VICTORIA - The NDP and the Liberals have been slagging each other over whether the government is selling off B.C. natural gas reserves too cheaply.
The NDP says royalty rate cuts worth about $240 million to oil companies since 2003 have been too generous. The Liberals say the New Democrats are “clueless” and the industry wouldn’t be as active without the special deals.
The whole affair is a reminder of why B.C. needs a heritage fund for a chunk of B.C.’s energy revenues.
The B.C. government cut the price of some of our natural gas reserves in 2003 to encourage companies to get the resources out of the ground quickly.
Across the country, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is raising prices on his province’s offshore oil reserves. If the energy companies don’t want to pay, that’s fine, he says. The oil will be worth more in the future anyway.
It’s a dilemma faced by anyone setting prices, even if you’re just trying to sell an old car. Too high and buyers may go elsewhere. Too low, and you give away money that you could have had. There's no easy formula.
The government put some of B.C.’s gas reserves on sale in mid-2003, cutting prices to encourage companies to step up their operations. The deals have cost taxpayers about $240 million. But the ministry figures that the activity they sparked was worth $900 million in additional revenue to the province — plus a lot of jobs in the northeast.
The discounts seem sensible. Companies got a lower rate for drilling deeper wells to get gas, for example, as an incentive to take on the challenge.
Another program cut royalty rates once the amount of gas coming from a well fell below a threshold. The idea was that companies would be encouraged to keep on pumping gas, instead of capping wells. Even at a lower rate, the province would get more money.
Based on the ministry’s analysis, the discounts worked.
But the Liberals’ claim the NDP was “clueless” for questioning the cuts looks shaky. This week the Alberta government announced it’s changing four royalty programs because oil and gas companies aren’t paying enough. The changes will bring in an extra $186 million a year.
Alberta’s equivalent of the deep-well and low-volume well discounts that I just described are getting an overhaul to increase the amount the oil companies pay. Alberta’s Conservative government and the NDP are on the same page.
Ultimately government has to makes the pricing decisions based on the best advice of professional staff.
But there is a built-in conflict of interest.
These are non-renewable resources that will appreciate in value. It may be in the overall public interest to hold out for the best price, even if that means waiting.
But governments face short-term pressures. They may be tempted to cut royalties to get cash quickly to pay tor today’s problems - even if it’s not in the province’s long-term interest.
A heritage fund reduces that pressure. If a chunk of oil and gas revenues are going into a fund to cushion future economic bumps, then governments face less temptation to cut royalties in a bid for quick cash.
A heritage fund also helps prepare for the day the oil and gas run out. There’s been a steady growth in identified gas reserves, but B.C’s. known reserves only support 16 more years of production at current rates. The government’s natural gas revenues were $100 million a decade ago. This year they will be $2.3 billion. In 20 years, no one knows.
And a fund would acknowledge that these resources should be creating benefits for future generations, not just for the people who happened to around while they lasted. It’s not a wacky idea. The BC Progress Board said last year the government should be looking at a heritage fund.
Now is the time to start.
Footnote: Neufeld says the measures have worked. More than 1,400 oil and gas wells were drilled in B.C. last year, more than double the 2002 total, the last full year before the royalty cuts. But it’s difficult to isolate the effect of the discounts. Natural gas prices were almost four times higher in 2005 than they were in 2002, a large factor in companies’ eagerness to develop the resource.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Battling researcher proves a sea-lice point
VICTORIA - Alexandra Morton has taken some serious abuse for her research showing that sea lice from fish farms were killing wild salmon.
“Questionable research methods,” critics said. “Blatant misrepresentations.” Unqualified and biased.
Turns out she was right. The question now is what are the federal and provincial governments are going to do about it?
Morton lives in the Broughton Archipelago, the dense scattering of islands off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. She moved there to study whales 27 years ago and has been doing research ever since.
In the last few years she has been alarmed at the spread of sea lice from salmon farms on to migrating wild salmon. The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they’re a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they’re life-threatening.
Morton didn’t just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean. Her work has been peer-reviewed and published.
But the critics kept sniping. The provincial government ordered some fish farms along the migration emptied for a few months as a precautionary measure. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong. Governments said nothing was proven.
So Morton launched a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act, charging a company and federal and provincial governments with releasing sea lice into the salmon habitat, harming the wild fish.
Private prosecutions rarely go ahead. Generally, the Crown takes over the case and stays the charges.
This time, because the province was charged, an outside lawyer, Bill Smart, was named special prosecutor. He decided to hire an independent science expert to review Morton’s research and look at the allegations.
And the expert, Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, found she was right.
Morton alleged the salmon farm was releasing millions of sea lice a month. Whoriskey calculated the farm would produce 55 million sea lice eggs per year. Studies had found 95 per cent of sea lice off a section of Ireland’s coast came from salmon farms.
Morton charged that sea lice from the farm infected passing young salmon. Whoriskey, after reviewing her research and studies from around the world, concluded that is also true.
And Morton alleged that the pink salmon smolts were vulnerable to sea lice and many were killed. There hasn’t been a definitive study, Whoriskey reported, but sea lice infestations have found to weaken and kill young salmon.
Whoriskey summed up. “The evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon,” he found.
And the independent expert also commented on her research. “Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work,” he wrote. It meets “the globally accepted procedure for good science.”
Smart, the special prosecutor, said Morton’s charges were sound and raised an important public issue. “It appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton’s assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago”, he reported. “There may be debates about the extent of the problem or risk, those debates cannot obscure the existence of the problem itself.“
Smart still decided the prosecution shouldn’t go ahead because convictions were unlikely. The law prohibits the release of harmful species, but the sea lice weren’t really released. And the company could argue that it had obeyed all the governments’ rules.
But he noted that while he had to apply a strict test in deciding whether to go ahead with case, governments don’t when it comes to “addressing the potential environmental consequences of fish farms.”
Morton won the important victory. An independent review by the government’s own prosecutor found the evidence showed the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks.
Now it’s up to government to say what it’s going to do about that reality.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the legislative committee looking at the aquaculture industry is heading back out for another round of hearings this fall. The committee, which has an NDP majority, has been hearing completely contradictory and equally passionate views from the industry’s supporters and opponents. It’s trying for an interim report before the end of the year and a full report next May.
“Questionable research methods,” critics said. “Blatant misrepresentations.” Unqualified and biased.
Turns out she was right. The question now is what are the federal and provincial governments are going to do about it?
Morton lives in the Broughton Archipelago, the dense scattering of islands off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. She moved there to study whales 27 years ago and has been doing research ever since.
In the last few years she has been alarmed at the spread of sea lice from salmon farms on to migrating wild salmon. The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they’re a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they’re life-threatening.
Morton didn’t just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean. Her work has been peer-reviewed and published.
But the critics kept sniping. The provincial government ordered some fish farms along the migration emptied for a few months as a precautionary measure. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong. Governments said nothing was proven.
So Morton launched a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act, charging a company and federal and provincial governments with releasing sea lice into the salmon habitat, harming the wild fish.
Private prosecutions rarely go ahead. Generally, the Crown takes over the case and stays the charges.
This time, because the province was charged, an outside lawyer, Bill Smart, was named special prosecutor. He decided to hire an independent science expert to review Morton’s research and look at the allegations.
And the expert, Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, found she was right.
Morton alleged the salmon farm was releasing millions of sea lice a month. Whoriskey calculated the farm would produce 55 million sea lice eggs per year. Studies had found 95 per cent of sea lice off a section of Ireland’s coast came from salmon farms.
Morton charged that sea lice from the farm infected passing young salmon. Whoriskey, after reviewing her research and studies from around the world, concluded that is also true.
And Morton alleged that the pink salmon smolts were vulnerable to sea lice and many were killed. There hasn’t been a definitive study, Whoriskey reported, but sea lice infestations have found to weaken and kill young salmon.
Whoriskey summed up. “The evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon,” he found.
And the independent expert also commented on her research. “Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work,” he wrote. It meets “the globally accepted procedure for good science.”
Smart, the special prosecutor, said Morton’s charges were sound and raised an important public issue. “It appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton’s assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago”, he reported. “There may be debates about the extent of the problem or risk, those debates cannot obscure the existence of the problem itself.“
Smart still decided the prosecution shouldn’t go ahead because convictions were unlikely. The law prohibits the release of harmful species, but the sea lice weren’t really released. And the company could argue that it had obeyed all the governments’ rules.
But he noted that while he had to apply a strict test in deciding whether to go ahead with case, governments don’t when it comes to “addressing the potential environmental consequences of fish farms.”
Morton won the important victory. An independent review by the government’s own prosecutor found the evidence showed the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks.
Now it’s up to government to say what it’s going to do about that reality.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the legislative committee looking at the aquaculture industry is heading back out for another round of hearings this fall. The committee, which has an NDP majority, has been hearing completely contradictory and equally passionate views from the industry’s supporters and opponents. It’s trying for an interim report before the end of the year and a full report next May.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Park development a bad idea
VICTORIA - There are some passable arguments for promoting development in provincial parks, but ultimately it remains a bad idea. The government is opening the door to development in a dozen parks this month, encouraging everything from cabins for hikers to lodges with up to 100 beds. The first calls for proposals have already gone out, and they include wilderness parks like Cape Scott at the northern tip of Vancouver Island.
Environment Minister Barry Penner says it’s all about access. Just because people can’t sleep in a tent doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get to stay in a wilderness park, he says. British Columbians are getting older and more rickety and want somewhere comfy to stay, and Penner says the environment ministry has to meet the need. And he promises that the government is being careful to make sure that any development won’t wreck the parks.
The problem is that once you begin constructing lodges and cabins and the various facilities needed to support them, you no longer have a wilderness park. Paving the West Coast Trail and creating little lodges along the way would make it more accessible. It would also destroy it.
Penner doesn’t mention the money, but that’s also behind this drive for commercial development. The government is counting on companies to pay for the right to build and operate businesses inside parks. The successful developers will get 30-year leases.
You can make a weak case for development in some parks, I suppose, particularly ones already on major highways or partially developed.
But the best policy would be to recognize the importance of preservation and the responsibility to keep parks whole.
That doesn’t mean that parks have to be exclusively for the fit and able-bodied.
If greater access is the goal – and if there is consumer demand - then development could be encouraged just outside parks, in communities that would be glad of the economic activity and additional tax base. Instead of plunking a lodge down inside a park, services could be provided just outside the park boundaries and steps taken to improve access for visitors.
And if developers want a shot at operating a true wilderness lodge, there are thousands of square kilometres of Crown and private land available outside parks. Negotiate a lease and build away.
That’s what some operators have already done. And those projects have shown that development inevitably brings significant change. It’s not just the construction of a lodge or cabins. The operator needs to transport supplies into the park; staff have to be housed; visitors will almost certainly demand more services or better roads. The government claims it consulted with the public on the plan to expand commercial development in parks, but it’s hard to find supporters.
The opposition, however, is remarkably broad-based. More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups oppose the plan. The B.C. Wildlife Association, which represents fishermen and hunters, thinks it’s a bad idea. So do wilderness tourism operators.
And they all fear that these proposals are just the start and that development will be encouraged in more provincial parks across the province.
These aren’t the extremists, the people who would be happiest if no one – or at most a handful of people - ever ventured into parks. They recognize that parks, while vital in protecting wilderness, are also for people.
But they believe that access can be offered without unnecessary commercial development inside park boundaries. Penner says the public will get a say on whether the specific proposals go ahead. But the government’s official policy on park development, released last month, is alarmingly vague on how the public will have a meaningful chance to offer its views. There are no provisions for public hearings or formal consultation.
B.C. has a magnificent park system, which we hold in trust for future generations.
We shouldn’t permanently damage that heritage, especially when there are alternative ways of improving access.
Footnote: The 12 parks covered in the first new development wave are Mount Robson in the Omineca Region, Elk Lakes, Mount Assiniboine and Nancy Greene in the Kootenays, Wells Gray (in the Cariboo, Foch-Giltoyees in the Skeena region, Cape Scott on northern Vancouver Island, Maxhamish Lake in the Peace, Golden Ears in the Lower Mainland and Fintry, Silver Star and Myra Bellevue in the Okanagan.
Environment Minister Barry Penner says it’s all about access. Just because people can’t sleep in a tent doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get to stay in a wilderness park, he says. British Columbians are getting older and more rickety and want somewhere comfy to stay, and Penner says the environment ministry has to meet the need. And he promises that the government is being careful to make sure that any development won’t wreck the parks.
The problem is that once you begin constructing lodges and cabins and the various facilities needed to support them, you no longer have a wilderness park. Paving the West Coast Trail and creating little lodges along the way would make it more accessible. It would also destroy it.
Penner doesn’t mention the money, but that’s also behind this drive for commercial development. The government is counting on companies to pay for the right to build and operate businesses inside parks. The successful developers will get 30-year leases.
You can make a weak case for development in some parks, I suppose, particularly ones already on major highways or partially developed.
But the best policy would be to recognize the importance of preservation and the responsibility to keep parks whole.
That doesn’t mean that parks have to be exclusively for the fit and able-bodied.
If greater access is the goal – and if there is consumer demand - then development could be encouraged just outside parks, in communities that would be glad of the economic activity and additional tax base. Instead of plunking a lodge down inside a park, services could be provided just outside the park boundaries and steps taken to improve access for visitors.
And if developers want a shot at operating a true wilderness lodge, there are thousands of square kilometres of Crown and private land available outside parks. Negotiate a lease and build away.
That’s what some operators have already done. And those projects have shown that development inevitably brings significant change. It’s not just the construction of a lodge or cabins. The operator needs to transport supplies into the park; staff have to be housed; visitors will almost certainly demand more services or better roads. The government claims it consulted with the public on the plan to expand commercial development in parks, but it’s hard to find supporters.
The opposition, however, is remarkably broad-based. More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups oppose the plan. The B.C. Wildlife Association, which represents fishermen and hunters, thinks it’s a bad idea. So do wilderness tourism operators.
And they all fear that these proposals are just the start and that development will be encouraged in more provincial parks across the province.
These aren’t the extremists, the people who would be happiest if no one – or at most a handful of people - ever ventured into parks. They recognize that parks, while vital in protecting wilderness, are also for people.
But they believe that access can be offered without unnecessary commercial development inside park boundaries. Penner says the public will get a say on whether the specific proposals go ahead. But the government’s official policy on park development, released last month, is alarmingly vague on how the public will have a meaningful chance to offer its views. There are no provisions for public hearings or formal consultation.
B.C. has a magnificent park system, which we hold in trust for future generations.
We shouldn’t permanently damage that heritage, especially when there are alternative ways of improving access.
Footnote: The 12 parks covered in the first new development wave are Mount Robson in the Omineca Region, Elk Lakes, Mount Assiniboine and Nancy Greene in the Kootenays, Wells Gray (in the Cariboo, Foch-Giltoyees in the Skeena region, Cape Scott on northern Vancouver Island, Maxhamish Lake in the Peace, Golden Ears in the Lower Mainland and Fintry, Silver Star and Myra Bellevue in the Okanagan.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Surprise shuffle all aimed at children and families
VICTORIA - So the revolving door spins again at the ministry of children and familes, sweeping Stan Hagen out and Tom Christensen in.
