Anyone looking for more motivation should know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, ICBC gets to keep a whack of your money if you're hurt. Even if you're the innocent victim, you'll generally lose 25 per cent of any settlement if you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time of collision. An Alberta court cut one award by 75 per cent.
VICTORIA - They've been dying at an alarming rate, the young people around Victoria.
For the last 12 months it seems like every few weeks I open the newspaper to read about them, another young person killed in a car crash. Their friends manage to get up some sort of roadside shrine. But I've got kids; I'm not interested in more shrines.
Partly, it's a streak of bad luck. Across B.C., the number of young people killed in car crashes fell by almost 40 per cent between 1995 and 2001.
But that's not much comfort when you're looking at the high school grad photo of another young person who didn't have to die.
We can't solve the problem. But we could save lives, with one simple, unintrusive change to the driving rules.
Vancouver Island has had an RCMP crash team for nine months, so far studying the details of six major crashes. They don't call them accidents. That suggests some inexplicable mechanical failure, or fate. In every case reviewed so far, the crash was no accident. Someone made a bad choice and caused the wreck.
The team looks at every aspect of the crashes. Not just the road conditions, or the driver's actions, but the type of car, the role of the passengers or the friends who let someone leave a party.
All the crashes share "an incredible amount of risk-taking," says Staff Sgt. Ted Smith. Speed, drugs and alcohol, crowded cars, hot cars - all are part of the equation.
And the drivers most likely to take those risks are young. Anyone who looks back honestly will acknowledge a certain combination of stupidity and self-confidence; men will remember a sense of invincibility and a huge inability to calculate consequences.
Tough to change.
But all six crashes share one common element we could address. "The lack of seatbelts is absolute - there wasn't one crash we went to where seatbelts had been used," Smith recently told Victoria media.
And we can change that. For drivers with 'New' or 'Learner' status, we can make seatbelt use effectively mandatory. The offence carries a $75 fine. But the regulations could be changed to impose a 90-day licence suspension for any inexperienced caught not wearing one, with serious enforcement.
At the least, we'll keep some people alive. At best, the very act of putting on a seatbelt will reinforce the idea that driving is an activity with some significant risks, that calls for care and caution.
There's no discrimination here. The rules would apply to all new drivers, not young drivers. And the law requiring seatbelt use is already in place.
At the same time, the province should make failing to wear a seatbelt an offence that carries points for drivers, instead of just a fine. Most other offences already do - including some that don't involve an actual driving error. If we're serious about the law, it's a reasonable step.
It's tough to be exact about seatbelt use. ICBC estimates about 87 per cent usage for the province as a whole. A Transport Canada survey in 2002 found that in smaller communities in B.C., seatbelt use was about 80 per cent, eighth among provinces and territories.
That translates into a lot of needless deaths and injuries, a significant burden on the health care system and too many tragedies for families.
There are lots of things we could consider. Vancouver Island's chief medical health officer - along with many police officers - has said the return of photo radar would save lives. The government's planned changes to impaired driving laws - killed too quickly by an ill-informed public outcry - would also have helped.
But meanwhile, changing the seatbelt rules shouldn't be difficult, or controversial. A few simple regulatory changes, a clear mandate to police ? and we've saved some lives.
Footnote: Anyone looking for more motivation should know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, ICBC gets to keep a whack of your money if you're hurt. Even if you're the innocent victim, you'll generally lose 25 per cent of any settlement if you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time of collision. An Alberta court cut one award by 75 per cent.
Time for a B.C. health consumers' association
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
VICTORIA - I'm tired of being the forgotten person in the health care system.
We health care consumers are the only ones without a real say in the way services are delivered.
Nurses and other workers have their unions; the doctors have the BCMA; and drug companies their lobbyists. All push to advance their interests.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system, have no voice. The power people make the decisions, and trade off their goals. We have no say.
It's not fair to say that government should represent us. Any government balances a huge range of interests and pressures, and we the health care consumers are just one interest group.
Health Minister Colin Hansen thought about us, when he got in that noisy battle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors. But he also thought about the government's freeze on compensation for doctors, the businesses that want lower taxes, the people pushing other spending and his government's commitment to a balanced budget.
That's his job, and it does not involve focusing on the needs of people who use the system.
People get touchy when you talk about health care consumers, seeing some sort of political judgment in it. But that's what we are. We pay money - an average $2,700 per person for health care - and we get something in return.
We're particularly powerless consumers, because government - for sound reasons - has created an effective monopoly on health care. If I decide my local grocery store is doing a bad job, I can shop somewhere else. That can't happen with the health care system.
It's not just that we're voiceless. Because we're silenced, all sorts of special interest groups claim to advocate for consumers when they're really pushing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition, for example, does an annual report that this year linked higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. B.C. spends the most per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and has the lowest mortality rates. More money equals lives saved.
But perhaps we have a lower cancer death rate because of anti-smoking efforts, or because people are generally healthier here, or because we have a large Asian population less predisposed to cancer.
A consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
But while the cancer coalition is doing important work, it doesn't speak for consumers. It's mission is to make cancer the top health care priority, not to promote better overall health care.
It's only one of many such groups. And like almost all the other illness organizations, it depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies which have their own goals.
Drug policy expert Alan Cassels of the University of Victoria says drug company funding creates obvious conflicts for organizations dependent on millions in contributions. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
But when Health Canada holds big consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us. When the decisions are made, we're not even there.
Gordon Campbell and the other premiers talked about reinventing health care when they met in Vancouver. But the consumers need a real role in that process if it is going to work.
Australia has found a way to make it work. Its Consumers' Health Forum is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a voice. The association is a coalition of health and community groups - no providers or care workers or corporations.
