It's appalling to hear some of the nonsense being talked about the Fraser Institute's recent report on elementary schools across the province.
Kids are in big trouble if they can't read, write and work with numbers. Before they're even out of elementary school, some children - many children - have fallen behind. Catching up is hard.
And some schools, year after year, are doing a significantly worse job than others of ensuring children meet minimum standards for literacy and numeracy. More of the children who go to those schools are starting life behind.
That should alarm us. The public education system is supposed to be the great equalizer. Poor home, inattentive parents, too many moves - all children are supposed to get the chance to learn the basic skills that will let them make the most of their lives.
But it's not happening. The latest report from the institute looked at elementary schools. It's based on the performance of students in Grade 4 and 7 on standardized provincial tests in reading, writing and numerical skills. The report includes information on the percentages of special needs and English as a second language students in schools, factors that can affect test results.
Many schools have great results. That's not surprising; B.C. has an excellent public education system.
But the results also show some big problems. The report, among its measures, includes data on the percentage of students who aren't meeting the province's basic standards for reading, writing and math skills.
That's a critical measure of how many children are being left behind. Up in Prince George, across the public school district, 22 per cent of children were not performing up to the basic standard set by the province. That's worrying in itself.
But there were also dramatic variations. In one school, only a few students - seven per cent - did not meet the basic standard. But at five schools, more than 30 per cent of students failed to meet the standard. At one school, almost half the students weren't able to read, write and do math at the level the government considered acceptable.
Parents - anyone with an interest in children and the future - should welcome that information. If almost half the students in a school aren't meeting standards for basic skills, the school needs help. If a school district has too many schools where students aren't meeting standards, the district needs help.
None of this means the teachers are bad, or the principal, or the program, or that there is something wrong with the children. It means there is a problem. It's not the children's problem; they just need it fixed.
Instead of accepting that, the reaction from some quarters - sadly, especially from some teachers, backed up by Education Minister Shirley Bond - has been to attack the review.
The basic argument is that schools' success doesn't rest on test results. The ability to involve children in a supportive community and help them experience the arts and sport, to make school joyful, those are important too.
That's true. A school that simply churned out students who did well on tests, without gaining the experience of working with others and the joy of learning, would be a failure.
But it is extremely important that children learn the basic skills that will give them a fair chance at life. When the report suggests that that is not happening for a significant number of students in a school, we should pay attention.
That doesn't mean panic at slight differences or one-year swings in results. The number of students can be small and results skewed.
But if two schools are in a district, with similar populations, and one is doing much better at ensuring students acquire skills than the other, then perhaps lessons can be learned.
And if in one of those schools almost half the students aren't getting needed reading, writing and math skills, then we have to do something.
Footnote: Some critics dismiss the report because it comes from the Fraser Institute, which has a mission of promoting privatization. That's reason to look critically at the information, but not to dismiss it blindly. The reason the report is widely publicized is because it responds to the near-total lack of useful information on school performance.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Salmon farming committee dodged key question
The legislative committee on salmon farming was supposed to set out a direction for the controversial industry.
But after almost 18 months of work, community meetings and more than 800 written submissions, the committee members chickened out. They failed to answer the critical question about the industry's future.
People who don't live on the coast might wonder why they should care. The industry provides about 1,500 jobs and generates about $370 million in economic activity, significant but not huge.
But a long battle involving commercial and sport salmon fishermen, environmentalists, industry, First Nations, communities and politicians could cause damage that reaches far beyond the coast.
The issue has been around for more than decade. The NDP government struggled with it, then commissioned a scientific review that said the industry could operate safely in B.C. But it still allowed only limited growth. The Liberals were more enthusiastic and the industry expanded significantly.
So did criticism, especially after research showed sea lice populations from the farms were a risk to migrating young wild salmon.
In the 2005 election, the Liberals lost every riding where the industry operated. Which lead to the committee. Premier Gordon Campbell established it and gave New Democrat MLAs a majority. Clever trap, said some. Pragmatic response to the issue, said others. It doesn't matter who was right.
The committee came up with useful recommendations. It proposed a ban on salmon farms north of the tip of Vancouver Island, a proposal that seems to be supported along the north coast, where wild salmon stocks support commercial fishing and tourism. It called for better rules to reduce the sea-lice problem and more independent enforcement of all regulations.
But when it came to the big salmon farming issue, the committee bailed.
Salmon farms keep the fish in net pens in the ocean. That's the accepted model and the cheapest approach, an important factor when salmon farms around the world are producing the same product. But excess feed and waste fall to the ocean floor, there's no barrier between the farmed Atlantic salmon and the environment and escapes and sea lice are problems.
The committee concluded the risks are too high and called for an end to salmon farming using open-net pens.