Based on past history, he shouldn’t unpack. Christensen is the fourth minister in less than six years for the Liberals; tenth in the last decade if you include the NDP follies.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s shuffle caught everyone by surprise Tuesday. He was supposed to be on holidays and all was to be quiet. The only warning was a news release at 12:15 p.m. that said there would be a shuffle in Vancouver less than two hours later.
It wasn’t a giant shift. Four ministers got new jobs, with the change at children and families driving the rest.
The premier wanted Mike de Jong to replace Christensen at aboriginal affairs, an important ministry for the Liberals now.
That left a hole at labour. Richmond MLA Olga Ilich, who had been minister for tourism, sports and culture, got the labour job, which not coincidentally left her pleasant ministry as a landing spot for Hagen.
Campbell didn’t just shuffle, he added. Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg is back in cabinet as a junior minister responsible for getting us all to eat right, exercise and quit smoking. Hogg, who resigned as childen and families minister in 2004 after a troubled tenure, is to champion the ActNow BC program announced by Campbell last year.
The most significant changes are in children and families and aboriginal relations.
The Liberals’ 2001 platform included a promise to stop the endless shuffling and re-organizations at the children and families ministry. They’ve failed badly. Hogg resigned after three chaotic years of stumbles; Christy Clark lasted about nine months before quitting; and Hagen has been in the job less than two years. Community groups desperate to get the minister’s attention are constantly starting work all over again.
Hagen had said that he wanted to keep the job. It was important to provide some stability while making the changes flowing from Ted Hughes’ report on ministry problems, he said.
But Campbell didn’t agree. The premier’s office has already installed its chosen deputy minister in children and families. Leslie du Toit was recruited from South Africa to work as an advisor to the premier before being installed in the ministry. She’s in charge of the ministry’s rather vague future direction.
And now she gets a new minister.
Christensen looks like a good choice. It’s been tough to judge his effectiveness in aboriginal affairs, in part because the premier’s office has played such a large role. But he succeeded in bringing people together when he followed Christy Clark into education. Now he has the chance to tackle one of the government’s critical problem areas. (And his experience in aboriginal affairs will be useful; the children and families’ ministry has large aboriginal focus and significant challenges in dealing with First Nations communities.)
De Jong is a reasonable choice to move into aboriginal affairs. He showed in the labour job that he could temper his natural tendency to love to give reporters a good quote. Caution will be a good thing in aboriginal affairs.
Ilich’s promotion is surprising. She was considered a strong candidate in 2005. But she hasn’t made any particular impression in her current tourism, sports and culture post. The elevation to labour - even at a time when things are likely to be pretty quiet - is a surprise.
But her promotion did open up a place fo Hagen.
I don’t know what to say about Hogg’s return. It seems odd that the Liberals, once the champions of small government, are now creating a fitness minister. The gesture will cost another $200,000 and it’s hard to know what the minister will actually do beyond some cheerleading. And it’s baffling that the junior minister is under tourism, sports and culture, where he will be lost, and not health.
But who can argue against getting people to exercise more, eat less and quit smoking and drinking?
It shouldn’t be hard to tell if this cabinet shuffle was successful. If Christensen is still minister of children and families in three years, and if the ministry is adequately funded and delivering effective services, then it succeeded.
If not, it is just another in a long series of failed efforts.
Based on past history, he shouldn’t unpack. Christensen is the fourth minister in less than six years for the Liberals; tenth in the last decade if you include the NDP follies.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s shuffle caught everyone by surprise Tuesday. He was supposed to be on holidays and all was to be quiet. The only warning was a news release at 12:15 p.m. that said there would be a shuffle in Vancouver less than two hours later.
It wasn’t a giant shift. Four ministers got new jobs, with the change at children and families driving the rest.
The premier wanted Mike de Jong to replace Christensen at aboriginal affairs, an important ministry for the Liberals now.
That left a hole at labour. Richmond MLA Olga Ilich, who had been minister for tourism, sports and culture, got the labour job, which not coincidentally left her pleasant ministry as a landing spot for Hagen.
Campbell didn’t just shuffle, he added. Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg is back in cabinet as a junior minister responsible for getting us all to eat right, exercise and quit smoking. Hogg, who resigned as childen and families minister in 2004 after a troubled tenure, is to champion the ActNow BC program announced by Campbell last year.
The most significant changes are in children and families and aboriginal relations.
The Liberals’ 2001 platform included a promise to stop the endless shuffling and re-organizations at the children and families ministry. They’ve failed badly. Hogg resigned after three chaotic years of stumbles; Christy Clark lasted about nine months before quitting; and Hagen has been in the job less than two years. Community groups desperate to get the minister’s attention are constantly starting work all over again.
Hagen had said that he wanted to keep the job. It was important to provide some stability while making the changes flowing from Ted Hughes’ report on ministry problems, he said.
But Campbell didn’t agree. The premier’s office has already installed its chosen deputy minister in children and families. Leslie du Toit was recruited from South Africa to work as an advisor to the premier before being installed in the ministry. She’s in charge of the ministry’s rather vague future direction.
And now she gets a new minister.
Christensen looks like a good choice. It’s been tough to judge his effectiveness in aboriginal affairs, in part because the premier’s office has played such a large role. But he succeeded in bringing people together when he followed Christy Clark into education. Now he has the chance to tackle one of the government’s critical problem areas. (And his experience in aboriginal affairs will be useful; the children and families’ ministry has large aboriginal focus and significant challenges in dealing with First Nations communities.)
De Jong is a reasonable choice to move into aboriginal affairs. He showed in the labour job that he could temper his natural tendency to love to give reporters a good quote. Caution will be a good thing in aboriginal affairs.
Ilich’s promotion is surprising. She was considered a strong candidate in 2005. But she hasn’t made any particular impression in her current tourism, sports and culture post. The elevation to labour - even at a time when things are likely to be pretty quiet - is a surprise.
But her promotion did open up a place fo Hagen.
I don’t know what to say about Hogg’s return. It seems odd that the Liberals, once the champions of small government, are now creating a fitness minister. The gesture will cost another $200,000 and it’s hard to know what the minister will actually do beyond some cheerleading. And it’s baffling that the junior minister is under tourism, sports and culture, where he will be lost, and not health.
But who can argue against getting people to exercise more, eat less and quit smoking and drinking?
It shouldn’t be hard to tell if this cabinet shuffle was successful. If Christensen is still minister of children and families in three years, and if the ministry is adequately funded and delivering effective services, then it succeeded.
If not, it is just another in a long series of failed efforts.
Harper dips into the pork barrel on defence deal
VICTORIA - How does it happen? How do we vote for a whole new approach to government and end up with the same old politics?
Like or loathe them, what Stephen Harper and the Conservatives mostly promised was something different. No more political pandering, just good common sense. An end to politicians interfering in the awarding of government contracts, for example. From now on, the goal would be to get the best deal for taxpayers.
But not a year in power and it looks like same old, same old in some troubling ways.
The Conservative government plans some big military spending. Top of the shopping list are 16 Chinook helicopters and four C-17 transport planes from Boeing. The deal will cost you something like $8 billion, including 20 years of support.
The Canadian government wants some of that money to stay here, so the contracts are going to specify that half the total spending has to be in Canada. Boeing will want to keep the manufacturing at home; Canadian firms are most likely to be able to bid for the maintenance contracts.
That should mean companies across Canada would get a chance to compete for the work. The ones that came up with the best proposals to keep the aircraft flying safely at the lowest cost would get the work.
That’s even supposed to be the rule. In 1994 Ottawa and the provinces signed a deal to ensure all Canadian suppliers had equal access to government procurement. Provinces weren’t allowed to overlook the best bid just because it came from outside their boundaries. The federal government agreed it wouldn’t hand out contracts to favoured companies or regions.
But there was an exception. The federal government could over-ride the commitment to open bidding “to protect national security or to maintain international peace and security."
And that’s the clause the government has invoked in the Boeing deals. It has become a matter of national security to protect the government’s right to steer contracts to chosen companies, even if their work costs more or is of inferior quality.
You’d think the Conservatives would have learned, since they’ve been down this road before. Back in 1986 a consortium led by Bristol Aircraft in Winnipeg had submitted the best bid on a contract to maintain the military’s CF-18 jet fighters, according to the Defence Ministry.
But at the last minute the Mulroney government over-ruled the military and handed the deal to another group headed by Canadair of Montreal. The decision was seen as an insult to the West; really it was an insult to taxpayers and the pilots who would fly the planes.
Now the current Conservative government has chosen the same path, invoking the “national security” loophole to let it parcel out the goodies.
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier says it’s not about patronage. But the government is going to set quotas, still to be decided, on where the work has to go. Quebec, the West, Atlantic Canada all have to get a taste - even if that means taxpayers are subsidizing companies by paying higher prices.
The decision embraces the culture of the old Ottawa. Companies that want to get these contracts can’t just concentrate on having the best technology or workforce.
They have to find the best lobbyists, the ones with the tightest ties to senior bureaucrats and politicians. Influence in pushing the quota system and steering work their way matters as much as their competence or ability to deliver value for money.
How can the Conservatives have forgotten so quickly? The Liberals were defeated in part because Canadians were tired of this way of doing business. They wanted the political influence, the lobbying and the efforts to favour one region taken out of spending decisions.
Instead, they got a new government that seems quickly to be sliding into the ways of its predecessors, despite all the talk about a new way of doing business.
Footnote: Why not guarantee all regions get some of the work? It increases costs, opens the door to political patronage and to rewards for friends and doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of regional development. Propping up uncompetitive businesses with government money is just an expensive way to delay the inevitable. (Think Skeena Cellulose.)
Like or loathe them, what Stephen Harper and the Conservatives mostly promised was something different. No more political pandering, just good common sense. An end to politicians interfering in the awarding of government contracts, for example. From now on, the goal would be to get the best deal for taxpayers.
But not a year in power and it looks like same old, same old in some troubling ways.
The Conservative government plans some big military spending. Top of the shopping list are 16 Chinook helicopters and four C-17 transport planes from Boeing. The deal will cost you something like $8 billion, including 20 years of support.
The Canadian government wants some of that money to stay here, so the contracts are going to specify that half the total spending has to be in Canada. Boeing will want to keep the manufacturing at home; Canadian firms are most likely to be able to bid for the maintenance contracts.
That should mean companies across Canada would get a chance to compete for the work. The ones that came up with the best proposals to keep the aircraft flying safely at the lowest cost would get the work.
That’s even supposed to be the rule. In 1994 Ottawa and the provinces signed a deal to ensure all Canadian suppliers had equal access to government procurement. Provinces weren’t allowed to overlook the best bid just because it came from outside their boundaries. The federal government agreed it wouldn’t hand out contracts to favoured companies or regions.
But there was an exception. The federal government could over-ride the commitment to open bidding “to protect national security or to maintain international peace and security."
And that’s the clause the government has invoked in the Boeing deals. It has become a matter of national security to protect the government’s right to steer contracts to chosen companies, even if their work costs more or is of inferior quality.
You’d think the Conservatives would have learned, since they’ve been down this road before. Back in 1986 a consortium led by Bristol Aircraft in Winnipeg had submitted the best bid on a contract to maintain the military’s CF-18 jet fighters, according to the Defence Ministry.
But at the last minute the Mulroney government over-ruled the military and handed the deal to another group headed by Canadair of Montreal. The decision was seen as an insult to the West; really it was an insult to taxpayers and the pilots who would fly the planes.
Now the current Conservative government has chosen the same path, invoking the “national security” loophole to let it parcel out the goodies.
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier says it’s not about patronage. But the government is going to set quotas, still to be decided, on where the work has to go. Quebec, the West, Atlantic Canada all have to get a taste - even if that means taxpayers are subsidizing companies by paying higher prices.
The decision embraces the culture of the old Ottawa. Companies that want to get these contracts can’t just concentrate on having the best technology or workforce.
They have to find the best lobbyists, the ones with the tightest ties to senior bureaucrats and politicians. Influence in pushing the quota system and steering work their way matters as much as their competence or ability to deliver value for money.
How can the Conservatives have forgotten so quickly? The Liberals were defeated in part because Canadians were tired of this way of doing business. They wanted the political influence, the lobbying and the efforts to favour one region taken out of spending decisions.
Instead, they got a new government that seems quickly to be sliding into the ways of its predecessors, despite all the talk about a new way of doing business.
Footnote: Why not guarantee all regions get some of the work? It increases costs, opens the door to political patronage and to rewards for friends and doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of regional development. Propping up uncompetitive businesses with government money is just an expensive way to delay the inevitable. (Think Skeena Cellulose.)
Friday, August 11, 2006
Harper's certainty worrying Canadians
VICTORIA - Maybe decisiveness isn’t such a great thing in a prime minister.
Critics complained Jean Chretien put off decisions until they didn’t matter anymore and Paul Martin was dubbed ‘Mr. Dithers’ for his indecision.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a new style, quick, decisive, with no wavering.
It worked for a while, when the issues were simple. But the action-man pose is starting look like a liability as more complex issues emerge, like Canada’s role in Afghanistan, the current fighting in the Mideast or even the softwood lumber dispute.
Decisiveness and certainty are generally seen as good things in leaders. But in Harper’s case, they seem to be making many Canadians nervous. It’s not even that they disagree with his positions. But they’re worried that Harper’s certainty reflects a mind closed to reasonable self-doubt.
Harper’s attempts to rally support for the Afghanistan mission highlighted the problem. Canadians don’t “cut and run,” he told troops in Kandahar in March, choosing to echo George Bush. "It's not my way, and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble,” Harper said. “We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country.”
But Canadians do cut and run. The term comes from naval history, when ships facing a surprise attack would cut their anchor lines to escape quickly. It’s a common-sense response to imminent danger when fighting makes no sense.
Even Canadians who support the mission in Afghanistan - and there are many - want a thoughtful, worried approach from the prime minister, not slogans.
Our lives aren’t simple. Every day, we fret about choices at work, or our children. Living is complicated and we only rarely sure if we’ve done the right thing. (Or I am, anyway.)
Our elected leaders face choices that should be even more daunting, ones that affect the lives and well-being of millions. We want our leaders to have difficulty with them, to struggle with uncertainty.
But Harper isn’t showing uncertainty or doubt, even on the most difficult decisions. Canada has joined the U.S. in arguing that Israel should be given time to eliminate Hezbollah before any ceasefire is imposed in Lebanon.
That’s defensible. Hezbollah is a political movement and military force, with strong support in Lebanon and backing from Iran and other Arab countries. It is committed to the destruction of Israel and wages a small, deadly war. A delayed ceasefire was supposed to give Israel time to invade Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah. That would save Israel from future attacks.
But there’s a cost. Israel has bombed roads and buildings in Lebanon; people with no connection with Hezbollah have been killed; civilians have been warned that staying in their homes may mean death.