It publishes articles and reports, handles complaints and speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members, and with a lean paid staff of eight.
It's time for the Consumers' Health Forum of BC, with government support and a recognized place at the table.
Footnote: The idea makes lots of people nervous. What if the forum is somehow captured by a small group, politicians worry. But the fact is that efforts to improve health care are not going to work if the end user is left out of the process.
Liberals the kings of expanded gambling
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It's bizarre to see the party that promised to stop gambling expansion now planning on slots in every corner of the province, from Fort Nelson to Prince Rupert.
That's the next phase in the government's plan to get more money from gambling.
The communities won't be getting casinos. And the government hasn't yet abandoned its oppositions to slots in bars.
Instead the next step is to put slot machines in local bingo halls, or "community gaming entertainment centres," as the BC Lottery Corp. now wants to start calling them.
There's nothing unusual in government's becoming addicted to gambling. B.C. isn't even that bad yet, compared to other provinces.
But it's downright weird that a party which opposed expanded gambling ferociously for years, pointing to the damage done, would turn out to be the gambling kings.
The Liberals New Era campaign promise was clear: "Stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Nice words, but what's happened since?
Instead of stopping the expansion, the Liberals jumped heavily into the gambling business.
When the Liberals were elected, there were 2,400 slots in 10 casinos. By the end of this year, the Liberals will have doubled the number of slot machines. (The Liberals also said they opposed slots at race tracks during the election campaign; now they're on their way.)
And when they took over, gambling netted $562 million for the government. The Liberals have increased that by 50-per-cent in three years, to $850 million this year. They want to crack the $1-billion profit mark in two years, making gambling as important to government revenues as the forest industry.
Their official explanation is lame. Solicitor General Rich Coleman told an open cabinet meeting that the NDP indicated to some casino operators, sometime, that they could someday have slots. Freezing the expansion would break these vague promises and the province might get sued, he said.
It's an ironic claim from a government that has happily ripped up real agreements. And it's simply not credible. The Liberals have worked to expand the scale and scope of gambling; they could have slowed the expansion legally and fairly by holding proponents to their original plans and schedules. Many would be gone by now.
The defense certainly doesn't cover the plan to put slots in bingo halls, providing gambling opportunities in many more towns and neighbourhoods. (We already pumped about $3.2-billion into slot machines in B.C. last year.)
The new fondness for gambling is understandable. Without the expansion since the election, the Liberals would be looking at a $200-million budget deficit this year, not a surplus.
They're looking to recruit even more gamblers, through advertising and appealing games. The BC Lottery Corp. says 59 per cent of B.C. adults bet with the corporation in a typical month. Its goal is to get that up to 65 per cent over the next four years. That's another 200,000 people persuaded to gamble. Most of them will just waste a bit of money. But according to the corporation's own figures, about 8,000 will become problem gamblers, joining 75,000 existing problem gamblers in B.C.
The Liberals used to put those people first. They warned about the damage to families, the increased crime, loan-sharking and suicides. That's why they said no gambling expansion.
The BC Lottery Corp. is just doing its job, and doing it well enough that the corporation was honoured as the 2003 BC Marketer of the Year. It has an 18-person marketing department and a $10-million budget just to get more people to play lotteries and Keno.
But it should scare us that the best marketers in the whole province are promoting gambling, in co-operation with a government that's encouraging its spread.
There's no doubt the money is good. But the Liberals used to think that wasn't enough.
Footnote: The flip-flop is breathtaking. In 1998 Gordon Campbell bristled at the idea that the Liberals might waffle on gambling. "We fought tooth and nail against their plan to bring Vegas-style gambling, slot machines and VLTs to B.C. We want an independent review of gambling and a provincial referendum. The social costs of gambling expansion -- increased crime, broken families and increased poverty -- are simply too high a price to pay."
VICTORIA - It's bizarre to see the party that promised to stop gambling expansion now planning on slots in every corner of the province, from Fort Nelson to Prince Rupert.
That's the next phase in the government's plan to get more money from gambling.
The communities won't be getting casinos. And the government hasn't yet abandoned its oppositions to slots in bars.
Instead the next step is to put slot machines in local bingo halls, or "community gaming entertainment centres," as the BC Lottery Corp. now wants to start calling them.
There's nothing unusual in government's becoming addicted to gambling. B.C. isn't even that bad yet, compared to other provinces.
But it's downright weird that a party which opposed expanded gambling ferociously for years, pointing to the damage done, would turn out to be the gambling kings.
The Liberals New Era campaign promise was clear: "Stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Nice words, but what's happened since?
Instead of stopping the expansion, the Liberals jumped heavily into the gambling business.
When the Liberals were elected, there were 2,400 slots in 10 casinos. By the end of this year, the Liberals will have doubled the number of slot machines. (The Liberals also said they opposed slots at race tracks during the election campaign; now they're on their way.)
And when they took over, gambling netted $562 million for the government. The Liberals have increased that by 50-per-cent in three years, to $850 million this year. They want to crack the $1-billion profit mark in two years, making gambling as important to government revenues as the forest industry.
Their official explanation is lame. Solicitor General Rich Coleman told an open cabinet meeting that the NDP indicated to some casino operators, sometime, that they could someday have slots. Freezing the expansion would break these vague promises and the province might get sued, he said.
It's an ironic claim from a government that has happily ripped up real agreements. And it's simply not credible. The Liberals have worked to expand the scale and scope of gambling; they could have slowed the expansion legally and fairly by holding proponents to their original plans and schedules. Many would be gone by now.
The defense certainly doesn't cover the plan to put slots in bingo halls, providing gambling opportunities in many more towns and neighbourhoods. (We already pumped about $3.2-billion into slot machines in B.C. last year.)