One alternative would be closed containment systems on land - big swimming pools for salmon. But that would be expensive, energy-intensive and create waste problems. And, no one on the world is doing it. The committee rejected the idea.
Another option is closed-containment pens in the ocean, not watertight but with much reduced contact between farmed salmon and the environment.
Again, though, there are problems. The industry says it would be a much more costly way to raise the salmon. Buyers would turn to other countries, most likely Chile's growing aquaculture sector.
The committee's solution was pull out a magic wand. Presto, an effective closed containment system would be developed within three years. Abracadbra, the fish farms would all be using the new system within five years.
Instead of magic dust, money would be sprinkled about. Provincial and federal governments should subsidize the research, the report said, and provincial taxpayers should help pay for the company's conversion costs.
That all seems a little casual. How much money to develop the technology? And where's the business case for spending that money, or helping out the companies' shareholders?
That's not even the big problem. The committee says open-net pens are unacceptable. But it acknowledges there is no viable alternative today. A strong research effort should see solutions in place within three years, it says.
Perhaps. But what if that doesn't work?
Ron Cantelon, the Liberal deputy chair of the committee, said the recommendations would kill the industry. A little precipitous in leaping to judgment, but it raises the question.
If the choices are open-net pens or no industry, which would the committee reluctantly accept?
That question needed to be answered.
Footnote: The government hasn't said what it plans to do with the report, but it's likely to be ignored. That would be unfortunate. Despite the failure to tackle the big issue head-on, the committee offered useful recommendations in a number of other areas. Even the proposal to move to ocean-based closed containment merits proper assessment.
But after almost 18 months of work, community meetings and more than 800 written submissions, the committee members chickened out. They failed to answer the critical question about the industry's future.
People who don't live on the coast might wonder why they should care. The industry provides about 1,500 jobs and generates about $370 million in economic activity, significant but not huge.
But a long battle involving commercial and sport salmon fishermen, environmentalists, industry, First Nations, communities and politicians could cause damage that reaches far beyond the coast.
The issue has been around for more than decade. The NDP government struggled with it, then commissioned a scientific review that said the industry could operate safely in B.C. But it still allowed only limited growth. The Liberals were more enthusiastic and the industry expanded significantly.
So did criticism, especially after research showed sea lice populations from the farms were a risk to migrating young wild salmon.
In the 2005 election, the Liberals lost every riding where the industry operated. Which lead to the committee. Premier Gordon Campbell established it and gave New Democrat MLAs a majority. Clever trap, said some. Pragmatic response to the issue, said others. It doesn't matter who was right.
The committee came up with useful recommendations. It proposed a ban on salmon farms north of the tip of Vancouver Island, a proposal that seems to be supported along the north coast, where wild salmon stocks support commercial fishing and tourism. It called for better rules to reduce the sea-lice problem and more independent enforcement of all regulations.
But when it came to the big salmon farming issue, the committee bailed.
Salmon farms keep the fish in net pens in the ocean. That's the accepted model and the cheapest approach, an important factor when salmon farms around the world are producing the same product. But excess feed and waste fall to the ocean floor, there's no barrier between the farmed Atlantic salmon and the environment and escapes and sea lice are problems.
The committee concluded the risks are too high and called for an end to salmon farming using open-net pens.
One alternative would be closed containment systems on land - big swimming pools for salmon. But that would be expensive, energy-intensive and create waste problems. And, no one on the world is doing it. The committee rejected the idea.
Another option is closed-containment pens in the ocean, not watertight but with much reduced contact between farmed salmon and the environment.
Again, though, there are problems. The industry says it would be a much more costly way to raise the salmon. Buyers would turn to other countries, most likely Chile's growing aquaculture sector.
The committee's solution was pull out a magic wand. Presto, an effective closed containment system would be developed within three years. Abracadbra, the fish farms would all be using the new system within five years.
Instead of magic dust, money would be sprinkled about. Provincial and federal governments should subsidize the research, the report said, and provincial taxpayers should help pay for the company's conversion costs.
That all seems a little casual. How much money to develop the technology? And where's the business case for spending that money, or helping out the companies' shareholders?
That's not even the big problem. The committee says open-net pens are unacceptable. But it acknowledges there is no viable alternative today. A strong research effort should see solutions in place within three years, it says.
Perhaps. But what if that doesn't work?
Ron Cantelon, the Liberal deputy chair of the committee, said the recommendations would kill the industry. A little precipitous in leaping to judgment, but it raises the question.
If the choices are open-net pens or no industry, which would the committee reluctantly accept?
That question needed to be answered.
Footnote: The government hasn't said what it plans to do with the report, but it's likely to be ignored. That would be unfortunate. Despite the failure to tackle the big issue head-on, the committee offered useful recommendations in a number of other areas. Even the proposal to move to ocean-based closed containment merits proper assessment.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Pay and pensions deal like a lottery win for MLAs
There's something terrible about the Liberals' move to hand every MLA a windfall the size of a lottery jackpot.