There are endless arguments about the dispute. But for now, for Canada, the problem is deciding how to balance the costs of each day’s fighting against the hope for future peace. How many families should we allow to die in the interests of long-term stability? The toll so far is about 1,000 Lebanese, and 100 Israelis.
Harper hasn’t really blazed any new policy directions. Past governments may have been more equivocal, but ultimately would not have taken a much different position on the conflict. (Not that Canada’s view much matters.)
What’s mostly different is Harper’s tone, his certainty in supporting the war and accepting the civilian deaths as necessary for a greater good.
Many Canadians would ultimately accept that analysis. But they would struggle with it. They would expect their prime minister, faced with the real life-and-death decisions, to struggle as well. It should not be clear cut or easy to decide on a course that means death and destruction for civilians.
Certainty and decisiveness are over-rated. Canadians know the world is a mass of greys, not black and white. We know our leaders have to make hard decisions.
But we want them to struggle with those decisions, just as we would.
Footnote: Harper's approach is not playing well. A Strategic Counsel poll found 45 per cent of Canadians disagreed with Harper’s support for allowing the conflict to continue until Israel achieves its military objectives. About one-third supported his position. Three-quarters of those surveyed said Canada should be neutral in the dispute.
Critics complained Jean Chretien put off decisions until they didn’t matter anymore and Paul Martin was dubbed ‘Mr. Dithers’ for his indecision.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a new style, quick, decisive, with no wavering.
It worked for a while, when the issues were simple. But the action-man pose is starting look like a liability as more complex issues emerge, like Canada’s role in Afghanistan, the current fighting in the Mideast or even the softwood lumber dispute.
Decisiveness and certainty are generally seen as good things in leaders. But in Harper’s case, they seem to be making many Canadians nervous. It’s not even that they disagree with his positions. But they’re worried that Harper’s certainty reflects a mind closed to reasonable self-doubt.
Harper’s attempts to rally support for the Afghanistan mission highlighted the problem. Canadians don’t “cut and run,” he told troops in Kandahar in March, choosing to echo George Bush. "It's not my way, and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble,” Harper said. “We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country.”
But Canadians do cut and run. The term comes from naval history, when ships facing a surprise attack would cut their anchor lines to escape quickly. It’s a common-sense response to imminent danger when fighting makes no sense.
Even Canadians who support the mission in Afghanistan - and there are many - want a thoughtful, worried approach from the prime minister, not slogans.
Our lives aren’t simple. Every day, we fret about choices at work, or our children. Living is complicated and we only rarely sure if we’ve done the right thing. (Or I am, anyway.)
Our elected leaders face choices that should be even more daunting, ones that affect the lives and well-being of millions. We want our leaders to have difficulty with them, to struggle with uncertainty.
But Harper isn’t showing uncertainty or doubt, even on the most difficult decisions. Canada has joined the U.S. in arguing that Israel should be given time to eliminate Hezbollah before any ceasefire is imposed in Lebanon.
That’s defensible. Hezbollah is a political movement and military force, with strong support in Lebanon and backing from Iran and other Arab countries. It is committed to the destruction of Israel and wages a small, deadly war. A delayed ceasefire was supposed to give Israel time to invade Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah. That would save Israel from future attacks.
But there’s a cost. Israel has bombed roads and buildings in Lebanon; people with no connection with Hezbollah have been killed; civilians have been warned that staying in their homes may mean death.
There are endless arguments about the dispute. But for now, for Canada, the problem is deciding how to balance the costs of each day’s fighting against the hope for future peace. How many families should we allow to die in the interests of long-term stability? The toll so far is about 1,000 Lebanese, and 100 Israelis.
Harper hasn’t really blazed any new policy directions. Past governments may have been more equivocal, but ultimately would not have taken a much different position on the conflict. (Not that Canada’s view much matters.)
What’s mostly different is Harper’s tone, his certainty in supporting the war and accepting the civilian deaths as necessary for a greater good.
Many Canadians would ultimately accept that analysis. But they would struggle with it. They would expect their prime minister, faced with the real life-and-death decisions, to struggle as well. It should not be clear cut or easy to decide on a course that means death and destruction for civilians.
Certainty and decisiveness are over-rated. Canadians know the world is a mass of greys, not black and white. We know our leaders have to make hard decisions.
But we want them to struggle with those decisions, just as we would.
Footnote: Harper's approach is not playing well. A Strategic Counsel poll found 45 per cent of Canadians disagreed with Harper’s support for allowing the conflict to continue until Israel achieves its military objectives. About one-third supported his position. Three-quarters of those surveyed said Canada should be neutral in the dispute.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Making the Senate work
VICTORIA - It's worth giving the Senate one more chance.
There are lots of people - Premier Gordon Campbell among them - who don't want to spend more time talking about Senate reform. It's time to just get rid of it and move on, they say. You can see their point. Start with a basic issue - representation. B.C. gets six senators, the same as Newfoundland, which has 12 per cent of our province's population. New Brunswick, with 750,000 people to B.C.'s 4.2 million, has four more seats. Each B.C. senator represents 700,000 people. Each New Brunswick senator, 75,000.
It's hard to claim legitimacy for any legislative body that is so wildly unrepresentative. Add to that the Senate's inability to demonstrate real usefulness and public anger at patronage appointments and the future looks bleak for the so-called upper house.
A pair of senators is making a bid to address the representation problem. Jack Austin, a Liberal from B.C, and Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia Conservative, hope to win changes that would recognize that B.C. and the West are short-changed in the Senate. Their plan would add 12 new members to the Senate, taking it to 117. B.C. would get six more senators and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would also gain. B.C. would still be under-represented, but the reform would be a big, positive change. Austin and Murray have already introduced their proposal in the Senate. They say other provinces should go along because they won't lose any seats and the changes are fair. Not likely. This kind of change requires a constitutional amendment. That means the change requires the support of Parliament, the Senate and at least seven province with 50 per cent of the Canadian population. And that, despite the optimism of the two senators, isn't going to happen. Other provinces would not lose seats under the proposal, but they would lose influence. Quebec has 23 per cent of Senate seats today; it would have 21 per cent in the proposed expanded version. No Quebec government could take the political heat involved in even that tiny loss of power.
And the four Atlantic provinces would also likely say no to change. The Senate's composition was negotiated as part of the terms of Confederation, they maintain. The small provinces were promised the seats to ensure their interests weren't forgotten. (The argument has worked; the West last got more seats in 1915.)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to agree that major Senate reform is too tough an issue. Harper's first stab at changing the way the Senate works is useful, but tiny. Under his plan, senators would be appointed for eight-year terms. They now keep the job until they turn 75.
That's more tinkering than reform, surprising given Harper's past life in the old Reform/Alliance party which wanted a "Triple E" senate - elected, equal and effective.
Harper's desire to avoid another constitutional debate is understandable. But he could still be doing more. Harper could start the process of shifting to an elected Senate without any legislative or constitutional changes. All he has to do is announce that he'll be guided in naming future senators by the results of any legitimate provincial vote.
Alberta has already had three Senate 'elections,' adding the question to provincial election ballots. The first successful candidate even made it into the upper chamber when Brian Mulroney honoured the voters' choice in 1990. (Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ignored the results of Alberta's Senate elections.)
Why not just let the Senate go?
Despite its failings, the Senate could be useful. There is merit to the idea of a legislative body where members are able to take the long view of issues, unworried about their prospects of re-election in a few years (or months).
That's especially true if senators are selected from outside the usual ranks of political partisans for their intellect or experience of compassion or expertise.
But time is running out.
Footnote: Campbell's abolitionist position is shared by Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, Manitoba's Gary Doer and Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert. An Ipsos-Reid poll this summer found about one-third of those surveyed said the Senate should be abolished and 44 per cent said senators should be elected. British Columbians were among its strongest supporters.
There are lots of people - Premier Gordon Campbell among them - who don't want to spend more time talking about Senate reform. It's time to just get rid of it and move on, they say. You can see their point. Start with a basic issue - representation. B.C. gets six senators, the same as Newfoundland, which has 12 per cent of our province's population. New Brunswick, with 750,000 people to B.C.'s 4.2 million, has four more seats. Each B.C. senator represents 700,000 people. Each New Brunswick senator, 75,000.
It's hard to claim legitimacy for any legislative body that is so wildly unrepresentative. Add to that the Senate's inability to demonstrate real usefulness and public anger at patronage appointments and the future looks bleak for the so-called upper house.
A pair of senators is making a bid to address the representation problem. Jack Austin, a Liberal from B.C, and Lowell Murray, a Nova Scotia Conservative, hope to win changes that would recognize that B.C. and the West are short-changed in the Senate. Their plan would add 12 new members to the Senate, taking it to 117. B.C. would get six more senators and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would also gain. B.C. would still be under-represented, but the reform would be a big, positive change. Austin and Murray have already introduced their proposal in the Senate. They say other provinces should go along because they won't lose any seats and the changes are fair. Not likely. This kind of change requires a constitutional amendment. That means the change requires the support of Parliament, the Senate and at least seven province with 50 per cent of the Canadian population. And that, despite the optimism of the two senators, isn't going to happen. Other provinces would not lose seats under the proposal, but they would lose influence. Quebec has 23 per cent of Senate seats today; it would have 21 per cent in the proposed expanded version. No Quebec government could take the political heat involved in even that tiny loss of power.
And the four Atlantic provinces would also likely say no to change. The Senate's composition was negotiated as part of the terms of Confederation, they maintain. The small provinces were promised the seats to ensure their interests weren't forgotten. (The argument has worked; the West last got more seats in 1915.)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to agree that major Senate reform is too tough an issue. Harper's first stab at changing the way the Senate works is useful, but tiny. Under his plan, senators would be appointed for eight-year terms. They now keep the job until they turn 75.
That's more tinkering than reform, surprising given Harper's past life in the old Reform/Alliance party which wanted a "Triple E" senate - elected, equal and effective.
Harper's desire to avoid another constitutional debate is understandable. But he could still be doing more. Harper could start the process of shifting to an elected Senate without any legislative or constitutional changes. All he has to do is announce that he'll be guided in naming future senators by the results of any legitimate provincial vote.
Alberta has already had three Senate 'elections,' adding the question to provincial election ballots. The first successful candidate even made it into the upper chamber when Brian Mulroney honoured the voters' choice in 1990. (Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ignored the results of Alberta's Senate elections.)
Why not just let the Senate go?
Despite its failings, the Senate could be useful. There is merit to the idea of a legislative body where members are able to take the long view of issues, unworried about their prospects of re-election in a few years (or months).
That's especially true if senators are selected from outside the usual ranks of political partisans for their intellect or experience of compassion or expertise.
But time is running out.
Footnote: Campbell's abolitionist position is shared by Ontario's Dalton McGuinty, Manitoba's Gary Doer and Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert. An Ipsos-Reid poll this summer found about one-third of those surveyed said the Senate should be abolished and 44 per cent said senators should be elected. British Columbians were among its strongest supporters.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Whitmore case highlights justice system flaws
VICTORIA - It's time for answers about how pedophile Peter Whitmore was able to roam so freely around Canada even though authorities were convinced he was a threat to children.
The notion that we can reduce crime problems by locking more people up for longer periods is generally foolish. Other countries have tried that approach and found it to be a costly failure. Tough talk on crime has more to do with politics than pragmatism.
But Whitmore and a small number of others like him - apparently incorrigible sex offenders who target children - pose a special challenge for courts, police and society. His case suggests the response is inadequate.
Whitmore surrendered to police in Saskatchewan and now faces sexual assault and abduction charges.
But his record goes back to 1993, when he was convicted of abducting and sexually assaulting four young boys. He served 16 months in jail, a relatively light sentence that likely reflected the court's view that he could change his behaviour.
He didn't. Nine days after he was set free Whitmore abducted an eight-year-old girl and sexually assaulted her. He was sentenced to four years in jail. Released under a set of conditions, he fled to Mexico and was eventually returned to jail.
When he was released once more Whitmore spoke to reporters and pleaded to be left alone. He wouldn't re-offend, he said. One more conviction could mean dangerous offender status and life in jail.
Weeks later he was found in a hotel room with a 13-year-old boy and sent back to prison for a year.
Released again, Whitmore was found with a five-year-old boy, carrying what police described as a "rape kit" -- tape, plastic ties, latex gloves and lubricant.
It should have been clear that Whitmore was a risk to children. Even knowing he faced life in jail, he was unable to stop.
But the criminal justice system was unable to respond to the danger effectively with sentences that protected society or effective supervision.
One solution is supposed to be dangerous offender designation, a rarely used but important provision that allows judges to jail offenders permanently if they appear certain to commit more crimes.
But Whitmore didn't qualify. He was repeatedly jailed for violating the conditions of his release, not for serious offences that would have allowed the Crown to apply for dangerous offender status.
Perhaps the Crown should have been more diligent in laying additional charges. Perhaps the legislation needs to be changed to allow dangerous offender status for people with offence patterns like Whitmore's. Something needs to change.
The case raises other serious issues.
When Whitmore was released in B.C. last year he was the subject of a Section 810 order, an extraordinary measure that allows police to keep close tabs on an offender released after serving his full sentence. He can be required to report daily to police, for example, and notify them of all his movements.
But, so far inexpilicaly, the order was allowed to lapse this June. Whitmore left for Alberta immediately. Police and Crown prosecutors there were in the process of applying for a new order, but were moving slowly. Whitmore, freed from tight supervision, took off across the country on his own. You have read the rest.
The failure has nothing to do with gaps in the law or a need for tougher legislation.
All police and prosecutors had to do was make sure the order was renewed before it expired on June 12 so that Whitmore remained under close supervision. (That had apparently worked for a year.)
They didn't do that, despite warnings from the parole board that he was virtually certain to re-offend.
Pedophile offenders pose a huge challenge to the justice system. Treatment is difficult and many remain a high risk to commit new assaults.
Whitmore's case suggests the system did not meet the challenge, in large part because it failed to make effective use of the existing laws.
Footnote: The case also highlights the need for the changes to age-of-consent legislation, promised by the Conservatives for this fall. Whitmore is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy travelling with him. Under the current law, his defence options include arguing that the boy was a consenting sex partner.
The notion that we can reduce crime problems by locking more people up for longer periods is generally foolish. Other countries have tried that approach and found it to be a costly failure. Tough talk on crime has more to do with politics than pragmatism.
But Whitmore and a small number of others like him - apparently incorrigible sex offenders who target children - pose a special challenge for courts, police and society. His case suggests the response is inadequate.
Whitmore surrendered to police in Saskatchewan and now faces sexual assault and abduction charges.
But his record goes back to 1993, when he was convicted of abducting and sexually assaulting four young boys. He served 16 months in jail, a relatively light sentence that likely reflected the court's view that he could change his behaviour.
He didn't. Nine days after he was set free Whitmore abducted an eight-year-old girl and sexually assaulted her. He was sentenced to four years in jail. Released under a set of conditions, he fled to Mexico and was eventually returned to jail.