The new fondness for gambling is understandable. Without the expansion since the election, the Liberals would be looking at a $200-million budget deficit this year, not a surplus.
They're looking to recruit even more gamblers, through advertising and appealing games. The BC Lottery Corp. says 59 per cent of B.C. adults bet with the corporation in a typical month. Its goal is to get that up to 65 per cent over the next four years. That's another 200,000 people persuaded to gamble. Most of them will just waste a bit of money. But according to the corporation's own figures, about 8,000 will become problem gamblers, joining 75,000 existing problem gamblers in B.C.
The Liberals used to put those people first. They warned about the damage to families, the increased crime, loan-sharking and suicides. That's why they said no gambling expansion.
The BC Lottery Corp. is just doing its job, and doing it well enough that the corporation was honoured as the 2003 BC Marketer of the Year. It has an 18-person marketing department and a $10-million budget just to get more people to play lotteries and Keno.
But it should scare us that the best marketers in the whole province are promoting gambling, in co-operation with a government that's encouraging its spread.
There's no doubt the money is good. But the Liberals used to think that wasn't enough.
Footnote: The flip-flop is breathtaking. In 1998 Gordon Campbell bristled at the idea that the Liberals might waffle on gambling. "We fought tooth and nail against their plan to bring Vegas-style gambling, slot machines and VLTs to B.C. We want an independent review of gambling and a provincial referendum. The social costs of gambling expansion -- increased crime, broken families and increased poverty -- are simply too high a price to pay."
Unions, governments head toward bizarre showdown
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - RMH Teleservices wasn't ready to roll over when the BCGEU tried to sign up the 1,600 workers at its Surrey call centre.
The union launched its organizing campaign; the company campaigned right back. And things got weird, and ugly.
The resulting dispute has created the Liberals' first big battle with unions over a private sector issue. They're threatening to boycott the Labour Relations Board over its support for the company's tactics.
The Liberals have had skirmishes with private sector unions, but generally they have steered a moderate enough course to avoid the kind of major battles it's had with public sector unions.
But business did win some changes, including labour code revisions that give managers much freer rein to communicate with employees during a union drive.
Code changes in the Harcourt era had strictly limited company's right to respond to a union organizing effort. The aim was to prevent companies from intimidating employees so they wouldn't join a union. The effect was to give the union's supporters a free hand to promote the benefits of certifying, while leaving managers convinced that any but the most limited comment would see them slapped with an unfair labour practice complaint. That could result in automatic certification, or a mandatory vote even if the union had signed up only a few people.
The Liberals opened things up in 2002. And RMH is the first company to push the envelope under the new rules.
Some of the happenings were just weird. RMH projected changing messages on the walls of the huge workplace constantly for a week to encourage employees not to sign up, a move a touch reminiscent of 1984.
Some seemed harmless enough. Management handed out frisbees and other toys with printed messages questioning the union claims.
And some were ugly. The company's big Surrey parking lot was the scene of several encounters where anti-union employees abused women organizers with vicious and obscene insults.
The result was a string of union complaints to the LRB, charging the company with unfair labour practices in its attempts to persuade employees not to sign a union membership card.
My guess is that the complaints would have been upheld in the past.
But LRB vice-chair Ken Saunders tossed them, finding that the company's activities hadn't violated the labour code. Employees had no reason to feel coerced or threatened by the company's efforts, he said, and that's the test.
Business leaders approve. Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association says companies should be able to make their case, like the union, and the employees can decide. "They're not children," he adds.
Union leaders don't. BCGEU head George Heyman says the campaign - especially the parking lot abuse - was threatening. The employees were left believing that the company was dead opposed to a union. They were left to wonder, the union suggests, whether the phone centre would close if employees unionized.
The unions have asked the Labour Board to reconsider the decision. If not, the BC Federation of Labour has threatened a boycott of the LRB, the referee in labour disputes.
One way or another, the issue is going to end up back in the lap of Labour Minister Graham Bruce. When he gave companies more latitude to communicate, Bruce said some ground rules might be needed. He raised the idea of supervised forums where both company and union would get a chance to make their pitch.
None of those regulations ever appeared. Bruce says he was waiting to see how the changes worked out on the ground.
It's time for some action. The Liberals have done an adept job at changing the labour environment without sending the pendulum swinging back wildly toward the employers' side. That stability is good for the province.
But in the RMH ruling, the pendulum has taken too big a swing. Bruce needs to find the balance point again.
Footnote: Both sides have have signed on for this battle, with most major business organizations planning to apply for intervenor status if the labour board does hold a gearing to reconsider the decision. It's being viewed by many unions and employers as a test of where the Liberals are likely to go with their next round of labour changes.
VICTORIA - RMH Teleservices wasn't ready to roll over when the BCGEU tried to sign up the 1,600 workers at its Surrey call centre.
The union launched its organizing campaign; the company campaigned right back. And things got weird, and ugly.
The resulting dispute has created the Liberals' first big battle with unions over a private sector issue. They're threatening to boycott the Labour Relations Board over its support for the company's tactics.
The Liberals have had skirmishes with private sector unions, but generally they have steered a moderate enough course to avoid the kind of major battles it's had with public sector unions.
But business did win some changes, including labour code revisions that give managers much freer rein to communicate with employees during a union drive.
Code changes in the Harcourt era had strictly limited company's right to respond to a union organizing effort. The aim was to prevent companies from intimidating employees so they wouldn't join a union. The effect was to give the union's supporters a free hand to promote the benefits of certifying, while leaving managers convinced that any but the most limited comment would see them slapped with an unfair labour practice complaint. That could result in automatic certification, or a mandatory vote even if the union had signed up only a few people.