The compensation bill that will be passed within two weeks could mean an average one-time pension contribution payment worth about $400,000 per MLA.
That's not including the wage increase or the cost of the new pension plan going forward. It's what you will pay, as a taxpayer, if MLAs exercise their options to make the pension plan improvements retroactive as far back as 1996.
And that's the just a rough estimate of the average amount. The transfer from you to them will be much greater for the long-serving members.
Tally it up. A raise of 30 per cent for all MLAs and more than 50 per cent for the premier. The current pension plan, which costs taxpayers $6,900 per year per MLA, replaced with a plan that costs taxpayers $35,000 per year - a 500-per-cent increase.
And on top of that, an average $400,000 one-time contribution to each MLAs' retirement plan.
From you, to them.
Of course, notes Mike de Jong, the MLAs who want to buy retroactive pension benefits will also have to pay part of the cost.
Who knows, de Jong said in the legislature, maybe some won't even be able to afford to. It could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, de Jong said.
But here's the deal. For every $1 an MLA spends to improve his retroactive pension benefits, the public - that's you - will put it more than $4.
Maybe there are MLAs who wouldn't grab that chance. Most of us sure would.
But then most of us would never get that kind of chance either. We can't vote ourselves a lottery win.
I'm probably sounding a little bitter here. Partly, I suppose I just feel betrayed. I like most of the MLAs I've met. I've certainly admired most of them, especially for their basic desire to make their communities and the province a better place to live.
And I think they deserve a raise from the current base pay of $76,100. (Most MLAS get extra money for various roles.) Some benefits, like long-term disability, need improving. Cabinet ministers, at $110,000, deserve more. Their deputies now sometimes make twice as much. And the premier, at $121,000, is underpaid.
But these increases are just wrong. A corporate management team that voted itself this kind of compensation package would pilloried for reckless greed.
It's especially wrong because the Liberals' justification is so lame. The pay and pension changes were recommended by a three-person panel. But the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor - had average incomes likely well over $200,000. Unlike previous such committees, there were no people who earned the average B.C. wage of under $40,000.
And even the panel didn't really prepare a unanimous recommendation. The three reached agreement and then one member left for Europe. The other two added the rich pension plan recommendations after that.
There have been lots of political games played over the raise.
The Liberals, setting the rules, said that all MLAs had seven days after the bill is passed to accept the raise and the pension, or opt out forever.
The aim was to make the NDP look hypocritical by presenting an all-or-nothing choice. If New Democrats voted against the raise, but took it, they would look bad.
The New Democrats say they'll take the package and give the raise to charity. The public will judge whether that's an acceptable compromise.
Of course, the Liberals decision to play politics comes at a price. Letting MLAs take only part of the package would likely have saved the taxpayers money.
But it wouldn't have been so politically clever.
Going into politics shouldn't mean unreasonable sacrifice. But it shouldn't mean handing yourself a winning lottery ticket, either.
Footnote: For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.
The compensation bill that will be passed within two weeks could mean an average one-time pension contribution payment worth about $400,000 per MLA.
That's not including the wage increase or the cost of the new pension plan going forward. It's what you will pay, as a taxpayer, if MLAs exercise their options to make the pension plan improvements retroactive as far back as 1996.
And that's the just a rough estimate of the average amount. The transfer from you to them will be much greater for the long-serving members.
Tally it up. A raise of 30 per cent for all MLAs and more than 50 per cent for the premier. The current pension plan, which costs taxpayers $6,900 per year per MLA, replaced with a plan that costs taxpayers $35,000 per year - a 500-per-cent increase.
And on top of that, an average $400,000 one-time contribution to each MLAs' retirement plan.
From you, to them.
Of course, notes Mike de Jong, the MLAs who want to buy retroactive pension benefits will also have to pay part of the cost.
Who knows, de Jong said in the legislature, maybe some won't even be able to afford to. It could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, de Jong said.
But here's the deal. For every $1 an MLA spends to improve his retroactive pension benefits, the public - that's you - will put it more than $4.
Maybe there are MLAs who wouldn't grab that chance. Most of us sure would.
But then most of us would never get that kind of chance either. We can't vote ourselves a lottery win.
I'm probably sounding a little bitter here. Partly, I suppose I just feel betrayed. I like most of the MLAs I've met. I've certainly admired most of them, especially for their basic desire to make their communities and the province a better place to live.
And I think they deserve a raise from the current base pay of $76,100. (Most MLAS get extra money for various roles.) Some benefits, like long-term disability, need improving. Cabinet ministers, at $110,000, deserve more. Their deputies now sometimes make twice as much. And the premier, at $121,000, is underpaid.