When he was released once more Whitmore spoke to reporters and pleaded to be left alone. He wouldn't re-offend, he said. One more conviction could mean dangerous offender status and life in jail.
Weeks later he was found in a hotel room with a 13-year-old boy and sent back to prison for a year.
Released again, Whitmore was found with a five-year-old boy, carrying what police described as a "rape kit" -- tape, plastic ties, latex gloves and lubricant.
It should have been clear that Whitmore was a risk to children. Even knowing he faced life in jail, he was unable to stop.
But the criminal justice system was unable to respond to the danger effectively with sentences that protected society or effective supervision.
One solution is supposed to be dangerous offender designation, a rarely used but important provision that allows judges to jail offenders permanently if they appear certain to commit more crimes.
But Whitmore didn't qualify. He was repeatedly jailed for violating the conditions of his release, not for serious offences that would have allowed the Crown to apply for dangerous offender status.
Perhaps the Crown should have been more diligent in laying additional charges. Perhaps the legislation needs to be changed to allow dangerous offender status for people with offence patterns like Whitmore's. Something needs to change.
The case raises other serious issues.
When Whitmore was released in B.C. last year he was the subject of a Section 810 order, an extraordinary measure that allows police to keep close tabs on an offender released after serving his full sentence. He can be required to report daily to police, for example, and notify them of all his movements.
But, so far inexpilicaly, the order was allowed to lapse this June. Whitmore left for Alberta immediately. Police and Crown prosecutors there were in the process of applying for a new order, but were moving slowly. Whitmore, freed from tight supervision, took off across the country on his own. You have read the rest.
The failure has nothing to do with gaps in the law or a need for tougher legislation.
All police and prosecutors had to do was make sure the order was renewed before it expired on June 12 so that Whitmore remained under close supervision. (That had apparently worked for a year.)
They didn't do that, despite warnings from the parole board that he was virtually certain to re-offend.
Pedophile offenders pose a huge challenge to the justice system. Treatment is difficult and many remain a high risk to commit new assaults.
Whitmore's case suggests the system did not meet the challenge, in large part because it failed to make effective use of the existing laws.
Footnote: The case also highlights the need for the changes to age-of-consent legislation, promised by the Conservatives for this fall. Whitmore is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy travelling with him. Under the current law, his defence options include arguing that the boy was a consenting sex partner.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Hiding the crime facts from public a dumb idea
VICTORIA - The Mounties are likely right. People are way more concerned about crime than they should be.
But their idea that the best solution could be to keep crimes secret is bizarre.
B.C. RCMP discussed reducing the flow of information as a way to “improve” the public’s attitude about crime. People were more scared than they should be, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by the Vancouver Sun. It suggested media relations officers provide less information, in hopes that would mean less media coverage and a happier public.
The real problem isn’t too much information, it’s too little. Any journalist who has tried to pry information from the RCMP - or most police forces - can attest to the difficulty in getting more than the barest basics.
There are exceptions, notably when police call a press conference and lay out seized guns or drugs as a photo op. (And who is creating fear about crime then?)
But generally, secrecy rules. Crime stories may make the headlines, but not because of chatty RCMP officers.
The Mounties’ internal report included an analysis of unidentified B.C. newspapers over a four-week period that found 67 per cent of front-page stories were about crime. (The Sun reported 26 per cent of its front-page stories in the previous month dealt with crime.) And it cites a poll done for the RCMP that found 68 per cent of B.C. residents said they were concerned that their families may be a victim of crime.
Our fear of crime is overblown. Most Canadians think crime is on the increase; in reality the rates for most crimes have been declining fairly steadily for 20 years, falling by five per cent last year. Despite the drug-driven problems of car break-ins and theft, we’re safer today than we were in 1990.
And media coverage may fuel fear. My first reporting job included showing up at the Red Deer RCMP detachment every morning and getting a briefing on what had happened in the last 24 hours from the staff sergeant, which I then compiled into the Police Log for that day’s paper. It wasn’t complete - the sergeant didn’t even try to dissemble when he read what was obviously an interesting entry to himself, shook his head and then just turned the page. But the paper’s reports gave a fair picture of what police really did, hauling in drunks, breaking up arguments and checking out garage thefts.
Terrible things still happened. But anyone who read the paper knew they were rare. Most days, not much bad occurred at all (especially if you stayed away from the Windsor Hotel bar).
That kind of reporting is still the norm in many smaller communities, with much depending on the co-operation of the local RCMP detachment. And interestingly, the RCMP the survey found 53 per cent of Greater Vancouver residents think police are doing a good job. In the rest of province, police got good marks from 65 per cent in the rest of the province. More information may mean higher approval for police.
Crime is a public issue. The police are paid by - and accountable to - citizens. They don’t have any right to withhold information because they think it might give people the wrong idea or make them look bad.
But the media should take a look at its role. Major crimes demand major coverage. But our job should be to help people understand the world they live in, and it may be that our crime reporting leaves people uninformed about the daily grind for police and in the courts. Maybe every paper should have a Police Log.
Ignorance isn’t really bliss; keeping information from the public as a strategy is both wrong and futile.
This is a very safe place to live. Yet people are troubled by crime. The answer lies in more information, understanding and informed debate about the best public policies - not more secrecy.
Footnote: I covered courts and cops briefly. And as a naive young reporter, the most surprising thing to me was how well the system worked. Police functioned as social workers with guns, except when the really bad people came around. The courts did an effective job in locking up the dangerous, giving a reasonable chance to the potentially redeemable and acquitting the innocent. The system - terribly flawed - mostly worked, given the limitations government set.
But their idea that the best solution could be to keep crimes secret is bizarre.
B.C. RCMP discussed reducing the flow of information as a way to “improve” the public’s attitude about crime. People were more scared than they should be, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by the Vancouver Sun. It suggested media relations officers provide less information, in hopes that would mean less media coverage and a happier public.
The real problem isn’t too much information, it’s too little. Any journalist who has tried to pry information from the RCMP - or most police forces - can attest to the difficulty in getting more than the barest basics.
There are exceptions, notably when police call a press conference and lay out seized guns or drugs as a photo op. (And who is creating fear about crime then?)
But generally, secrecy rules. Crime stories may make the headlines, but not because of chatty RCMP officers.
The Mounties’ internal report included an analysis of unidentified B.C. newspapers over a four-week period that found 67 per cent of front-page stories were about crime. (The Sun reported 26 per cent of its front-page stories in the previous month dealt with crime.) And it cites a poll done for the RCMP that found 68 per cent of B.C. residents said they were concerned that their families may be a victim of crime.
Our fear of crime is overblown. Most Canadians think crime is on the increase; in reality the rates for most crimes have been declining fairly steadily for 20 years, falling by five per cent last year. Despite the drug-driven problems of car break-ins and theft, we’re safer today than we were in 1990.
And media coverage may fuel fear. My first reporting job included showing up at the Red Deer RCMP detachment every morning and getting a briefing on what had happened in the last 24 hours from the staff sergeant, which I then compiled into the Police Log for that day’s paper. It wasn’t complete - the sergeant didn’t even try to dissemble when he read what was obviously an interesting entry to himself, shook his head and then just turned the page. But the paper’s reports gave a fair picture of what police really did, hauling in drunks, breaking up arguments and checking out garage thefts.
Terrible things still happened. But anyone who read the paper knew they were rare. Most days, not much bad occurred at all (especially if you stayed away from the Windsor Hotel bar).
That kind of reporting is still the norm in many smaller communities, with much depending on the co-operation of the local RCMP detachment. And interestingly, the RCMP the survey found 53 per cent of Greater Vancouver residents think police are doing a good job. In the rest of province, police got good marks from 65 per cent in the rest of the province. More information may mean higher approval for police.
Crime is a public issue. The police are paid by - and accountable to - citizens. They don’t have any right to withhold information because they think it might give people the wrong idea or make them look bad.
But the media should take a look at its role. Major crimes demand major coverage. But our job should be to help people understand the world they live in, and it may be that our crime reporting leaves people uninformed about the daily grind for police and in the courts. Maybe every paper should have a Police Log.
Ignorance isn’t really bliss; keeping information from the public as a strategy is both wrong and futile.
This is a very safe place to live. Yet people are troubled by crime. The answer lies in more information, understanding and informed debate about the best public policies - not more secrecy.
Footnote: I covered courts and cops briefly. And as a naive young reporter, the most surprising thing to me was how well the system worked. Police functioned as social workers with guns, except when the really bad people came around. The courts did an effective job in locking up the dangerous, giving a reasonable chance to the potentially redeemable and acquitting the innocent. The system - terribly flawed - mostly worked, given the limitations government set.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Big raises for top goverment managers not out of line
VICTORIA - It’s traditional that government news releases on controversial topics - like pay raises for senior managers and political staffers - are dropped on Friday, often late in the day.
It usually works. There’s not much time to work up a story for the next day’s paper or that evening’s newscast. By Monday, the media - with its short attention span - has moved on.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s announcement of big raises for top government managers and political staffers was made on a summer Friday. Some political staffers would be eligible for 25-per-cent pay raises under the new plan. Senior managers would be eligible for raises of up to 40 per cent under the new grids.
Big jumps are the norm for senior managers. Dan Miller, as NDP premier, approved increases of almost 30 per cent for some managers in 2000. Campbell moved to bump some wages up by another 30 per cent in the next year.
It’s not a particularly effective way of managing pay scales. And now it’s happening again.
Should you be worried? A little, but not about the pay grid. The maximum salaries for deputy ministers - CEOs of very large organizations - goes up nine per cent, to $220,000.
That’s very good pay. But it’s still likely too little to ensure that B.C. can attract the very best candidates for the top jobs in critical ministries. It’s certainly not an excessive rate of pay for a good candidate to fill the vacancy at the top of the health ministry, for example, responsible for managing a vast enterprise.
Assistant deputy ministers - another 100 or so people one level down - also get a sharp increase in the pay grid. They max out at $160,000. Again, the pay is not too much for the responsibility in some of the jobs.
You can quarrel with the whole idea that people should make more than some arbitrary ceiling, but you can’t really make a strong case against these kinds of pay rates. The government says the new put B.C. in the middle of the pack among provinces.
You can be nervous about administration. Higher pay should mean higher demands for performance and greater accountability. It’s not clear that that the principle is clearly established in government. and there is always the risk that pay for all managers - not just those in the most demanding jobs - will creep upward.
You can also be nervous about the increases for political appointments. Pay scales jump from 13 per cent to 26 per cent. Assistants to ministers will be paid up to $94,500; executive assistants to ministers will be paid up to $68,400. (MLAs are paid about $75,000.)
The political increases are harder to justify. The jobs are demanding - especially for the people working with some ministers. But there has been no evidence offered that pay rates are making it impossible to attract and retain good employees. The new levels appear high compared to private sector equivalents and take B.C.’s pay for political appointees is now the third highest in Canada. The government hasn’t made a good case for the increases.
The latest raises mean just about everyone getting money from the government has had some sort of pay increase, from deputy ministers to health care workers to teachers.
But not MLAs. Their sneak attempt to award themselves a large pay raise and an extremely expensive pension plan fell apart in bitterness last fall. The deal had all been done behind closed doors and was set to be rushed through the legislature without debate or time for public reaction. But NDP leader Carole James, who had promised her party’s support, reneged. The Liberals were furious, and some New Democrat MLAs were just as peeved.
The angry Liberals said they weren’t going to talk about MLA pay increases again.
And despite some pressure from within, they’re likely going to stick to that position. MLAs will have to be content with their regular cost-of-living increases.
Footnote: What do these people do? Think of a deputy minister as the CEO of the ministry, responsible for its success, and deputy ministers as vice-presidents. They’re supposed to be non-partisan professional managers. Political staff - ministerial assistants and the like - are picked for party loyalty as well as their ability to help the minister deal with issues.
It usually works. There’s not much time to work up a story for the next day’s paper or that evening’s newscast. By Monday, the media - with its short attention span - has moved on.
Premier Gordon Campbell’s announcement of big raises for top government managers and political staffers was made on a summer Friday. Some political staffers would be eligible for 25-per-cent pay raises under the new plan. Senior managers would be eligible for raises of up to 40 per cent under the new grids.
Big jumps are the norm for senior managers. Dan Miller, as NDP premier, approved increases of almost 30 per cent for some managers in 2000. Campbell moved to bump some wages up by another 30 per cent in the next year.
It’s not a particularly effective way of managing pay scales. And now it’s happening again.
Should you be worried? A little, but not about the pay grid. The maximum salaries for deputy ministers - CEOs of very large organizations - goes up nine per cent, to $220,000.
That’s very good pay. But it’s still likely too little to ensure that B.C. can attract the very best candidates for the top jobs in critical ministries. It’s certainly not an excessive rate of pay for a good candidate to fill the vacancy at the top of the health ministry, for example, responsible for managing a vast enterprise.
Assistant deputy ministers - another 100 or so people one level down - also get a sharp increase in the pay grid. They max out at $160,000. Again, the pay is not too much for the responsibility in some of the jobs.
You can quarrel with the whole idea that people should make more than some arbitrary ceiling, but you can’t really make a strong case against these kinds of pay rates. The government says the new put B.C. in the middle of the pack among provinces.
You can be nervous about administration. Higher pay should mean higher demands for performance and greater accountability. It’s not clear that that the principle is clearly established in government. and there is always the risk that pay for all managers - not just those in the most demanding jobs - will creep upward.
You can also be nervous about the increases for political appointments. Pay scales jump from 13 per cent to 26 per cent. Assistants to ministers will be paid up to $94,500; executive assistants to ministers will be paid up to $68,400. (MLAs are paid about $75,000.)
The political increases are harder to justify. The jobs are demanding - especially for the people working with some ministers. But there has been no evidence offered that pay rates are making it impossible to attract and retain good employees. The new levels appear high compared to private sector equivalents and take B.C.’s pay for political appointees is now the third highest in Canada. The government hasn’t made a good case for the increases.
The latest raises mean just about everyone getting money from the government has had some sort of pay increase, from deputy ministers to health care workers to teachers.
But not MLAs. Their sneak attempt to award themselves a large pay raise and an extremely expensive pension plan fell apart in bitterness last fall. The deal had all been done behind closed doors and was set to be rushed through the legislature without debate or time for public reaction. But NDP leader Carole James, who had promised her party’s support, reneged. The Liberals were furious, and some New Democrat MLAs were just as peeved.
The angry Liberals said they weren’t going to talk about MLA pay increases again.
And despite some pressure from within, they’re likely going to stick to that position. MLAs will have to be content with their regular cost-of-living increases.
Footnote: What do these people do? Think of a deputy minister as the CEO of the ministry, responsible for its success, and deputy ministers as vice-presidents. They’re supposed to be non-partisan professional managers. Political staff - ministerial assistants and the like - are picked for party loyalty as well as their ability to help the minister deal with issues.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Government fighting to deny needed help
VICTORIA - It's shameful to see the B.C. government going back to court to fight for the right to deny services to people who really need them.