The Liberals opened things up in 2002. And RMH is the first company to push the envelope under the new rules.
Some of the happenings were just weird. RMH projected changing messages on the walls of the huge workplace constantly for a week to encourage employees not to sign up, a move a touch reminiscent of 1984.
Some seemed harmless enough. Management handed out frisbees and other toys with printed messages questioning the union claims.
And some were ugly. The company's big Surrey parking lot was the scene of several encounters where anti-union employees abused women organizers with vicious and obscene insults.
The result was a string of union complaints to the LRB, charging the company with unfair labour practices in its attempts to persuade employees not to sign a union membership card.
My guess is that the complaints would have been upheld in the past.
But LRB vice-chair Ken Saunders tossed them, finding that the company's activities hadn't violated the labour code. Employees had no reason to feel coerced or threatened by the company's efforts, he said, and that's the test.
Business leaders approve. Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association says companies should be able to make their case, like the union, and the employees can decide. "They're not children," he adds.
Union leaders don't. BCGEU head George Heyman says the campaign - especially the parking lot abuse - was threatening. The employees were left believing that the company was dead opposed to a union. They were left to wonder, the union suggests, whether the phone centre would close if employees unionized.
The unions have asked the Labour Board to reconsider the decision. If not, the BC Federation of Labour has threatened a boycott of the LRB, the referee in labour disputes.
One way or another, the issue is going to end up back in the lap of Labour Minister Graham Bruce. When he gave companies more latitude to communicate, Bruce said some ground rules might be needed. He raised the idea of supervised forums where both company and union would get a chance to make their pitch.
None of those regulations ever appeared. Bruce says he was waiting to see how the changes worked out on the ground.
It's time for some action. The Liberals have done an adept job at changing the labour environment without sending the pendulum swinging back wildly toward the employers' side. That stability is good for the province.
But in the RMH ruling, the pendulum has taken too big a swing. Bruce needs to find the balance point again.
Footnote: Both sides have have signed on for this battle, with most major business organizations planning to apply for intervenor status if the labour board does hold a gearing to reconsider the decision. It's being viewed by many unions and employers as a test of where the Liberals are likely to go with their next round of labour changes.
Tax cuts for rich in budget, but rest will pay more
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Add to your list of regional grievances the news that taxes are going up for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians this year, while their better-off neighbours get another tax break.
Since their first day in office, when Premier Gordon Campbell cut income taxes by 25 per cent, the Liberals have been accused of favouring higher-income British Columbians with their policies.
So far, they've been able to point out that while the rich may have done the best from the changes, all British Columbians have seen their taxes go down.
Until this year. The budget documents reveal that while total provincial taxes were reduced for people with big incomes, low and middle-income British Columbians will pay more as a result of this bydget.
The New Democrats raised the issue. But there's no spin. The numbers are straight from the budget, which always includes tables showing the taxes that will be paid by half-a-dozen typical households. The report pulls in all taxes - income tax, sales tax, MSP premiums.
It provides a review for three typical families, each with both parents working and two children.
A family with a household income of $90,000 will get another tax cut, worth about $150. But a family with income of $60,000 will pay $130 more than they did last year. A family with $30,000 will pay $435 more.
That's a big hit for a family that's already on the edge, almost an entire week's income gone to pay higher taxes.
It's not just families. A single person making $80,000 a year got another tax cut this year, but two seniors living together on combined pensions of $30,000 will pay more in taxes.
Yes, says Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe, but everyone is still paying lower taxes than they did before the 2001 tax cuts.
But the benefits aren't evenly distributed. The family raising two children on $90,000 have seen their tax bill fall by 15-per-cent under the Liberals - about $1,600. The family attempting the same feat on $30,000 has had a five-per-cent tax reduction, or about $200.
The Liberals have reduced taxes across the board. But they have also shifted the burden of paying for government services from high-income British Columbians to the rest of us by bumping fees and flat taxes.
Economically, this may make sense. There is no significant economic benefit to cutting tax rates for middle-income earners. Cutting taxes for them means they'll spend the money, not the government, but that doesn't generate increased economic activity. They're not going to move here to save a few hundred dollars in taxes.
But you can make a sound case that targeted tax cuts aimed at the top end can help attract investment and the kind of people who create jobs. The theory is that a competitive tax structure may make it worthwhile for those people to set up shop here, not in Alberta.
There's no right answer about how much each person should pay. But B.C. does appear to be out of step with other provinces. A single person in B.C. being paid $80,000 a year will pay slightly less in provincial taxes this year here than he would in Alberta. But that family of four earning $30,000 would pay twice as much in B.C. as they would on the other side of the Rockies.
Take average taxes for Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and the story is the same. Seniors living on $30,000 pays six per cent less in B.C. than the average rate for the other provinces. The $90,000 family pays 29 per cent less.
Why is it a regional issue? Because the people paying more tend to live outside Greater Vancouver, which has a higher household income. The effect has been to leave more dollars in their hands, while this year taking dollars away from B.C.'s regional communities.
The government can take a shot at making its case for shifting more of the tax dollars onto the middle class.
But it's not something I'd be happy to campaign on, heading into an increasingly difficult election.
Footnote: Thorpe was also not eager to defend the tax increases. He dodged the issue in the legislature, than ducked reporters waiting to hear the government's position by scooting out a side door of the chamber. The Liberals need a better response than a vanishing act.
VICTORIA - Add to your list of regional grievances the news that taxes are going up for middle-income and lower-income British Columbians this year, while their better-off neighbours get another tax break.
Since their first day in office, when Premier Gordon Campbell cut income taxes by 25 per cent, the Liberals have been accused of favouring higher-income British Columbians with their policies.