But these increases are just wrong. A corporate management team that voted itself this kind of compensation package would pilloried for reckless greed.
It's especially wrong because the Liberals' justification is so lame. The pay and pension changes were recommended by a three-person panel. But the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor - had average incomes likely well over $200,000. Unlike previous such committees, there were no people who earned the average B.C. wage of under $40,000.
And even the panel didn't really prepare a unanimous recommendation. The three reached agreement and then one member left for Europe. The other two added the rich pension plan recommendations after that.
There have been lots of political games played over the raise.
The Liberals, setting the rules, said that all MLAs had seven days after the bill is passed to accept the raise and the pension, or opt out forever.
The aim was to make the NDP look hypocritical by presenting an all-or-nothing choice. If New Democrats voted against the raise, but took it, they would look bad.
The New Democrats say they'll take the package and give the raise to charity. The public will judge whether that's an acceptable compromise.
Of course, the Liberals decision to play politics comes at a price. Letting MLAs take only part of the package would likely have saved the taxpayers money.
But it wouldn't have been so politically clever.
Going into politics shouldn't mean unreasonable sacrifice. But it shouldn't mean handing yourself a winning lottery ticket, either.
Footnote: For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Liberals stumbling on trial, pension increases
It's time for an alarming update on two issues that pose big potential problems for the Liberals, the MLAs' pay raise and the Basi-Virk corruption trial.
First, the trial, and the misadventures of Attorney General Wally Oppal.
Since the start of the trial of Bob Virk and Dave Basi on corruption charges in connection with the B.C. Rail deal, the government has had a political staffer as a full-time monitor on the courtroom. Taxpayers have been picking up the cost.
There's nothing wrong with that. The trial has seen allegations of government misconduct. It's reasonable that the government would want to have a firsthand report, even though ministers have refused to answer all questions about political dirty tricks and other issues raised in court.
This week the NDP decided to ask what the public affairs bureau staffer, Stuart Chase, was doing.
Oppal's responses were contradictory and, it turns out, wildly misleading.
"He merely reports to the government and other people regarding what's going on in courtrooms," said Oppal. "He assists the media, and he assists people."
As the NDP kept asking, the answers kept shifting. When the opposition asked Oppal to make the reports from the courtroom public, he said maybe there were no reports from Chase.
And then he said Chase was there to help reports and curious members of the public who wander into the courtroom.
"It assists if we have somebody there explaining how the system works to the public," he said.
Except that was all rubbish. Victoria Times Colonist political columnist Les Leyne called Chase to ask what he was doing in the courtroom.
And Chase flatly contradicted Oppal. He sends reports to Victoria on the trial twice a day. He never briefs reporters or talk to the public.
Maybe Oppal doesn't know what's going on. But that still doesn't explain why he provided inaccurate answers.
And it still leaves the question. If Chase - whose salary is paid by taxpayers - is preparing reports, why aren't they being made public? And if they're really just for the Liberals, why isn't the party?
The news for the government isn't much better on the bid to raise MLAs' pay by 30 per cent and introduce a much richer pension plan.
Premier Gordon Campbell - in line for a 50-per-cent pay increase - has justified the increases by pointing to the report from the three-person panel appointed to look at the compensation issue.
The pension proposals have got a rough ride from critics on the right and left. MLAs have a pension plan now. Taxpayers contribute the equivalent of nine per cent of their salaries - about $6,900 - to an RRSP. MLAs can match the contribution. A two-term MLA who does can expect to leave office with about $160,000 set aside for his eventual retirement.
The proposed new plan is far more generous. Taxpayers would be on the hook for about $35,000 per MLA per year.
The panel's report noted in one sentence that the three members could not agree on the pension plan. But journalist Sean Holman revealed in PublicEyeOnline.com that the problems with the proposal go beyond a mild disagreement.
University of British Columbia business professor Sandra Robinson revealed the panel had agreed on recommendations that included a pension plan that would have cost taxpayers about 40-per-cent less.
After she left for Europe, the other two panelists -- both senior lawyers -- rewrote the report to propose the more generous pension recommendations.
It's a serious breakdown in the process. The panel was already unrepresentative. The three members likely have an average income of more than $200,000. Their perceptions of reasonable wages and benefits will differ from someone earning the average B.C. salary of just under $40,000.
The wise course for the premier would be to send the whole issue back to a new, more representative panel.
But instead, he's going to press on.
Footnote: The NDP spent another day grilling Oppal Tuesday, after a defence lawyer in the Basi-Virk trial alleged that Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert had urged the RCMP not to lay charges against Basi in connection with political dirty tricks because it would be embarrassing for the Liberals. Oppal refused to answer the questions because the case is before the courts. For details on the allegations, see .
For more see Bill Tieleman's report.