It's not like we're talking about some questionable need. Kids with problems - fetal alcohol disorder or autism or the rest - get help from the government. Counselling and guidance, and if they really can't cope, one-on-one support to make sure they and the people around them are safe.
The support is based on need. It's not enough, but the criteria are roughly fair - the people who have the greatest need get the most services.
Until they turn 19. Then Community Living BC, executing a government policy, cuts all support to people with an IQ over 70. (There's small margin allowed.)
It doesn't matter if a teen can't function, is a danger to herself and others and is at a huge risk of exploitation. Too many right answers on the IQ test and all the support is gone overnight.
It's a disaster for people like Neil Fahlman. He’s a big, strong young man, with problems - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder and an autism variant. He makes bad decisions, acts impulsively and sometimes violently. His adoptive mother, Fiona Gow, had worked hard for him, but life had been tough.
But Fahlman has been living successfully on his own in a small cabin here on Vancouver Island - with help. The government has provided seven hours of support every day, a worker to keep Fahlman going.
But Neil's 19th birthday was approaching. His IQ, at 79, was above the threshold. The support would end.
HIs mother wasn't prepared to accept that. So she went to court. And won.
And sadly, the government is appealing the decision.
Children and Families MInister Stan Hagen says the government is appealing on a question of legal principle. The legislature, not the courts, should be setting policy.
But Justice Eric Chamberlist agreed completely. His ruling was based on the legislature's decison to pass the bill setting up Community Living BC. Chamberlist noted the legislation said Community Living BC's purpose is to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities."
If the government wanted to limit that assistance to people with IQs under 70, it just needed to amend the legislation or have cabinet issue an order, the justice said.
But instead the government is off to court.
If this was about principle, the government could appeal the decision while still changing its IQ policy. It hasn't.
It is a ridiculous policy. Community Living BC arranged its own psychological assessment of Fahlman. He needed the support, the psychologist said. Without it his aggression and impulsiveness could be disastrous. "He could do significant harm to himself and the community," the psychologist warned.
And the government is fighting to keep that policy in place, despite the risk both ot the individual and the community.
The issue is money. There's nothing wrong with that; we all have to figure out how to live within our means, and sometimes make hard decisions.
Having the IQ cutoff saves the government money, at least in the short term. It's a simple way to deny services.
If the government would admit that, instead of claiming some legal principle as justification, we could have a useful debate. Maybe peoples' lives are worth saving. Maybe support is cheaper than housing these people in jail.
Instead, the government is defending the indefensible under the guise of principle.
Strip the words away and you are left with the action - cutting support for Fahlman and others like him as a question of spending priorities.
There are parents out there terrified for their children. There are children with no parents.
It is ridiculous to cut all needed support when those people turn 19, based on an arbitrary test.
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued a release saying the IQ policy should go and support should be based on need. Sadly, it came almost four weeks after the court judgement and a day after Hagen announced that the decision would be appealed. Morley missed the chance to involve the public in the debate before the decision was made. She plans a report on the issue later this year.
It's not like we're talking about some questionable need. Kids with problems - fetal alcohol disorder or autism or the rest - get help from the government. Counselling and guidance, and if they really can't cope, one-on-one support to make sure they and the people around them are safe.
The support is based on need. It's not enough, but the criteria are roughly fair - the people who have the greatest need get the most services.
Until they turn 19. Then Community Living BC, executing a government policy, cuts all support to people with an IQ over 70. (There's small margin allowed.)
It doesn't matter if a teen can't function, is a danger to herself and others and is at a huge risk of exploitation. Too many right answers on the IQ test and all the support is gone overnight.
It's a disaster for people like Neil Fahlman. He’s a big, strong young man, with problems - fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder and an autism variant. He makes bad decisions, acts impulsively and sometimes violently. His adoptive mother, Fiona Gow, had worked hard for him, but life had been tough.
But Fahlman has been living successfully on his own in a small cabin here on Vancouver Island - with help. The government has provided seven hours of support every day, a worker to keep Fahlman going.
But Neil's 19th birthday was approaching. His IQ, at 79, was above the threshold. The support would end.
HIs mother wasn't prepared to accept that. So she went to court. And won.
And sadly, the government is appealing the decision.
Children and Families MInister Stan Hagen says the government is appealing on a question of legal principle. The legislature, not the courts, should be setting policy.
But Justice Eric Chamberlist agreed completely. His ruling was based on the legislature's decison to pass the bill setting up Community Living BC. Chamberlist noted the legislation said Community Living BC's purpose is to "assist adults with developmental disabilities to achieve maximum independence and live full lives in their communities."
If the government wanted to limit that assistance to people with IQs under 70, it just needed to amend the legislation or have cabinet issue an order, the justice said.
But instead the government is off to court.
If this was about principle, the government could appeal the decision while still changing its IQ policy. It hasn't.
It is a ridiculous policy. Community Living BC arranged its own psychological assessment of Fahlman. He needed the support, the psychologist said. Without it his aggression and impulsiveness could be disastrous. "He could do significant harm to himself and the community," the psychologist warned.
And the government is fighting to keep that policy in place, despite the risk both ot the individual and the community.
The issue is money. There's nothing wrong with that; we all have to figure out how to live within our means, and sometimes make hard decisions.
Having the IQ cutoff saves the government money, at least in the short term. It's a simple way to deny services.
If the government would admit that, instead of claiming some legal principle as justification, we could have a useful debate. Maybe peoples' lives are worth saving. Maybe support is cheaper than housing these people in jail.
Instead, the government is defending the indefensible under the guise of principle.
Strip the words away and you are left with the action - cutting support for Fahlman and others like him as a question of spending priorities.
There are parents out there terrified for their children. There are children with no parents.
It is ridiculous to cut all needed support when those people turn 19, based on an arbitrary test.
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley issued a release saying the IQ policy should go and support should be based on need. Sadly, it came almost four weeks after the court judgement and a day after Hagen announced that the decision would be appealed. Morley missed the chance to involve the public in the debate before the decision was made. She plans a report on the issue later this year.
Uranium mining poses big political risks
VICTORIA - It's got to be frustrating for the government. The geologists in the mines ministry are pretty sure there are no viable uranium deposits in B.C.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
But a few mining companies are out there raising money and talking enthusiastically about the potential - even drilling.
And that sends communities into panicky protest mode. No one wants a uranium mine as a neighbour. Many people don't want one anywhere in the province.
Last summer, the Okanagan was the hot spot. Two companies announced they were interested in developing a reserve about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna.
This summer it's the Clearwater area, where a tiny company called International Ranger is doing test drilling after talking up the uranium prospects. The anti-mine groups are already mobilizing. There are other potential reserves in southeast B.C.
It's a headache for the government. The Liberals know uranium mining would be wildly controversial and unite all sorts of potential foes, from environmentalists to people worried about weapons to community activists.
But they don't want to bring in a ban, because that would send the wrong message to the mining companies they've been wooing - successfully - for the last five years.
Former Socred premier Bill Bennett came to a different conclusion back in 1980. That's when the Okanagan project, then championed by Norcen and Ontario Hydro, looked like it was going to go ahead. Bennett saw the protests building and brought in a seven-year moratorium. Bill Vander Zalm let the ban lapse, sparking more demonstrations.
But the woes of the nuclear power industry - remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - have meant there's been little interest in uranium in B.C. Until now.
Ontario Hydro has just committed to rebuilding and adding to its nuclear power plants. China is looking to increase its nuclear power production by 600 per cent over the next 14 years. Spiking oil and gas prices mean conventional power plants will be more expensive to operate. And, as proponents note, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases.
Nuclear is back, and that means uranium prices are soaring and companies are looking at reserves all over the world, including B.C. The current projects may have a small chance of going ahead, but if prices stay high companies are going to keep looking.
The government doesn't think they'll be successful. In their eagerness to calm fears the usually boosterish Liberals have taken to bad-mouthing B.C.'s uranium potential.
Trust us, they effectively say, There's no need for a ban because no mines are going to be worth developing.
But at the same time they're letting companies explore and raise money from investors who think a mines might prove viable. And maybe one of them will be right.
Why the reluctance to just say no? Mining companies are treating the issue as a symbol of the government's commitment to welcoming the industry. What if there's a great copper reserve that includes a small amount of uranium, the companies ask? Will the copper stay in the ground because uranium mining is banned?
That's the new argument taken by International Ranger, which had been touting the uranium potential until public opposition started. Now it says it’s really interested in potential molybdenum deposits on the property, not the uranium. Since it stressed the huge uranium potential in its earlier statements, the claim isn’t flying.)
And the industry argues that uranium mining is not necessarily risky. Canada and Australia are the two largest producers, and the world's largest mine is two provinces over in Saskatchewan. (Though one critical difference is that it's in the middle of nowhere, not in retirement and resort country.)
The government's position might work, if companies lose interest in B.C. quickly.
But if any of them press on seriously, there will be trouble ahead.
Public pressure for a ban would be enormous, and likely successful.
Companies would then say, what a minute, why did you let us spend money on exploration if you weren't going to allow a mine?
The government is trying a tricky balancing act over a risky issue.
Footnote: Energy Minister Richard Neufeld told the legislature approval of a uranium mine is up to the federal government. Ottawa does regulate uranium mining, but no project can go ahead in B.C. without provincial approval, according to the Mines Act. The company looking at the Clearwater project was ordered by the province to hold an open house this month; it didn't win many converts.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Ottawa trip for every new government hire goofy
VICTORIA - There is something quite wildly mad about the federal government.
The Vancouver Sun has reported that everybody hired by the federal government is now to be flown to Ottawa for an orientation session. If you’re filling in as a filing clerk during a maternity leave or hired to clean a federal building in Prince Rupert, you have to jet down to Ottawa for two days to learn. . . well, that’s not entirely clear.
Mostly, I defend people who work for government against often unfair critics. They work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector. (You can make your own judgment about how hard that typically is). Job security and benefits may be a bit better, but they’re not overpaid and their workplaces increasingly look like those of their corporate cousins, for better or worse.
But the federal government, it’s from some other planet.
The new federal program is called Orientation to the Public Service. Everybody hired for more than six months - as a prison guard, or fisheries inspector or receptionist - has to go to Ottawa for two days of meetings and receptions. They’re supposed to get an understanding of how government works. They get a visit to Parliament, some classes in how the public sector works and a reception “with invited guests such as MPs, senators, senior government officials, and other public servants from across the country." Then back on the plane home.
The program in Ottawa costs $750 per new employee, picked up by Treasury Board. But individual ministries or agencies have to pay the travel costs for their new hires. So, a portion of the budget for policing or delivering aboriginal services will now be spent on travel for any new employees.
It’s crazy. So obviously crazy you wonder how the Liberals approved the program and why the Conservatives decided to commit about $10 million to it this year.
It’s good to have an orientation for new employees, something that reviews how they fit into the organization, pitches its values and goals and makes people feel like they matter. Most organizations do a poor job of it. I was impressed years ago by a speech from a Disney World executive who said everybody hired - from gardeners to vice-presidents - went through a one-week course on customer service and what the Florida theme park was trying to do.
But I’ve worked for companies with headquarters in the U.S., England and Canadian cities. None of them thought they needed to fly every new hire back to the head office for orientation. A few individuals taking on new responsibilities, sure. But not a trip for the sake of the ritual.
Apparently part of the justification for all this is the sponsorship scandal. The notion is that the orientation offers new recruits a grounding “in the values, ethics and accountabilities of the public service."
What a minute. No one from Vancouver, or Kelowna, was involved in the sponsorship scandal - just politically connected types in Ottawa. They should be flying out here to learn from the people doing the work on the ground.
It’s a puzzling - and probably wrong - assumption that the government is hiring people so short on judgment that they need to fly off to Ottawa to learn about ethics by schmoozing with MPs.
And what exactly does this program say about local managers? Are they really incapable of helping new hires understand their roles and the purposes and values of the organization?
What’s most telling about this is that the new Conservative government approved continuing the program. Stephen Harper’s team had only been in government a few months. They should have been full of righteous indignation at Ottawa and its ways.
But the orientation program was only a few million, the civil service brass liked it and so the program lived on. Another new batch of MPs co-opted before they’ve even figured out the fastest route back to their offices.
Footnote: The Conservatives attempted to shift the blame on to the Martin government. “We’ve inherited a lot of programs like this that were decisions made by the Liberals that we’re only finding out about,” said MP Jason Kenney. Except that the Conservative cabinet approved spending for the program in the new governments’ first budget this year.
The Vancouver Sun has reported that everybody hired by the federal government is now to be flown to Ottawa for an orientation session. If you’re filling in as a filing clerk during a maternity leave or hired to clean a federal building in Prince Rupert, you have to jet down to Ottawa for two days to learn. . . well, that’s not entirely clear.
Mostly, I defend people who work for government against often unfair critics. They work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector. (You can make your own judgment about how hard that typically is). Job security and benefits may be a bit better, but they’re not overpaid and their workplaces increasingly look like those of their corporate cousins, for better or worse.
But the federal government, it’s from some other planet.
The new federal program is called Orientation to the Public Service. Everybody hired for more than six months - as a prison guard, or fisheries inspector or receptionist - has to go to Ottawa for two days of meetings and receptions. They’re supposed to get an understanding of how government works. They get a visit to Parliament, some classes in how the public sector works and a reception “with invited guests such as MPs, senators, senior government officials, and other public servants from across the country." Then back on the plane home.
The program in Ottawa costs $750 per new employee, picked up by Treasury Board. But individual ministries or agencies have to pay the travel costs for their new hires. So, a portion of the budget for policing or delivering aboriginal services will now be spent on travel for any new employees.
It’s crazy. So obviously crazy you wonder how the Liberals approved the program and why the Conservatives decided to commit about $10 million to it this year.
It’s good to have an orientation for new employees, something that reviews how they fit into the organization, pitches its values and goals and makes people feel like they matter. Most organizations do a poor job of it. I was impressed years ago by a speech from a Disney World executive who said everybody hired - from gardeners to vice-presidents - went through a one-week course on customer service and what the Florida theme park was trying to do.
But I’ve worked for companies with headquarters in the U.S., England and Canadian cities. None of them thought they needed to fly every new hire back to the head office for orientation. A few individuals taking on new responsibilities, sure. But not a trip for the sake of the ritual.
Apparently part of the justification for all this is the sponsorship scandal. The notion is that the orientation offers new recruits a grounding “in the values, ethics and accountabilities of the public service."
What a minute. No one from Vancouver, or Kelowna, was involved in the sponsorship scandal - just politically connected types in Ottawa. They should be flying out here to learn from the people doing the work on the ground.
It’s a puzzling - and probably wrong - assumption that the government is hiring people so short on judgment that they need to fly off to Ottawa to learn about ethics by schmoozing with MPs.
And what exactly does this program say about local managers? Are they really incapable of helping new hires understand their roles and the purposes and values of the organization?
What’s most telling about this is that the new Conservative government approved continuing the program. Stephen Harper’s team had only been in government a few months. They should have been full of righteous indignation at Ottawa and its ways.