So far, they've been able to point out that while the rich may have done the best from the changes, all British Columbians have seen their taxes go down.
Until this year. The budget documents reveal that while total provincial taxes were reduced for people with big incomes, low and middle-income British Columbians will pay more as a result of this bydget.
The New Democrats raised the issue. But there's no spin. The numbers are straight from the budget, which always includes tables showing the taxes that will be paid by half-a-dozen typical households. The report pulls in all taxes - income tax, sales tax, MSP premiums.
It provides a review for three typical families, each with both parents working and two children.
A family with a household income of $90,000 will get another tax cut, worth about $150. But a family with income of $60,000 will pay $130 more than they did last year. A family with $30,000 will pay $435 more.
That's a big hit for a family that's already on the edge, almost an entire week's income gone to pay higher taxes.
It's not just families. A single person making $80,000 a year got another tax cut this year, but two seniors living together on combined pensions of $30,000 will pay more in taxes.
Yes, says Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe, but everyone is still paying lower taxes than they did before the 2001 tax cuts.
But the benefits aren't evenly distributed. The family raising two children on $90,000 have seen their tax bill fall by 15-per-cent under the Liberals - about $1,600. The family attempting the same feat on $30,000 has had a five-per-cent tax reduction, or about $200.
The Liberals have reduced taxes across the board. But they have also shifted the burden of paying for government services from high-income British Columbians to the rest of us by bumping fees and flat taxes.
Economically, this may make sense. There is no significant economic benefit to cutting tax rates for middle-income earners. Cutting taxes for them means they'll spend the money, not the government, but that doesn't generate increased economic activity. They're not going to move here to save a few hundred dollars in taxes.
But you can make a sound case that targeted tax cuts aimed at the top end can help attract investment and the kind of people who create jobs. The theory is that a competitive tax structure may make it worthwhile for those people to set up shop here, not in Alberta.
There's no right answer about how much each person should pay. But B.C. does appear to be out of step with other provinces. A single person in B.C. being paid $80,000 a year will pay slightly less in provincial taxes this year here than he would in Alberta. But that family of four earning $30,000 would pay twice as much in B.C. as they would on the other side of the Rockies.
Take average taxes for Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and the story is the same. Seniors living on $30,000 pays six per cent less in B.C. than the average rate for the other provinces. The $90,000 family pays 29 per cent less.
Why is it a regional issue? Because the people paying more tend to live outside Greater Vancouver, which has a higher household income. The effect has been to leave more dollars in their hands, while this year taking dollars away from B.C.'s regional communities.
The government can take a shot at making its case for shifting more of the tax dollars onto the middle class.
But it's not something I'd be happy to campaign on, heading into an increasingly difficult election.
Footnote: Thorpe was also not eager to defend the tax increases. He dodged the issue in the legislature, than ducked reporters waiting to hear the government's position by scooting out a side door of the chamber. The Liberals need a better response than a vanishing act.
Question Period makes Liberal MLAs look foolish
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - I admire MLAs. They work hard, they're committed and they sacrifice a huge amount to serve.
Maybe that's why I get so worked up when I see them behaving badly. Like Mike Hunter, Rob Nijjar, Randy Hawes and Jeff Bray.
When this session started, and those four MLAs got the chance to stand up in Question Period and ask the premier or any cabinet minister a question on behalf of their constituents, they blew it.
Question Period is only 15 minutes a day. It's precious time, when backbenchers stand on equal footing with the big guys, and the reporters - and some TV viewers - are paying close attention.
So what did they want to know, this quartet? They're bright; they represent Nanaimo, Vancouver, Mission, and Victoria respectively. You would expect insightful questions, a reflection of what people who live in their communities really want to know about the government's direction.
Instead you got posturing.
On Feb. 12 Hawes and Bray had their moment, and used it to ask Finance Minister Gary Collins to respond to on a budget commentary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a leftish alternative to the Fraser Institute. On Feb. 16, Nijjar had the spotlight, able to ask any question on behalf of his community. He asked Collins to reflect on the same CCPA budget commentary.
On Feb. 17, Hunter had his chance to ask questions on behalf of the people of Nanaimo. He asked Economic Development Minister John Les to comment on the same CCPA budget commentary.
I accept that the Liberals are looking for ways to paint Carole James as fiscally irresponsible. Lord knows, based on the last NDP government's track record, that's a genuine concern for voters.
And I accept that the NDP government's decision to award $200,000 in grants to the CCPA in the last days before the election looks dubious, and makes the association an easy target.
I'm even willing to accept the fact that Liberal MLAs kept picking away at the CCPA report in the so-called debate on the budget. Some day MLAs may actually offer their real insights and analysis in even routine debates, but the reality is that for now debates are generally a political performance. The Liberals want to convince people that the New Democrats are tax-and-spend wastrels. The CCPA proposals include a range of tax and fee increases. By claiming those are the New Democrat positions, the Liberals hope to convince voters that it's true or force NDP leader Carole James to offer more specifics.
But Question Period should be special. Traditionally, the opposition grills the government. But with the two-person NDP opposition limited to one set of questions each, Liberal backbenchers have had a chance to represent their constituents.
I don't expect them to try and embarrass ministers; but there is every reason to expect them to raise important local issues, and to push for answers and results.
And the best the quartet can do is asked repetitive, silly questions.
It's not just this issue.
Liberal MLAs regularly embarrass themselves with scripted softball questions that could be roughly summarized as "Could the minister tell us what a great job he's doing?" They virtually never follow up, or press for more detail
I don't want to be seen as critical of the MLAs. They are all working harder for their communities than I ever have, and accomplishing more. I accept their assurances that they are pressing hard for their communities behind the scenes. And they certainly have a role in helping the government's PR efforts.