First, the trial, and the misadventures of Attorney General Wally Oppal.
Since the start of the trial of Bob Virk and Dave Basi on corruption charges in connection with the B.C. Rail deal, the government has had a political staffer as a full-time monitor on the courtroom. Taxpayers have been picking up the cost.
There's nothing wrong with that. The trial has seen allegations of government misconduct. It's reasonable that the government would want to have a firsthand report, even though ministers have refused to answer all questions about political dirty tricks and other issues raised in court.
This week the NDP decided to ask what the public affairs bureau staffer, Stuart Chase, was doing.
Oppal's responses were contradictory and, it turns out, wildly misleading.
"He merely reports to the government and other people regarding what's going on in courtrooms," said Oppal. "He assists the media, and he assists people."
As the NDP kept asking, the answers kept shifting. When the opposition asked Oppal to make the reports from the courtroom public, he said maybe there were no reports from Chase.
And then he said Chase was there to help reports and curious members of the public who wander into the courtroom.
"It assists if we have somebody there explaining how the system works to the public," he said.
Except that was all rubbish. Victoria Times Colonist political columnist Les Leyne called Chase to ask what he was doing in the courtroom.
And Chase flatly contradicted Oppal. He sends reports to Victoria on the trial twice a day. He never briefs reporters or talk to the public.
Maybe Oppal doesn't know what's going on. But that still doesn't explain why he provided inaccurate answers.
And it still leaves the question. If Chase - whose salary is paid by taxpayers - is preparing reports, why aren't they being made public? And if they're really just for the Liberals, why isn't the party?
The news for the government isn't much better on the bid to raise MLAs' pay by 30 per cent and introduce a much richer pension plan.
Premier Gordon Campbell - in line for a 50-per-cent pay increase - has justified the increases by pointing to the report from the three-person panel appointed to look at the compensation issue.
The pension proposals have got a rough ride from critics on the right and left. MLAs have a pension plan now. Taxpayers contribute the equivalent of nine per cent of their salaries - about $6,900 - to an RRSP. MLAs can match the contribution. A two-term MLA who does can expect to leave office with about $160,000 set aside for his eventual retirement.
The proposed new plan is far more generous. Taxpayers would be on the hook for about $35,000 per MLA per year.
The panel's report noted in one sentence that the three members could not agree on the pension plan. But journalist Sean Holman revealed in PublicEyeOnline.com that the problems with the proposal go beyond a mild disagreement.
University of British Columbia business professor Sandra Robinson revealed the panel had agreed on recommendations that included a pension plan that would have cost taxpayers about 40-per-cent less.
After she left for Europe, the other two panelists -- both senior lawyers -- rewrote the report to propose the more generous pension recommendations.
It's a serious breakdown in the process. The panel was already unrepresentative. The three members likely have an average income of more than $200,000. Their perceptions of reasonable wages and benefits will differ from someone earning the average B.C. salary of just under $40,000.
The wise course for the premier would be to send the whole issue back to a new, more representative panel.
But instead, he's going to press on.
Footnote: The NDP spent another day grilling Oppal Tuesday, after a defence lawyer in the Basi-Virk trial alleged that Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert had urged the RCMP not to lay charges against Basi in connection with political dirty tricks because it would be embarrassing for the Liberals. Oppal refused to answer the questions because the case is before the courts. For details on the allegations, see .
For more see Bill Tieleman's report.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Counting the losers in the government gambling blitz
The government's hypocrisy on gambling is showing again.
It's obvious that the Liberals have smashed their 2001 campaign promise to "halt the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Instead they expanded gambling dramatically. They've done all the things they warned about as evils - adding slots, pushing them into small towns, lifting betting limits and hours, allowing alcohol and ATMS in casinos so people could make bad decisions and then get the cash to follow them up. And, on top of all that, the government launching Internet gambling.
What made it all especially offensive was that in opposition Gordon Campbell and the Liberals said they knew the consequences of gambling - debt, families in crisis, suicides, increased crime.
Even domestic violence and murder, according to Liberal Kevin Krueger.But they rushed to expand gambling anyway.
Gambling is a messy way to make money.
For one thing, those in the business don't like competition. Around the province the government has shut down people running poker tournaments in places like Legions, where people pay an entry fee and place pretend bets. All gambling is supposed to be in casinos, where gamblers can be encouraged to lose much more.
The government devotes more enforcement effort to eliminating competition than to guarding against crimes at legal gambling sites. (Which is one reason for concern over reports that people who sell lottery tickets are winning far more than their fair share of prizes. The B.C. Ombudsman's office is investigating.)
Now Liberal MLA Al Horning has admitted he took part in illegal poker games in a gambling den in his Okanagan riding.
So, what does Premier Gordon Campbell think about Horning's scorn for the gambling laws?