But the orientation program was only a few million, the civil service brass liked it and so the program lived on. Another new batch of MPs co-opted before they’ve even figured out the fastest route back to their offices.
Footnote: The Conservatives attempted to shift the blame on to the Martin government. “We’ve inherited a lot of programs like this that were decisions made by the Liberals that we’re only finding out about,” said MP Jason Kenney. Except that the Conservative cabinet approved spending for the program in the new governments’ first budget this year.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Coroner's child death report short on useful recommendations
VICTORIA - It took the Coroners Service three years to complete its first annual review of child deaths.
That in itself indicates serious problems. The report, which offers only obvious and general recommendations, confirms how wrong things have gone.
The Coroners Service was supposed to take the lead in learning from child deaths after the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commission. Nothing would be lost, Premier Gordon Campbell promised.
The coroner took over child death reviews in 2003. You might have expected a report in 2004, or maybe the next year. After all, they're important in helping save lives.
But only now has the first annual report appeared. It offers seven recommendations, all glaringly obvious and all lacking useful detail. Kids should use car seats, or least be buckled in; they should learn to swim; guns should be kept locked up; and there should be meetings to talk about child suicide and the high death rate of aboriginal children. (The report did have one concrete recommendation, calling on health authorities to do more to teach parents about safe sleeping practices for infants.)
Here's the report on car seats: “It’s recommended that children should always be placed in an approved car seat and/or restrained with a seatbelt when travelling in a motor vehicle.”
The issue is serious. Car crashes were the leading cause of deaths in the cases reviewed, claiming 89 lives. In 37 per cent of the cases the children weren't restrained in any way.
Yet the recommendation contributes little toward reducing deaths. Why weren't the children wearing seatbelts? Were there any regional variations in seatbelt use, or groups doing much better than others? Is B.C.'s rate worse than other jurisdictions that we could learn from?
Liberal MLA Iain Black has proposed a law to ensure that children up to eight ride in an approved car seat or booster seat. That could have been an issue for the child death review unit - is there evidence to show such a law would work? None of those questions were even raised.
The report also found - once again - that aboriginal children and youths are at much greater risk of death. The Coroners Service came up with no conclusions about why and offered no specific recommendations. It called on First Nations, government, parents, educators and communities to "forge new relationships" to deal with the problem.
That's fine. But surely there are things that should be done now to keep First Nations' kids safer.
The Coroners Service says those kinds of recommendations aren't its job. That's up to the new Representative for Child and Youth, says chief coroner Terry Smith.
But the Coroners' Service we site says its job includes making specific recommendations on systemic issues
And the representative's office that Smith says is supposed to be doing the work doesn't exist yet. It wasn't even conceived until Ted Hughes' report earlier this year on the major problems with child death reviews. The Coroners Service can't have been working for three years hoping that some agency would emerge to take the lead.
The report's weaknesses show how critical it is that the new Representative for Children and Youth get the mandate and budget to do the critical work needed. (Work has barely begun on setting the office up. There's no budget; the MLAs' committee that's to hire a representative has only met once.)
The Coroners Service report establishes that the representative will have to play a large role in reviewing child fatalities with the aim of preventing similar deaths.
That's only one part of the job, but an important one, as Gordon Campbell acknowledged in opposition. "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place."
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley has been granted another extension on her report into why Jamie Charlie was left in the home where his little sister Sherry was beaten to death. The report was originally due March 31. Now Morley is aiming for Sept. 29. "Unexpected issues around receiving documents as well as the higher than expected number of witnesses that were critical to the thoroughness and fairness of the process, have resulted in my request for the extension," Morley said in a statement. She also wants to leave time for people named in the report to respond.
That in itself indicates serious problems. The report, which offers only obvious and general recommendations, confirms how wrong things have gone.
The Coroners Service was supposed to take the lead in learning from child deaths after the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commission. Nothing would be lost, Premier Gordon Campbell promised.
The coroner took over child death reviews in 2003. You might have expected a report in 2004, or maybe the next year. After all, they're important in helping save lives.
But only now has the first annual report appeared. It offers seven recommendations, all glaringly obvious and all lacking useful detail. Kids should use car seats, or least be buckled in; they should learn to swim; guns should be kept locked up; and there should be meetings to talk about child suicide and the high death rate of aboriginal children. (The report did have one concrete recommendation, calling on health authorities to do more to teach parents about safe sleeping practices for infants.)
Here's the report on car seats: “It’s recommended that children should always be placed in an approved car seat and/or restrained with a seatbelt when travelling in a motor vehicle.”
The issue is serious. Car crashes were the leading cause of deaths in the cases reviewed, claiming 89 lives. In 37 per cent of the cases the children weren't restrained in any way.
Yet the recommendation contributes little toward reducing deaths. Why weren't the children wearing seatbelts? Were there any regional variations in seatbelt use, or groups doing much better than others? Is B.C.'s rate worse than other jurisdictions that we could learn from?
Liberal MLA Iain Black has proposed a law to ensure that children up to eight ride in an approved car seat or booster seat. That could have been an issue for the child death review unit - is there evidence to show such a law would work? None of those questions were even raised.
The report also found - once again - that aboriginal children and youths are at much greater risk of death. The Coroners Service came up with no conclusions about why and offered no specific recommendations. It called on First Nations, government, parents, educators and communities to "forge new relationships" to deal with the problem.
That's fine. But surely there are things that should be done now to keep First Nations' kids safer.
The Coroners Service says those kinds of recommendations aren't its job. That's up to the new Representative for Child and Youth, says chief coroner Terry Smith.
But the Coroners' Service we site says its job includes making specific recommendations on systemic issues
And the representative's office that Smith says is supposed to be doing the work doesn't exist yet. It wasn't even conceived until Ted Hughes' report earlier this year on the major problems with child death reviews. The Coroners Service can't have been working for three years hoping that some agency would emerge to take the lead.
The report's weaknesses show how critical it is that the new Representative for Children and Youth get the mandate and budget to do the critical work needed. (Work has barely begun on setting the office up. There's no budget; the MLAs' committee that's to hire a representative has only met once.)
The Coroners Service report establishes that the representative will have to play a large role in reviewing child fatalities with the aim of preventing similar deaths.
That's only one part of the job, but an important one, as Gordon Campbell acknowledged in opposition. "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place."
Footnote: Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley has been granted another extension on her report into why Jamie Charlie was left in the home where his little sister Sherry was beaten to death. The report was originally due March 31. Now Morley is aiming for Sept. 29. "Unexpected issues around receiving documents as well as the higher than expected number of witnesses that were critical to the thoroughness and fairness of the process, have resulted in my request for the extension," Morley said in a statement. She also wants to leave time for people named in the report to respond.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
No way out of the bad softwood deal
VICTORIA - The bad softwood deal is turning into a giant mess for the forest industry, Stephen Harper' and the Campbell government..
There will be lots of political fallout.
But the practical consequences are damaging for hundreds of communities. Canadian forest companies were looking for two things from a softwood deal - certainty, so they could make plans for the future, and a chance to compete in the U.S. market.
The agreement gives them neither. The deal can be killed by either side within three years; no company can confidently invest in Canadian forestry on that basis. And the barriers to the U.S. market included in the agreement are potentially greater than the duties now being imposed.
And for this, the industry is expected to drop all its legal action against the U.S. and hand over $1 billion in duties collected over the last four years. (Illegally, according to the B.C. and federal governments.)
If the deal goes through - and that's almost certain - companies will get back $4 billion in duties collected since 2002. Good news for the shareholders, but perhaps not for B.C. communities. Companies will be making decisions on how to use that money. Investment in B.C. will be less likely because of this softwood deal.
That's particularly bad news for the coastal industry, which needs investment in more efficient mills. The risk is that companies will take their share of the $4 billion, look at the prospects here and walk away.
How did this happen? It looks like the U.S. side saw that Canada was desperate to do a deal and took advantage. It doesn't matter why they judged Canada desperate - whether Ottawa was seen as keen to set up a good Harper-Bush meeting, anxious for a success for controversial Trade Minister David Emerson or hoping that settling softwood would win U.S. co-operation on some other file.
The U.S. guessed right and Canada is trapped in a bad deal.
Theoretically, forest companies can sink the agreement by refusing to give up their lawsuits against the U.S. over the current duties. But then what? The Harper government will be unlikely to champion the case for a better deal, and in any case it now lacks bargaining power now. Without strong government support for continued challenges under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization industry has dew options.
Meanwhile the B.C. government is left looking much like an ineffectual junior partner. Premier Gordon Campbell says now says B.C. won't support the agreement unless the terms are changed.
He's a little late. Forest Minister Rich Coleman has been praising the agreement. B.C. played a big role in reaching the agreement and it had "huge" support from the industry, Coleman told the legislature in May. He dismissed questions from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson that echo the concerns being raised by industry today.
Somehow, the B.C. government lost touch with industry and got in over its head. Harper's claim that he had B.C.'s support seems reasonable based on Coleman's raves.
(Emerson says the deal hasn't changed significantly since a draft was negotiated in April.)
Federally, Harper's softwood stumbles have handed the opposition a great election issue. The Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all oppose the deal. Harper has said the vote on it, expected this fall, will be a confidence motion. If the Conservatives lose, there would be an election.
It's a big opportunity for the opposition. A softwood deal that caves in to the Americans, signed, over the objections of provinces and industry, in a rush before a birthday visit to President George Bush.
But don't expect the government to fall. The Liberals' leadership vote will be Dec. 3. They'll want to wait until that's settled.
Mostly, this is embarrassing. The U.S. managed to negotiate a deal that's won wide acceptance.
Ottawa - encouraged by the B.C. government - has signed a bad deal, one already been rejected by provinces and industry.
Footnote: Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff will likely be an incidental casualty of the softwood deal. Ignatieff's return to Canada after decades in the U.S. and some of his written comments have already raised questions about whether he's too pro-American for some Liberal delegates. If the Liberals party plan a campaign attacking Harper's ties to Bush, Ignatieff is not their man.
There will be lots of political fallout.
But the practical consequences are damaging for hundreds of communities. Canadian forest companies were looking for two things from a softwood deal - certainty, so they could make plans for the future, and a chance to compete in the U.S. market.
The agreement gives them neither. The deal can be killed by either side within three years; no company can confidently invest in Canadian forestry on that basis. And the barriers to the U.S. market included in the agreement are potentially greater than the duties now being imposed.
And for this, the industry is expected to drop all its legal action against the U.S. and hand over $1 billion in duties collected over the last four years. (Illegally, according to the B.C. and federal governments.)
If the deal goes through - and that's almost certain - companies will get back $4 billion in duties collected since 2002. Good news for the shareholders, but perhaps not for B.C. communities. Companies will be making decisions on how to use that money. Investment in B.C. will be less likely because of this softwood deal.
That's particularly bad news for the coastal industry, which needs investment in more efficient mills. The risk is that companies will take their share of the $4 billion, look at the prospects here and walk away.
How did this happen? It looks like the U.S. side saw that Canada was desperate to do a deal and took advantage. It doesn't matter why they judged Canada desperate - whether Ottawa was seen as keen to set up a good Harper-Bush meeting, anxious for a success for controversial Trade Minister David Emerson or hoping that settling softwood would win U.S. co-operation on some other file.
The U.S. guessed right and Canada is trapped in a bad deal.
Theoretically, forest companies can sink the agreement by refusing to give up their lawsuits against the U.S. over the current duties. But then what? The Harper government will be unlikely to champion the case for a better deal, and in any case it now lacks bargaining power now. Without strong government support for continued challenges under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization industry has dew options.
Meanwhile the B.C. government is left looking much like an ineffectual junior partner. Premier Gordon Campbell says now says B.C. won't support the agreement unless the terms are changed.
He's a little late. Forest Minister Rich Coleman has been praising the agreement. B.C. played a big role in reaching the agreement and it had "huge" support from the industry, Coleman told the legislature in May. He dismissed questions from NDP forest critic Bob Simpson that echo the concerns being raised by industry today.
Somehow, the B.C. government lost touch with industry and got in over its head. Harper's claim that he had B.C.'s support seems reasonable based on Coleman's raves.
(Emerson says the deal hasn't changed significantly since a draft was negotiated in April.)
Federally, Harper's softwood stumbles have handed the opposition a great election issue. The Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP all oppose the deal. Harper has said the vote on it, expected this fall, will be a confidence motion. If the Conservatives lose, there would be an election.
It's a big opportunity for the opposition. A softwood deal that caves in to the Americans, signed, over the objections of provinces and industry, in a rush before a birthday visit to President George Bush.
But don't expect the government to fall. The Liberals' leadership vote will be Dec. 3. They'll want to wait until that's settled.
Mostly, this is embarrassing. The U.S. managed to negotiate a deal that's won wide acceptance.
Ottawa - encouraged by the B.C. government - has signed a bad deal, one already been rejected by provinces and industry.
Footnote: Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff will likely be an incidental casualty of the softwood deal. Ignatieff's return to Canada after decades in the U.S. and some of his written comments have already raised questions about whether he's too pro-American for some Liberal delegates. If the Liberals party plan a campaign attacking Harper's ties to Bush, Ignatieff is not their man.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Bad softwood deal grim news for B.C.
VICTORIA - The softwood deal that David Emerson and Stephen Harper are pushing is so bad it’s hard to imagine what they’re thinking.
The U.S. lumber industry wins; Canada loses. Canadian companies hand over $1 billion in to the U.S., with about half of it going directly to their American competitors - a reward for imposing duties that Canada and B.C. have claimed were illegal.
In return, Canada gets pretty much nothing.
B.C. and Canada had two objectives when the latest stage of this battle started four years ago. Free access to the U.S. market for our lumber, so companies could compete. And an agreement that would last long enough to let companies and communities plan and invest with some confidence.
The proposed deal delivers neither. It does let Harper and George Bush talk about solving the trade dispute when they meet in Washington this week. Perhaps Harper hopes it will also increase the chances of co-operation on other issues.
But for Canada’s forest industry and for communities that depend on the sector, it’s bad news.
There is no free access. The agreement attempts to keep Canada’s share of the U.S. market below 34 per cent - about where it was under the former softwood deal that Canada considered unacceptable.
The mechanism is different. The new deal uses timber prices to trigger trade barriers. When American prices are greater than $355US per thousand board feet, Canadian companies would have free access to U.S. markets. Once they fall below that, the border would start to close.
Canadian companies would have a choice under the deal. Companies in a region can agree to accept a quota on exports and pay smaller export charges. Or they can agree to pay higher export charges and ship without a quota.
The export charges would be collected by Ottawa and probably shared with the provincial governments.
The idea from the U.S. perspective is simple. Canadian companies will have to build the cost of the export duties into the price of the wood they send across the border. That will let U.S. producers keep their prices higher. The U.S. National Association of Homebuilders is forecasting that lumber prices could be about $315 by the time the deal is in effect. That would mean export duties of 15 per cent - more than the companies are paying now.
That’s not even the worst part of the proposed agreement.