But some of the crueler people in the Press gallery describe their daily Question Period efforts as "stooge questions."
They're right. And the MLAs deserve better, as do the people they represent.
Ultimately, the Liberals would also find that some real, effective public representation from backbenchers would help reverse the party's long slide in the opinion polls.
Footnote: The Liberals have engineered Question Period as a showcase for the competence of cabinet ministers and the government. In the process, they've made their backbench MLAs - many facing tough re-election battles - look like people who have no idea what's important to their communities. It's inaccurate and unfair.
VICTORIA - I admire MLAs. They work hard, they're committed and they sacrifice a huge amount to serve.
Maybe that's why I get so worked up when I see them behaving badly. Like Mike Hunter, Rob Nijjar, Randy Hawes and Jeff Bray.
When this session started, and those four MLAs got the chance to stand up in Question Period and ask the premier or any cabinet minister a question on behalf of their constituents, they blew it.
Question Period is only 15 minutes a day. It's precious time, when backbenchers stand on equal footing with the big guys, and the reporters - and some TV viewers - are paying close attention.
So what did they want to know, this quartet? They're bright; they represent Nanaimo, Vancouver, Mission, and Victoria respectively. You would expect insightful questions, a reflection of what people who live in their communities really want to know about the government's direction.
Instead you got posturing.
On Feb. 12 Hawes and Bray had their moment, and used it to ask Finance Minister Gary Collins to respond to on a budget commentary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a leftish alternative to the Fraser Institute. On Feb. 16, Nijjar had the spotlight, able to ask any question on behalf of his community. He asked Collins to reflect on the same CCPA budget commentary.
On Feb. 17, Hunter had his chance to ask questions on behalf of the people of Nanaimo. He asked Economic Development Minister John Les to comment on the same CCPA budget commentary.
I accept that the Liberals are looking for ways to paint Carole James as fiscally irresponsible. Lord knows, based on the last NDP government's track record, that's a genuine concern for voters.
And I accept that the NDP government's decision to award $200,000 in grants to the CCPA in the last days before the election looks dubious, and makes the association an easy target.
I'm even willing to accept the fact that Liberal MLAs kept picking away at the CCPA report in the so-called debate on the budget. Some day MLAs may actually offer their real insights and analysis in even routine debates, but the reality is that for now debates are generally a political performance. The Liberals want to convince people that the New Democrats are tax-and-spend wastrels. The CCPA proposals include a range of tax and fee increases. By claiming those are the New Democrat positions, the Liberals hope to convince voters that it's true or force NDP leader Carole James to offer more specifics.
But Question Period should be special. Traditionally, the opposition grills the government. But with the two-person NDP opposition limited to one set of questions each, Liberal backbenchers have had a chance to represent their constituents.
I don't expect them to try and embarrass ministers; but there is every reason to expect them to raise important local issues, and to push for answers and results.
And the best the quartet can do is asked repetitive, silly questions.
It's not just this issue.
Liberal MLAs regularly embarrass themselves with scripted softball questions that could be roughly summarized as "Could the minister tell us what a great job he's doing?" They virtually never follow up, or press for more detail
I don't want to be seen as critical of the MLAs. They are all working harder for their communities than I ever have, and accomplishing more. I accept their assurances that they are pressing hard for their communities behind the scenes. And they certainly have a role in helping the government's PR efforts.
But some of the crueler people in the Press gallery describe their daily Question Period efforts as "stooge questions."
They're right. And the MLAs deserve better, as do the people they represent.
Ultimately, the Liberals would also find that some real, effective public representation from backbenchers would help reverse the party's long slide in the opinion polls.
Footnote: The Liberals have engineered Question Period as a showcase for the competence of cabinet ministers and the government. In the process, they've made their backbench MLAs - many facing tough re-election battles - look like people who have no idea what's important to their communities. It's inaccurate and unfair.
Poll shows Liberals face a Heartland massacre
Poll shows Liberals face a Heartland massacre
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Liberal MLAs across the so-called Heartlands are going to be dropping like flies in next May's election unless things change in the next 14 months.
The latest poll results are encouraging for the NDP on a bunch of levels. The New Democrats and Liberals were in a dead heat in the Mustel Group poll. Each has a 40-per-cent share of decided voters.
That's a remarkable recovery from the NDP's richly deserved defeat in 2001. The party has never had this much support in the 13 years Mustel has been releasing poll results. The closest they came was in 1996, when the party hit 39 per cent - and won a majority of seats in the election.
The poll was taken just before the balanced budget was introduced, after a particularly rough patch for the Liberals marked by Gordon Hogg's resignation as children and families minister and police raids on the legislature offices of top Liberal aides.
But the poll isn't a blip. It continues a steady erosion of Liberal support.
The news is especially grim for MLAs from outside the Lower Mainland.
In Greater Vancouver, the Liberals still have a lead, with their support at 44 per cent and the NDP at 37 per cent.
But move outside the big city and voters are deserting the Liberals. In the rest of the province the NDP stands at 43 per cent and the Liberals are at 35 per cent. That means some 30 Liberal MLAs are looking at getting turfed by the voters.
The late and unlamented Heartlands strategy was supposed to improve things. It didn't work.
Publicly, the Liberals are downplaying the significance of the poll. They note - rightly - that mid-term governments tend to be unpopular, and that they have made many tough decisions.
Except this isn't a mid-term government. The election is barely a year away, and it's going to be another tough year. Government cuts are still working through the system; health care faces a major crisis this summer; and more schools are slated to be closed.
Some Liberals are also hoping that NDP support will fade once voters start thinking more seriously about the election and the party's platform becomes more specific. They hope that Carole James' inexperience will also be a factor.