No problem, he told the Kelowna Courier through his spokesman. The activities were before Horning was elected in 2005 and so not relevant. If people had concerns, they should call the police.
It's not quite the moral outrage Campbell summoned up when the NDP wanted to expand gambling, but times change.
After all, the Liberals used to be big on the need for help for problem gamblers.
Now, not so much. Back in 2004, Sue Reid, a Surrey nurse with an interest in gambling issues, submitted a request for the material B.C. Lotteries used to train casino staff in dealing with distressed and problem gamblers.
It's a secret, the Crown corporation said, a pretty good warning sign that all is not right.
After a long battle, Reid, got the material. It showed that troubled gamblers usually don't get much help - at best a brochure and reference to a toll-free help line.
It confirmed casino staff often have to deal with gamblers who are angry, emotional and losing all their money. They see people making repeated trips to ATMs as they try to win back mounting losses. They even see people who wear diapers, so they won't have to give up a slot machine they think might pay off.
But 85 per cent of casino employees surveyed in 2004 - well into the gambling expansion - said it was up the gamblers to find help.
No wonder the government is finally increasing funding for gambling addicts.
Gambling is a tricky business to manage, too. You would think if the government was going to be in the business, it would be running a tight ship.
But last month Australia's biggest gambling operator and a bank based there combined to buy Gateway Casinos, which has seven casinos in B.C.
An Australian newspaper reported the bank liked the opportunity because B.C. was one of the few places in the world that offered casinos a "free ride."
"A very nice kicker to this whole transaction is a dynamic that has been set up at the government level, whereby any capital expenditure you spend on your casinos is refunded by the government," a bank spokesman said. "So there is, specific to this region of the world, a very attractive environment for a casino operator."
No wonder the Liberals used to think it was a good idea to steer clear of the gambling business.
Footnote: The financial institution, Macquarie Bank, isn't just interested in gambling in B.C. It's the owner of the Sea-to-Sky Highway project and hydro projects in the province and is interested in health-care private-public partnerships.
It's obvious that the Liberals have smashed their 2001 campaign promise to "halt the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Instead they expanded gambling dramatically. They've done all the things they warned about as evils - adding slots, pushing them into small towns, lifting betting limits and hours, allowing alcohol and ATMS in casinos so people could make bad decisions and then get the cash to follow them up. And, on top of all that, the government launching Internet gambling.
What made it all especially offensive was that in opposition Gordon Campbell and the Liberals said they knew the consequences of gambling - debt, families in crisis, suicides, increased crime.
Even domestic violence and murder, according to Liberal Kevin Krueger.But they rushed to expand gambling anyway.
Gambling is a messy way to make money.
For one thing, those in the business don't like competition. Around the province the government has shut down people running poker tournaments in places like Legions, where people pay an entry fee and place pretend bets. All gambling is supposed to be in casinos, where gamblers can be encouraged to lose much more.
The government devotes more enforcement effort to eliminating competition than to guarding against crimes at legal gambling sites. (Which is one reason for concern over reports that people who sell lottery tickets are winning far more than their fair share of prizes. The B.C. Ombudsman's office is investigating.)
Now Liberal MLA Al Horning has admitted he took part in illegal poker games in a gambling den in his Okanagan riding.
So, what does Premier Gordon Campbell think about Horning's scorn for the gambling laws?
No problem, he told the Kelowna Courier through his spokesman. The activities were before Horning was elected in 2005 and so not relevant. If people had concerns, they should call the police.
It's not quite the moral outrage Campbell summoned up when the NDP wanted to expand gambling, but times change.
After all, the Liberals used to be big on the need for help for problem gamblers.
Now, not so much. Back in 2004, Sue Reid, a Surrey nurse with an interest in gambling issues, submitted a request for the material B.C. Lotteries used to train casino staff in dealing with distressed and problem gamblers.
It's a secret, the Crown corporation said, a pretty good warning sign that all is not right.
After a long battle, Reid, got the material. It showed that troubled gamblers usually don't get much help - at best a brochure and reference to a toll-free help line.
It confirmed casino staff often have to deal with gamblers who are angry, emotional and losing all their money. They see people making repeated trips to ATMs as they try to win back mounting losses. They even see people who wear diapers, so they won't have to give up a slot machine they think might pay off.
But 85 per cent of casino employees surveyed in 2004 - well into the gambling expansion - said it was up the gamblers to find help.
No wonder the government is finally increasing funding for gambling addicts.
Gambling is a tricky business to manage, too. You would think if the government was going to be in the business, it would be running a tight ship.
But last month Australia's biggest gambling operator and a bank based there combined to buy Gateway Casinos, which has seven casinos in B.C.
An Australian newspaper reported the bank liked the opportunity because B.C. was one of the few places in the world that offered casinos a "free ride."