The whole point of this exercise was certainty. B.C.’s forest industry depends on the U.S. market. Companies’ willingness to invest here is reduced when they must factor in the chance that the door to the major market could be closed with little warning.
Instead of certainty, the deal offers a stopgap. It’s officially for seven years, but either side can opt and out and kill the deal in as little as three years. The industry - and governments - have no certainty.
No worries, says Emerson. It’s a U.S.-Canada deal and neither government is likely to pull out.
He can’t be serious. If the clause wasn’t likely to be used, the U.S. side wouldn’t be insisting that it be included. The American timber companies are a powerful political lobby. The agreement will be threatened the first moment they have the chance.
And why not? Their tactics over the last four years have worked extremely well, keeping Canadian lumber out, prices high and producing a $500-million windfall.
The deal is already under attack. The B.C. government and the province’s industry have sent a joint letter saying the agreement is unacceptable. They want, among other things, a slightly longer term. Companies can kill the agreement by refusing to drop their lawsuits over the current duties.
But Emerson signed an agreement on behalf of Canada. The industry has to worry about his future attitude. And in any case, the U.S. negotiators can now just keep insisting Canada honour the commitment already made.
Ottawa has fumbled, badly.
Footnote: The bad deal is especially surprising because Canada seemed to be making steady progress in its legal efforts to fight the duties under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization. The dispute was always most likely to be settled through negotiation, but legal victories increase Canada’s bargaining position steadily had forced the U.S. to lower duties.
The U.S. lumber industry wins; Canada loses. Canadian companies hand over $1 billion in to the U.S., with about half of it going directly to their American competitors - a reward for imposing duties that Canada and B.C. have claimed were illegal.
In return, Canada gets pretty much nothing.
B.C. and Canada had two objectives when the latest stage of this battle started four years ago. Free access to the U.S. market for our lumber, so companies could compete. And an agreement that would last long enough to let companies and communities plan and invest with some confidence.
The proposed deal delivers neither. It does let Harper and George Bush talk about solving the trade dispute when they meet in Washington this week. Perhaps Harper hopes it will also increase the chances of co-operation on other issues.
But for Canada’s forest industry and for communities that depend on the sector, it’s bad news.
There is no free access. The agreement attempts to keep Canada’s share of the U.S. market below 34 per cent - about where it was under the former softwood deal that Canada considered unacceptable.
The mechanism is different. The new deal uses timber prices to trigger trade barriers. When American prices are greater than $355US per thousand board feet, Canadian companies would have free access to U.S. markets. Once they fall below that, the border would start to close.
Canadian companies would have a choice under the deal. Companies in a region can agree to accept a quota on exports and pay smaller export charges. Or they can agree to pay higher export charges and ship without a quota.
The export charges would be collected by Ottawa and probably shared with the provincial governments.
The idea from the U.S. perspective is simple. Canadian companies will have to build the cost of the export duties into the price of the wood they send across the border. That will let U.S. producers keep their prices higher. The U.S. National Association of Homebuilders is forecasting that lumber prices could be about $315 by the time the deal is in effect. That would mean export duties of 15 per cent - more than the companies are paying now.
That’s not even the worst part of the proposed agreement.
The whole point of this exercise was certainty. B.C.’s forest industry depends on the U.S. market. Companies’ willingness to invest here is reduced when they must factor in the chance that the door to the major market could be closed with little warning.
Instead of certainty, the deal offers a stopgap. It’s officially for seven years, but either side can opt and out and kill the deal in as little as three years. The industry - and governments - have no certainty.
No worries, says Emerson. It’s a U.S.-Canada deal and neither government is likely to pull out.
He can’t be serious. If the clause wasn’t likely to be used, the U.S. side wouldn’t be insisting that it be included. The American timber companies are a powerful political lobby. The agreement will be threatened the first moment they have the chance.
And why not? Their tactics over the last four years have worked extremely well, keeping Canadian lumber out, prices high and producing a $500-million windfall.
The deal is already under attack. The B.C. government and the province’s industry have sent a joint letter saying the agreement is unacceptable. They want, among other things, a slightly longer term. Companies can kill the agreement by refusing to drop their lawsuits over the current duties.
But Emerson signed an agreement on behalf of Canada. The industry has to worry about his future attitude. And in any case, the U.S. negotiators can now just keep insisting Canada honour the commitment already made.
Ottawa has fumbled, badly.
Footnote: The bad deal is especially surprising because Canada seemed to be making steady progress in its legal efforts to fight the duties under NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization. The dispute was always most likely to be settled through negotiation, but legal victories increase Canada’s bargaining position steadily had forced the U.S. to lower duties.
Friday, June 30, 2006
NDP shuffle puts focus on health, community safety
VICTORIA - Carole James was due to shuffle MLAs in and out of critics' jobs about now anyway.
But her caucus shake-up will still be looked at in the context of the NDP's poor performance in two recent polls, which showed Gordon Campbell and his party both with their highest ratings in almost five years. The Liberals ' popularity has increased since last year's election; the New Democrats' support has fallen.
There are a lot of factors, starting with the Liberals' rebirth as a kinder, gentler government. And the election is still three years away. But James has to respond to the polls, if only to keep critics within the party happy. The changes send the message that she recognizes the need for change.
The shuffle was due anyway. The current critics were all appointed just after the election last year; most were unknown quantities with no legislative experience. (James made her choices after asking the MLAs to do written reports on their areas of interest, why they believed they were qualified to tackle those issues and the goals that should be set.)
Some shone, some struggled. It takes a special skill set to be an effective critic. It's not enough to be an expert on the ministry that you're responsible for. You have to build a network of sources around the province. You need to be a sharp questioner in budget debate and quick and confident enough to pin down well-prepared ministers in Question Period.
And then you have to be able to make the most of media attention when it comes.
James' most significant change was to shift Adrian Dix from children and families critic to health.
Dix was an extraordinarily effective critic. There are two goals for a critic, or there should be. Critics certainly want to score points for their side and make the other guys look bad. But they also have a chance to produce meaningful improvements in the way government works. Dix's efforts highlighted the Liberals' failures in the children's ministry. They also produced Ted Hughes' review of the ministry, creation of an independent advocate for children and a total overhaul of ministry management.
By moving him to health James confirms that's going to be an NDP priority. There's still major dissatisfaction with the problem points in the system and the lack of accountability. Health Minister George Abbott is in for a much tougher time.
MIke Farnworth, the NDP's House Leader, moves from economic development critic to public safety and solicitor general. Farnworth's move signals an interest in making crime and safety a bigger issue in the next year.
Twelve of the 32 critics stayed put, including Cariboo North's Bob Simpson, a highly effective forestry critic.
Some MLAs got promotions. North Island’s Claire Trevena went from income assistance to child care and early childhood development while Esquimalt MLA Maurine Karagianis takes over children and family development.
And some choices just seem puzzling. Sunshine Coast Nicholas Simons takes over human rights, multiculturalism and immigration. The issues are hugely important to Vancouver's minority communities; Raj Chouhan of Burnaby had the job until the shuffle.
The shuffle should give the NDP a sharper focus on a couple of priority issues.
But no matter who the critics are, the New Democrats have a problem. It's difficult to score political points off a government that's working hard at being liked by voters. If the government avoids unpopular decisions, responds quickly to problems and abandons plans if the outcry gets too loud, then the opposition is in trouble. The Liberals - despite some backsliding - show signs of having learned that lesson.
The NDP has actually been an effective opposition in many areas. The Liberals abandoned three spring session bills in the face of their criticism, an extraordinary action from a majority government. The legislature has been general civil and productive.
But that's not enough to win voters' support, especially if things are generally going well.
Footnote: Shane Simpson of Vancouver-Hastings stays in environment, an area that should be critical for the NDP. The Greens were at 10 per cent in the Ipsos poll. Both parties are eying those votes. But high-profile moves like protecting much of the Great Bear Rainforest have played well with environmentalists, and left the NDP with a tougher job.
But her caucus shake-up will still be looked at in the context of the NDP's poor performance in two recent polls, which showed Gordon Campbell and his party both with their highest ratings in almost five years. The Liberals ' popularity has increased since last year's election; the New Democrats' support has fallen.
There are a lot of factors, starting with the Liberals' rebirth as a kinder, gentler government. And the election is still three years away. But James has to respond to the polls, if only to keep critics within the party happy. The changes send the message that she recognizes the need for change.
The shuffle was due anyway. The current critics were all appointed just after the election last year; most were unknown quantities with no legislative experience. (James made her choices after asking the MLAs to do written reports on their areas of interest, why they believed they were qualified to tackle those issues and the goals that should be set.)
Some shone, some struggled. It takes a special skill set to be an effective critic. It's not enough to be an expert on the ministry that you're responsible for. You have to build a network of sources around the province. You need to be a sharp questioner in budget debate and quick and confident enough to pin down well-prepared ministers in Question Period.
And then you have to be able to make the most of media attention when it comes.
James' most significant change was to shift Adrian Dix from children and families critic to health.
Dix was an extraordinarily effective critic. There are two goals for a critic, or there should be. Critics certainly want to score points for their side and make the other guys look bad. But they also have a chance to produce meaningful improvements in the way government works. Dix's efforts highlighted the Liberals' failures in the children's ministry. They also produced Ted Hughes' review of the ministry, creation of an independent advocate for children and a total overhaul of ministry management.
By moving him to health James confirms that's going to be an NDP priority. There's still major dissatisfaction with the problem points in the system and the lack of accountability. Health Minister George Abbott is in for a much tougher time.
MIke Farnworth, the NDP's House Leader, moves from economic development critic to public safety and solicitor general. Farnworth's move signals an interest in making crime and safety a bigger issue in the next year.
Twelve of the 32 critics stayed put, including Cariboo North's Bob Simpson, a highly effective forestry critic.
Some MLAs got promotions. North Island’s Claire Trevena went from income assistance to child care and early childhood development while Esquimalt MLA Maurine Karagianis takes over children and family development.
And some choices just seem puzzling. Sunshine Coast Nicholas Simons takes over human rights, multiculturalism and immigration. The issues are hugely important to Vancouver's minority communities; Raj Chouhan of Burnaby had the job until the shuffle.
The shuffle should give the NDP a sharper focus on a couple of priority issues.
But no matter who the critics are, the New Democrats have a problem. It's difficult to score political points off a government that's working hard at being liked by voters. If the government avoids unpopular decisions, responds quickly to problems and abandons plans if the outcry gets too loud, then the opposition is in trouble. The Liberals - despite some backsliding - show signs of having learned that lesson.
The NDP has actually been an effective opposition in many areas. The Liberals abandoned three spring session bills in the face of their criticism, an extraordinary action from a majority government. The legislature has been general civil and productive.
But that's not enough to win voters' support, especially if things are generally going well.
Footnote: Shane Simpson of Vancouver-Hastings stays in environment, an area that should be critical for the NDP. The Greens were at 10 per cent in the Ipsos poll. Both parties are eying those votes. But high-profile moves like protecting much of the Great Bear Rainforest have played well with environmentalists, and left the NDP with a tougher job.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Court case should mean end of class fees and charges
VICTORIA - Education is supposed to be the great equalizer. All children are should get the same chance to make the most of their abilities.
That’s why a new legal effort to win a ban on class fees in B.C. makes sense.
Greater Victoria school trustee John Young is behind the push. The 85-year-old former teacher and principal probably drives his peers nuts with his anti-fee campaigns. He even sued his own school district over the issue.
But Young is right. We’ve decided that a public education system is important. MLAs passed the School Act, which says it’s illegal to charge for classes or the “educational resource materials necessary to participate.” The next budding math genius shouldn’t be shunted aside because his parents can’t afford the class fees.
The B.C. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Young took the Victoria school district to court in 1997 over various fees charged students. Against the law, he said.
Justice Montague Drake agreed. He rejected the district’s arguments about why it’s OK to charge kids to take classes, including the defence that making students pay for materials needed in a course was legal. If the supplies are needed to complete the course, then you couldn’t charge for them. "There should be, then, no charge for the materials used in educational programs," wrote Drake.
The Victoria school district accepted the ruling and came up with a policy fees that met the legal requirements of the School Act. The lost money hurt, but didn’t have any dire consequences, according to the superintendent.
But the government tried to give school districts an out. Cabinet passed an order that said fees for musical instrument rentals, some school supplies and materials to be used in projects that will eventually be taken home by a student are OK. Schools across B.C. have taken that as a licence to charge fees. (Some readers are undoubtedly clenching their fists and muttering darkly about Gordon Campbell’s attack on public education. I should remind them this was 1997; the NDP cabinet passed the order that tried to legitimize user-pay education.)
That’s what Young is challenging, seeking a court declaration that the fees are illegal.
It’s not just a fuss about principle. The fees matter. Students who want to take a course in tourism are asked for $50. Vancouver students can be charged $100 to take calculus and $150 for physical education. For a parent on limited income, already coping with back-to-school costs, it’s a big burden.
School districts exempt poor people from the fees. But should they have to plead poverty? And do their children instead just opt to avoid classes that cost money?
There’s no real equality of opportunity. A child who grows up in a stable family that visits the library every Saturday morning and takes preschool music and gym will have a better chance than a child without those opportunities. Schools in affluent neighbourhoods can count on parents to raise a lot of money to give their kids a better education. Schools in inner-city neighbourhoods or in struggling resource communities can’t count on the same support. Parents there just don’t have the money and connections to raise big money for their schools. Tough luck for those students.
For now, that’s life.
But public school is where every child gets a chance. It takes work, but they can shine. Their abilities and effort matter more than their background.
If it’s worth teaching children something in school, it’s worth making sure they all get the chance. Some 11-year-old kid desperate to learn to play the flute shouldn’t be shut out because her mum doesn’t have the fee charged for the class. A math whiz shouldn’t avoid calculus because it costs too much.
This is B.C. in 2006, one of the most privileged places on Earth. How can we say we don’t want to pay for children’s education?
Footnote: It’s the time to end fees. School districts are desperate for revenue, signing deals with soda companies, pushing parents’ fundraising and even starting risky overseas businesses to try and raise revenue. If the practice isn’t stopped now, fees will become a more and more important source of revenue until they are too significant to eliminate.
That’s why a new legal effort to win a ban on class fees in B.C. makes sense.
Greater Victoria school trustee John Young is behind the push. The 85-year-old former teacher and principal probably drives his peers nuts with his anti-fee campaigns. He even sued his own school district over the issue.
But Young is right. We’ve decided that a public education system is important. MLAs passed the School Act, which says it’s illegal to charge for classes or the “educational resource materials necessary to participate.” The next budding math genius shouldn’t be shunted aside because his parents can’t afford the class fees.
The B.C. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. Young took the Victoria school district to court in 1997 over various fees charged students. Against the law, he said.
Justice Montague Drake agreed. He rejected the district’s arguments about why it’s OK to charge kids to take classes, including the defence that making students pay for materials needed in a course was legal. If the supplies are needed to complete the course, then you couldn’t charge for them. "There should be, then, no charge for the materials used in educational programs," wrote Drake.