But it would be more useful for the Liberals to look at why so many people have decided that they can no longer support them.
Just before the election, a Mustel poll found 87-per-cent support for the Liberals in the northwest and Interior. Since then six out of every 10 people who supported the party have changed their minds.
When that many of your fellow citizens are disappointed in your government, it's time to pay attention, and act.
Campbell thinks the government is doing a good job and people are just wrong. (As he thinks he's right and the public is wrong on whether the BC Rail sale is a broken promise.)
But next May it's the people who will decide who gets to represent them in the legislature. And based on voter attitudes today, many of those Liberal MLAs elected in 2001 won't be around for a second term.
The lack of support isn't hard to explain. B.C.'s regions have been hit hardest by service cuts, and seen the fewest economic benefits. They see big money - including some Ottawa says was supposed to go to rural infrastructure - being spent on the Lower Mainland and the Olympics.
And the government - despite efforts by some MLAs - has a strongly urban face. Vancouver is well-represented in the power positions at the cabinet table - Campbell, Colin Hansen, Geoff Plant, Christy Clark, Rich Coleman,
Gary Collins.
But it's harder to pick one or two cabinet ministers, with clout, who come to voters' minds quickly as the champions of the rest of the province.
A lot can change. But right now, the Liberals are in big trouble beyond the Lower Mainland.
Footnote: The wild cards in the election are the other parties. In 1996, a strong Reform vote hurt the Liberals. In 2001, Green support cost the NDP seats. According to the latest poll, the Greens have slumped to eight-per-cent support; the various fringe parties on the right have the support of 10 per cent of voters. Bad news for the Liberals.
Campbell has let down his own MLAs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure you should be grumpy about the money wasted in having eight MLAs fly in to Victoria for a pointless five-minute meeting.
But you should be grumpier that Gordon Campbell has broken his promise to give MLAs real power through active committees working on big issues. He used to be horrified that the NDP government didn't let the health and education committees meet. But now things aren't much different.
The health committee had been sidelined for a year when the legislature asked for a report on how to promote a healthier lifestyle, and whether the effort would pay off in savings. (A pretty good topic.) That was in December.
At the end of January, the committee met for 40 minutes and floundered. Their term officially expires March 31. There wasn't enough time to get anything done, they worried, especially on such a huge topic. Everyone went away to think.
And In February, the committee met again - for less than 10 minutes - and threw in the towel. Fuzzy mandate, no money, no time. Let's forget it.
New Democrat Joy MacPhail raised a good question. If the committee had already concluded it couldn't do anything, why waste money having people fly in for a non-meeting? A phone conference or email exchange could have saved taxpayers' money and MLAs time. "It's a waste of money," said MacPhail.
Point taken, said deputy chair Blair Suffredine. The meeting is adjourned.
The wasted money is irritating, but mistakes happen.
What's more irritating is that the committee didn't find some part of its mandate it could attack, some process it could start now that could continue after March 31 when the committee is re-appointed.
What a chance. Decide to look at automotive advertising, with cars racing along twisting highways or skidding across a desert, and how it affects young drivers. Or the relative sports participation rates in several communities, why they differ and whether the active communities have lower health care costs. Or why kids quit minor sports, or why seniors drop out of exercise programs. Just do something.
They aren't slackers, the 13 MLAs on the committee. Chair Susan Brice even said way back in April that she was disappointed the committee hadn't been given any assignment. If they thought they could have accomplished something useful, I expect they still would have gone ahead.
And that's the more serious problem. They didn't think their work would be useful; why else would they bail on the task?
Which leads back to the premier's promise to make legislature committees more effective. It hasn't happened and the direction has been backward since the Liberals' first year.
The aboriginal affairs committee, chaired by John Les, got the job of trying to come up with appropriate referendum questions. Its recommendations, made in November, 2001, were rejected. It hasn't done anything since, even though there is no shortage of issues to examine or MLAs with a keen interest.
The education committee was asked to do a general report in 2001. It has done nothing in the last two years. I've talked to MLAs with keen interest in improving results in rural schools, addressing key issues in the first years of school, developing work skills. Any one of those would be an appropriate issue for the committee to review, and produce recommendations.
And the health committee last met for any real purpose in 2002.
The promise was "a vital role in policy-making" for legislative committees, which would be able to travel the province. The reality is pretty much the status quo.
It's a loss. MLAs - from any party - know a lot about their community and bring commitment and a wide range of life experiences. The kind of committees Campbell promised - but hasn't delivered - would give them the chance to make a valuable contribution to policy development.
Footnote: MLAs point out that they play a strong role in caucus and in government caucus committees on health and other issues. But those meetings are generally secret. Backbenchers deserve a chance to be seen setting policy, and representing their communities. We are at a crisis in democracy in Canada; the premier has failed to follow through on a commitment that would help address the problem.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Liberal MLAs across the so-called Heartlands are going to be dropping like flies in next May's election unless things change in the next 14 months.
The latest poll results are encouraging for the NDP on a bunch of levels. The New Democrats and Liberals were in a dead heat in the Mustel Group poll. Each has a 40-per-cent share of decided voters.
That's a remarkable recovery from the NDP's richly deserved defeat in 2001. The party has never had this much support in the 13 years Mustel has been releasing poll results. The closest they came was in 1996, when the party hit 39 per cent - and won a majority of seats in the election.
The poll was taken just before the balanced budget was introduced, after a particularly rough patch for the Liberals marked by Gordon Hogg's resignation as children and families minister and police raids on the legislature offices of top Liberal aides.
But the poll isn't a blip. It continues a steady erosion of Liberal support.
The news is especially grim for MLAs from outside the Lower Mainland.