"A very nice kicker to this whole transaction is a dynamic that has been set up at the government level, whereby any capital expenditure you spend on your casinos is refunded by the government," a bank spokesman said. "So there is, specific to this region of the world, a very attractive environment for a casino operator."
No wonder the Liberals used to think it was a good idea to steer clear of the gambling business.
Footnote: The financial institution, Macquarie Bank, isn't just interested in gambling in B.C. It's the owner of the Sea-to-Sky Highway project and hydro projects in the province and is interested in health-care private-public partnerships.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Safe injection, bad research and the media
We're not great in the media at reporting on health and science issues, with, as always, a few exceptions like The Globe and Mail's Andre Picard.
And we demonstrated the weakness this week with a story that produced headlines like "Safe injection site a failure, study finds.'
The study attacking Vancouver's safe-injection site contradicted all the serious research projects that had found improvements in health outcomes, community safety and other benefits.
The study involved no new research and came from an online journal that has published two issues and is funded by the U.S. Justice Department, which opposes harm reduction.
Read more at Pacific Gazette and CathieFromCanada.
And we demonstrated the weakness this week with a story that produced headlines like "Safe injection site a failure, study finds.'
The study attacking Vancouver's safe-injection site contradicted all the serious research projects that had found improvements in health outcomes, community safety and other benefits.
The study involved no new research and came from an online journal that has published two issues and is funded by the U.S. Justice Department, which opposes harm reduction.
Read more at Pacific Gazette and CathieFromCanada.
Friday, May 04, 2007
How dirty do we want politics to be?
Premier Gordon Campbell is likely waiting to see what you think about political "dirty tricks."
I'm curious too.
The trial of Dave Basi and Bob Virk on corruption charges could be a turning point, when we either accept that the normal standards of honesty and decency don't apply to politics or start demanding_better.
The trial has pushed the issue into our faces. Defence lawyers allege that Basi's role as a senior aide to then finance minister Gary Collins included what most of us would call political dirty tricks.
They say he was in charge of lining up people to call radio call-in shows under fake names. If the premier or a Liberal was on, they asked easy questions. If it was a New Democrat - or even Bill Vander Zalm - they tried their best to make the enemy look bad.
When then North Vancouver mayor Barb Sharp, an opponent of the B.C. Rail deal, was to be on a radio call-in show, the defence alleges, Basi asked Collins if it was OK to line up a caller to "rip her a new (deleted, but you know)." According to the wiretap evidence cited by the lawyers, Collins said sure.
The lawyers also say Basi did some of the work as part of his government job and also had "media monitoring" contracts with the B.C. Liberal Party to fund the efforts.
Senior people in the premier's office - including Gordon Campbell - knew and approved, the lawyers allege. _
And it went beyond call-ins. They say Basi paid a man $100 to heckle a Victoria demonstration against salmon farms, while pretending he was just a concerned citizen.
All these are just allegations. Campbell is refusing to answer questions because the case is before the courts.
But it's hard to see how long he can avoid the basic issues - does he approve of such activities, are they taking place now and if so, are government staff involved?
They're important questions for everyone in politics, from all parties, and not just in terms of this case.
The trial has given us a chance to set some clear ethical or moral limits for political activity.
Take a basic issue like call-in shows. Former Socred Rafe Mair says in a column for The Tyee that as far back as 1975 his campaign workers were pressed into service to jam the lines when he appeared on a show, lying and asking soft questions - and blocking callers with real questions. Many people in politics have similar anecdotes.
But is it right to run that kind of operation? Is it acceptable to lie in the interests of getting elected? (And if it is, what else that would normally be considered wrong is allowed in politics?)
And does it matter who tells the lie? Is it more serious when a government staffer, on taxpayers' money, phones in and lies than when a volunteer does?
It's kind of awful even to reread the last few paragraphs. The fact that we're debating whether dishonesty and deviousness are OK in politics shows a sickness.
Campbell is on record, sort of, as being opposed to lying in the cause of politics. In 2005, a newly hired senior adviser in the premier's office called Campbell on a TV call-in show, used a false name and lobbed a softball question. People recognized his voice and he resigned.
Campbell said that was appropriate, but offered only a weak condemnation. "It's always good to say who you are," he said. "Clearly it was a mistake. He's done the right thing."
That answer, tepid as it was, creates some potential problems for the government. The defence is alleging - and remember, nothing is proven - that Campbell and his senior staff knew about Basi's phone games.
Politics has too often become a game. Laws are obeyed, but rules don't matter and ethics are for the squeamish.
And that attitude too is on trial in Vancouver.
Footnote: The trial is raising other ethical questions. Defence lawyers revealed that former Quesnel mayor Steve Wallace, an opponent of CN's bid to buy BC Rail, accepted $1,000 from the lobbyist for OmniTRAX, a rival bidder. Wallace says the money covered his travel costs for fact-finding community visits.