The Victoria school district accepted the ruling and came up with a policy fees that met the legal requirements of the School Act. The lost money hurt, but didn’t have any dire consequences, according to the superintendent.
But the government tried to give school districts an out. Cabinet passed an order that said fees for musical instrument rentals, some school supplies and materials to be used in projects that will eventually be taken home by a student are OK. Schools across B.C. have taken that as a licence to charge fees. (Some readers are undoubtedly clenching their fists and muttering darkly about Gordon Campbell’s attack on public education. I should remind them this was 1997; the NDP cabinet passed the order that tried to legitimize user-pay education.)
That’s what Young is challenging, seeking a court declaration that the fees are illegal.
It’s not just a fuss about principle. The fees matter. Students who want to take a course in tourism are asked for $50. Vancouver students can be charged $100 to take calculus and $150 for physical education. For a parent on limited income, already coping with back-to-school costs, it’s a big burden.
School districts exempt poor people from the fees. But should they have to plead poverty? And do their children instead just opt to avoid classes that cost money?
There’s no real equality of opportunity. A child who grows up in a stable family that visits the library every Saturday morning and takes preschool music and gym will have a better chance than a child without those opportunities. Schools in affluent neighbourhoods can count on parents to raise a lot of money to give their kids a better education. Schools in inner-city neighbourhoods or in struggling resource communities can’t count on the same support. Parents there just don’t have the money and connections to raise big money for their schools. Tough luck for those students.
For now, that’s life.
But public school is where every child gets a chance. It takes work, but they can shine. Their abilities and effort matter more than their background.
If it’s worth teaching children something in school, it’s worth making sure they all get the chance. Some 11-year-old kid desperate to learn to play the flute shouldn’t be shut out because her mum doesn’t have the fee charged for the class. A math whiz shouldn’t avoid calculus because it costs too much.
This is B.C. in 2006, one of the most privileged places on Earth. How can we say we don’t want to pay for children’s education?
Footnote: It’s the time to end fees. School districts are desperate for revenue, signing deals with soda companies, pushing parents’ fundraising and even starting risky overseas businesses to try and raise revenue. If the practice isn’t stopped now, fees will become a more and more important source of revenue until they are too significant to eliminate.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Health resignation a challenge to Campbell
VICTORIA - When the government's top health care manager quits in protest over Premier Gordon Campbell's "unsound" plans for health, the public deserves answers.
Dr. Penny Ballem isn't just another bureaucrat. Campbell recruited her to run the health ministry in 2001. Since then she's been at the centre of all the health care changes, with strong support from Campbell.
Until last week, when Ballem quit and went public with her concerns in a letter delivered to Campbell (and quickly leaked).
"As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part," Ballem wrote. "This, combined with the lack of satisfaction you have expressed in the work the ministry has brought forward to cabinet, has clarified for me that it is time I moved on."
It's a major attack on government health policies from a senior manager who has been steadfastly loyal. Ballem has taken the lead in defending the government's health policies, a job usually reserved for politicians.
Ballem's resignation raises important questions for the public. The premier's office apparently plans major health-care changes that Ballem believes are so "unsound" that she has no choice but to resign. What are they?
Cabinet was apparently unhappy with the proposals coming from the health ministry. What were they, and why did cabinet ministers get so exercised about them?
And was the government's move to shift thousands of surgeries to private clinics one of the areas of conflict?
Campbell's response so far has been lame. He says he doesn't know what policies Ballem was referring to when she used the "unsound" label. Ballem was involved in developing all the current policies, he says.
It's a worrying response. There's clearly a significant policy question - Ballem didn't quit a job she devoted five years to on a whim. Neither Campbell nor Health Minister George Abbott apparently know what the policy question is and had not picked up the phone to call her and find out.
There are other factors at play. Ballem's letter of resignation specifically mentioned that the unsound policies are being promoted by the premier and his deputy minister, Jessica McDonald.
The premier's office under McDonald has been pushing into policy areas that were the preserve of ministries. Its budget has increased 40 per cent over the last two years. About $2.5 million of the increase has gone to set up the "deputy minister's policy secretariat."
Campbell say the secretariat lets his office take a broader look at policy questions than any individual ministry can do. But it also concentrates power within a small group reporting to the premier and undercuts ministries.
Health care remains the top issue for the public and a problem for the government. The spring session of the legislature was dominated by questions about ER problems, crowded hospitals and a shortage of long-term care spaces.
The Liberals hoped that setting up the five regional health authorities would spare them some of the inevitable health-care controversies.
But that hasn't worked. The health authorities aren't responsible to anyone but government, which sets the budgets, appoints the directors and calls the policy shots. When 91-year-old Fanny Albo was pushed from a Trail hospital and died far from family and friends, Ballem was sent to the Kootenays to find out why. (Her review identified major public dissatisfaction with the Interior Health Authority.)
Some Liberal MLAs - taking the brunt of the criticism in their ridings - have been grumbling about the health problems.
All this is unfolding against the backdrop of Campbell's big, vague plans for health care change. He travelled to Europe to look at alternate systems, but hasn't provided any report to the public. He plans some sort of "dialogue" on health care this fall, but again details are non-existent.
Ballem's resignation raises immediate, important questions. The public needs real answers.
Footnote: Ballem's resignation caught Abbott by surprised and the health minister was left looking out of the loop when reporters caught with him late Thursday. Ballem sent her resignation letter to the premier that morning; by day's end Abbott still didn't know she had complained of unsound plans from the premier's office.
Dr. Penny Ballem isn't just another bureaucrat. Campbell recruited her to run the health ministry in 2001. Since then she's been at the centre of all the health care changes, with strong support from Campbell.
Until last week, when Ballem quit and went public with her concerns in a letter delivered to Campbell (and quickly leaked).
"As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part," Ballem wrote. "This, combined with the lack of satisfaction you have expressed in the work the ministry has brought forward to cabinet, has clarified for me that it is time I moved on."
It's a major attack on government health policies from a senior manager who has been steadfastly loyal. Ballem has taken the lead in defending the government's health policies, a job usually reserved for politicians.
Ballem's resignation raises important questions for the public. The premier's office apparently plans major health-care changes that Ballem believes are so "unsound" that she has no choice but to resign. What are they?
Cabinet was apparently unhappy with the proposals coming from the health ministry. What were they, and why did cabinet ministers get so exercised about them?
And was the government's move to shift thousands of surgeries to private clinics one of the areas of conflict?
Campbell's response so far has been lame. He says he doesn't know what policies Ballem was referring to when she used the "unsound" label. Ballem was involved in developing all the current policies, he says.
It's a worrying response. There's clearly a significant policy question - Ballem didn't quit a job she devoted five years to on a whim. Neither Campbell nor Health Minister George Abbott apparently know what the policy question is and had not picked up the phone to call her and find out.
There are other factors at play. Ballem's letter of resignation specifically mentioned that the unsound policies are being promoted by the premier and his deputy minister, Jessica McDonald.
The premier's office under McDonald has been pushing into policy areas that were the preserve of ministries. Its budget has increased 40 per cent over the last two years. About $2.5 million of the increase has gone to set up the "deputy minister's policy secretariat."
Campbell say the secretariat lets his office take a broader look at policy questions than any individual ministry can do. But it also concentrates power within a small group reporting to the premier and undercuts ministries.
Health care remains the top issue for the public and a problem for the government. The spring session of the legislature was dominated by questions about ER problems, crowded hospitals and a shortage of long-term care spaces.
The Liberals hoped that setting up the five regional health authorities would spare them some of the inevitable health-care controversies.
But that hasn't worked. The health authorities aren't responsible to anyone but government, which sets the budgets, appoints the directors and calls the policy shots. When 91-year-old Fanny Albo was pushed from a Trail hospital and died far from family and friends, Ballem was sent to the Kootenays to find out why. (Her review identified major public dissatisfaction with the Interior Health Authority.)
Some Liberal MLAs - taking the brunt of the criticism in their ridings - have been grumbling about the health problems.
All this is unfolding against the backdrop of Campbell's big, vague plans for health care change. He travelled to Europe to look at alternate systems, but hasn't provided any report to the public. He plans some sort of "dialogue" on health care this fall, but again details are non-existent.
Ballem's resignation raises immediate, important questions. The public needs real answers.
Footnote: Ballem's resignation caught Abbott by surprised and the health minister was left looking out of the loop when reporters caught with him late Thursday. Ballem sent her resignation letter to the premier that morning; by day's end Abbott still didn't know she had complained of unsound plans from the premier's office.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Poll shows Liberals sitting pretty across B.C.
VICTORIA - It was pretty a good week for Gordon Campbell.
An Ipsos-Reid poll reported strong support for both the Liberals and Campbell’s leadership, high enough to make another majority a good bet.
And two independent economic forecasts predict a strong economy through the end of next year, a happy circumstance for any party in power.
The Ipsos poll, especially if read along with the Mustel Group poll released last month, shows a big recovery for the Liberals. The party is at popularity levels it hasn’t since the very brief honeymoon after the 2001 election. Campbell has never had such a strong approval rating.
As recently as two years ago, the Liberals trailed in an Ipsos poll. The NDP was at 44 per cent across the province — 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland. The Liberals were at 37 per cent provincially and 33 per cent outside the Lower Mainland.
Now the Liberals are at 51 per cent provincially, the NDP at 35 per cent. (Greens have the support of 10 per cent of decided voters.) The support cuts across demographic and geographic lines. Even on Vancouver Island, where NDP support has been strong - the New Democrats took nine of 13 seats in 2005 - the Liberals have a comfortable lead. Campbell’s party is even slightly ahead in terms of support from union households across B.C.
The reasons aren’t complex. The government has come up with more money to ease the problems caused by underfunding in health care, education and services for children and families. It has quit acting the bully with its employees, reaching negotiated settlements with more than 50 unions representing some 200,000 workers.
And it has shed some of the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Just compare last year’s handling of the Sherry Charlie case with this year’s response to the death of Fanny Albo after she was pushed from a Trail hospital. The government denied and stonewalled on the Charlie case until the pressure became too great. This year, the health deputy minister was dispatched immediately to prepare a public report on Albo’s death.
Add to all that a strong economy and no hot button issues and you’ve got a formula for political success.
Bad news for the NDP. Carole James still gets better ratings than Campbell. (They’re effectively tied, each with about 50-per-cent of approval ratings. But almost 45 per cent disapprove of Campbell’s performance; only 29 per cent give James thumbs down.)
But poll numbers like these, for a government in its fifth year, are grim news for an opposition. There’s not much the NDP can do to swing voters away from the Liberals if they are general satisfied. Their only hope is that the Liberals will drive voters way, as they did during their first term.
That doesn’t look likely right now. The Liberals are taking more care not to anger voters needlessly. Education Minister Shirley Bond’s attacks on teachers during the run-up to last fall’s strike helped build support for the union; this time she’s stayed quiet.
There are hints of the old style, like the decision to turn the auditor general’s position into a partisan appointment.
And Forest Minister Rich Coleman may come to regret his claim that B.C. took the lead in reaching the proposed softwood settlement that is now in so much trouble.
But generally the Liberals aren’t picking fights and are steering clear of risky issues.
On a practical level, it’s good news for an opposition. The Liberals abandoned three bad bills in the face of NDP concerns in the spring session, choosing not to risk losing political points in a confrontation. Oppositions rarely have such impact on legislation.
In terms of electoral success, the news is not so good for the NDP. If the Liberals don’t mess up, there’s little really that the NDP can do to cause a big shift in support.
Footnote: The Campbell government was jolted this week by the resignation of health deputy minister Penny Ballem, one of the most powerful bureaucrats through its first five years. Ballem, the architect and defender of most health care changes, set out her reasons in a letter to Campbell. "As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part." No response from Campbell yet.
An Ipsos-Reid poll reported strong support for both the Liberals and Campbell’s leadership, high enough to make another majority a good bet.
And two independent economic forecasts predict a strong economy through the end of next year, a happy circumstance for any party in power.
The Ipsos poll, especially if read along with the Mustel Group poll released last month, shows a big recovery for the Liberals. The party is at popularity levels it hasn’t since the very brief honeymoon after the 2001 election. Campbell has never had such a strong approval rating.
As recently as two years ago, the Liberals trailed in an Ipsos poll. The NDP was at 44 per cent across the province — 46 per cent outside the Lower Mainland. The Liberals were at 37 per cent provincially and 33 per cent outside the Lower Mainland.
Now the Liberals are at 51 per cent provincially, the NDP at 35 per cent. (Greens have the support of 10 per cent of decided voters.) The support cuts across demographic and geographic lines. Even on Vancouver Island, where NDP support has been strong - the New Democrats took nine of 13 seats in 2005 - the Liberals have a comfortable lead. Campbell’s party is even slightly ahead in terms of support from union households across B.C.
The reasons aren’t complex. The government has come up with more money to ease the problems caused by underfunding in health care, education and services for children and families. It has quit acting the bully with its employees, reaching negotiated settlements with more than 50 unions representing some 200,000 workers.
And it has shed some of the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes. Just compare last year’s handling of the Sherry Charlie case with this year’s response to the death of Fanny Albo after she was pushed from a Trail hospital. The government denied and stonewalled on the Charlie case until the pressure became too great. This year, the health deputy minister was dispatched immediately to prepare a public report on Albo’s death.
Add to all that a strong economy and no hot button issues and you’ve got a formula for political success.
Bad news for the NDP. Carole James still gets better ratings than Campbell. (They’re effectively tied, each with about 50-per-cent of approval ratings. But almost 45 per cent disapprove of Campbell’s performance; only 29 per cent give James thumbs down.)
But poll numbers like these, for a government in its fifth year, are grim news for an opposition. There’s not much the NDP can do to swing voters away from the Liberals if they are general satisfied. Their only hope is that the Liberals will drive voters way, as they did during their first term.
That doesn’t look likely right now. The Liberals are taking more care not to anger voters needlessly. Education Minister Shirley Bond’s attacks on teachers during the run-up to last fall’s strike helped build support for the union; this time she’s stayed quiet.
There are hints of the old style, like the decision to turn the auditor general’s position into a partisan appointment.
And Forest Minister Rich Coleman may come to regret his claim that B.C. took the lead in reaching the proposed softwood settlement that is now in so much trouble.
But generally the Liberals aren’t picking fights and are steering clear of risky issues.
On a practical level, it’s good news for an opposition. The Liberals abandoned three bad bills in the face of NDP concerns in the spring session, choosing not to risk losing political points in a confrontation. Oppositions rarely have such impact on legislation.
In terms of electoral success, the news is not so good for the NDP. If the Liberals don’t mess up, there’s little really that the NDP can do to cause a big shift in support.
Footnote: The Campbell government was jolted this week by the resignation of health deputy minister Penny Ballem, one of the most powerful bureaucrats through its first five years. Ballem, the architect and defender of most health care changes, set out her reasons in a letter to Campbell. "As I have advised you, the plans that you and your deputy minister have established for the organization of the Ministry of Health are unsound and reflect a lack of confidence in my leadership on your part." No response from Campbell yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