In Greater Vancouver, the Liberals still have a lead, with their support at 44 per cent and the NDP at 37 per cent.
But move outside the big city and voters are deserting the Liberals. In the rest of the province the NDP stands at 43 per cent and the Liberals are at 35 per cent. That means some 30 Liberal MLAs are looking at getting turfed by the voters.
The late and unlamented Heartlands strategy was supposed to improve things. It didn't work.
Publicly, the Liberals are downplaying the significance of the poll. They note - rightly - that mid-term governments tend to be unpopular, and that they have made many tough decisions.
Except this isn't a mid-term government. The election is barely a year away, and it's going to be another tough year. Government cuts are still working through the system; health care faces a major crisis this summer; and more schools are slated to be closed.
Some Liberals are also hoping that NDP support will fade once voters start thinking more seriously about the election and the party's platform becomes more specific. They hope that Carole James' inexperience will also be a factor.
But it would be more useful for the Liberals to look at why so many people have decided that they can no longer support them.
Just before the election, a Mustel poll found 87-per-cent support for the Liberals in the northwest and Interior. Since then six out of every 10 people who supported the party have changed their minds.
When that many of your fellow citizens are disappointed in your government, it's time to pay attention, and act.
Campbell thinks the government is doing a good job and people are just wrong. (As he thinks he's right and the public is wrong on whether the BC Rail sale is a broken promise.)
But next May it's the people who will decide who gets to represent them in the legislature. And based on voter attitudes today, many of those Liberal MLAs elected in 2001 won't be around for a second term.
The lack of support isn't hard to explain. B.C.'s regions have been hit hardest by service cuts, and seen the fewest economic benefits. They see big money - including some Ottawa says was supposed to go to rural infrastructure - being spent on the Lower Mainland and the Olympics.
And the government - despite efforts by some MLAs - has a strongly urban face. Vancouver is well-represented in the power positions at the cabinet table - Campbell, Colin Hansen, Geoff Plant, Christy Clark, Rich Coleman,
Gary Collins.
But it's harder to pick one or two cabinet ministers, with clout, who come to voters' minds quickly as the champions of the rest of the province.
A lot can change. But right now, the Liberals are in big trouble beyond the Lower Mainland.
Footnote: The wild cards in the election are the other parties. In 1996, a strong Reform vote hurt the Liberals. In 2001, Green support cost the NDP seats. According to the latest poll, the Greens have slumped to eight-per-cent support; the various fringe parties on the right have the support of 10 per cent of voters. Bad news for the Liberals.
Campbell has let down his own MLAs
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Sure you should be grumpy about the money wasted in having eight MLAs fly in to Victoria for a pointless five-minute meeting.
But you should be grumpier that Gordon Campbell has broken his promise to give MLAs real power through active committees working on big issues. He used to be horrified that the NDP government didn't let the health and education committees meet. But now things aren't much different.
The health committee had been sidelined for a year when the legislature asked for a report on how to promote a healthier lifestyle, and whether the effort would pay off in savings. (A pretty good topic.) That was in December.
At the end of January, the committee met for 40 minutes and floundered. Their term officially expires March 31. There wasn't enough time to get anything done, they worried, especially on such a huge topic. Everyone went away to think.
And In February, the committee met again - for less than 10 minutes - and threw in the towel. Fuzzy mandate, no money, no time. Let's forget it.
New Democrat Joy MacPhail raised a good question. If the committee had already concluded it couldn't do anything, why waste money having people fly in for a non-meeting? A phone conference or email exchange could have saved taxpayers' money and MLAs time. "It's a waste of money," said MacPhail.
Point taken, said deputy chair Blair Suffredine. The meeting is adjourned.
The wasted money is irritating, but mistakes happen.
What's more irritating is that the committee didn't find some part of its mandate it could attack, some process it could start now that could continue after March 31 when the committee is re-appointed.
What a chance. Decide to look at automotive advertising, with cars racing along twisting highways or skidding across a desert, and how it affects young drivers. Or the relative sports participation rates in several communities, why they differ and whether the active communities have lower health care costs. Or why kids quit minor sports, or why seniors drop out of exercise programs. Just do something.
They aren't slackers, the 13 MLAs on the committee. Chair Susan Brice even said way back in April that she was disappointed the committee hadn't been given any assignment. If they thought they could have accomplished something useful, I expect they still would have gone ahead.
And that's the more serious problem. They didn't think their work would be useful; why else would they bail on the task?
Which leads back to the premier's promise to make legislature committees more effective. It hasn't happened and the direction has been backward since the Liberals' first year.
The aboriginal affairs committee, chaired by John Les, got the job of trying to come up with appropriate referendum questions. Its recommendations, made in November, 2001, were rejected. It hasn't done anything since, even though there is no shortage of issues to examine or MLAs with a keen interest.
The education committee was asked to do a general report in 2001. It has done nothing in the last two years. I've talked to MLAs with keen interest in improving results in rural schools, addressing key issues in the first years of school, developing work skills. Any one of those would be an appropriate issue for the committee to review, and produce recommendations.
And the health committee last met for any real purpose in 2002.
The promise was "a vital role in policy-making" for legislative committees, which would be able to travel the province. The reality is pretty much the status quo.
It's a loss. MLAs - from any party - know a lot about their community and bring commitment and a wide range of life experiences. The kind of committees Campbell promised - but hasn't delivered - would give them the chance to make a valuable contribution to policy development.
Footnote: MLAs point out that they play a strong role in caucus and in government caucus committees on health and other issues. But those meetings are generally secret. Backbenchers deserve a chance to be seen setting policy, and representing their communities. We are at a crisis in democracy in Canada; the premier has failed to follow through on a commitment that would help address the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