I'm curious too.
The trial of Dave Basi and Bob Virk on corruption charges could be a turning point, when we either accept that the normal standards of honesty and decency don't apply to politics or start demanding_better.
The trial has pushed the issue into our faces. Defence lawyers allege that Basi's role as a senior aide to then finance minister Gary Collins included what most of us would call political dirty tricks.
They say he was in charge of lining up people to call radio call-in shows under fake names. If the premier or a Liberal was on, they asked easy questions. If it was a New Democrat - or even Bill Vander Zalm - they tried their best to make the enemy look bad.
When then North Vancouver mayor Barb Sharp, an opponent of the B.C. Rail deal, was to be on a radio call-in show, the defence alleges, Basi asked Collins if it was OK to line up a caller to "rip her a new (deleted, but you know)." According to the wiretap evidence cited by the lawyers, Collins said sure.
The lawyers also say Basi did some of the work as part of his government job and also had "media monitoring" contracts with the B.C. Liberal Party to fund the efforts.
Senior people in the premier's office - including Gordon Campbell - knew and approved, the lawyers allege. _
And it went beyond call-ins. They say Basi paid a man $100 to heckle a Victoria demonstration against salmon farms, while pretending he was just a concerned citizen.
All these are just allegations. Campbell is refusing to answer questions because the case is before the courts.
But it's hard to see how long he can avoid the basic issues - does he approve of such activities, are they taking place now and if so, are government staff involved?
They're important questions for everyone in politics, from all parties, and not just in terms of this case.
The trial has given us a chance to set some clear ethical or moral limits for political activity.
Take a basic issue like call-in shows. Former Socred Rafe Mair says in a column for The Tyee that as far back as 1975 his campaign workers were pressed into service to jam the lines when he appeared on a show, lying and asking soft questions - and blocking callers with real questions. Many people in politics have similar anecdotes.
But is it right to run that kind of operation? Is it acceptable to lie in the interests of getting elected? (And if it is, what else that would normally be considered wrong is allowed in politics?)
And does it matter who tells the lie? Is it more serious when a government staffer, on taxpayers' money, phones in and lies than when a volunteer does?
It's kind of awful even to reread the last few paragraphs. The fact that we're debating whether dishonesty and deviousness are OK in politics shows a sickness.
Campbell is on record, sort of, as being opposed to lying in the cause of politics. In 2005, a newly hired senior adviser in the premier's office called Campbell on a TV call-in show, used a false name and lobbed a softball question. People recognized his voice and he resigned.
Campbell said that was appropriate, but offered only a weak condemnation. "It's always good to say who you are," he said. "Clearly it was a mistake. He's done the right thing."
That answer, tepid as it was, creates some potential problems for the government. The defence is alleging - and remember, nothing is proven - that Campbell and his senior staff knew about Basi's phone games.
Politics has too often become a game. Laws are obeyed, but rules don't matter and ethics are for the squeamish.
And that attitude too is on trial in Vancouver.
Footnote: The trial is raising other ethical questions. Defence lawyers revealed that former Quesnel mayor Steve Wallace, an opponent of CN's bid to buy BC Rail, accepted $1,000 from the lobbyist for OmniTRAX, a rival bidder. Wallace says the money covered his travel costs for fact-finding community visits.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The outrageous MLA pay plan and class in B.C.
The MLA pay issue is a reminder that we still have a class system in British Columbia.
Not like England, or course, where your accent and school define your place in the world.
But your reaction to a recommendation that MLAs get a 30-per-cent raise and the premier a 50-per-cent raise - retroactive, no less - is not a bad class litmus test.
If you think the idea makes sense, you are likely in the comfortable class.
If you are amazed that some people who sought a job two years ago now figure it's reasonable to boost their base pay from $76,100 to $98,000 and the premier's pay from $121,100 to $186,000, then you're in the struggling class.
Not struggling to survive, in most cases. But nervous about being able to pay all the bills at the end of the month if something big goes wrong with the family car.
Those people are going to find it hard to imagine that the current base income of $76,100 isn't enough for a good life. (Especially since 75 per cent of MLAs get extra pay for heading up a committee, a cabinet post or other roles.)
Remember, the average full-time wage in B.C. is about $38,500. A typical MLA already makes twice that much. The raise would mean they would be paid more than 90 per cent of the people they represent.
But a lot of other people - the comfortable - can see how $76,100 isn't enough for all the sacrifices involved in a politician's life. That includes a fair portion of the journalists reporting on the issue, who are paid in the same range. If it's worth that much to have someone write about MLAs, surely they deserve a little more for actually doing the work.
The politicians thought so. In 2005, they secretly hatched a plan to sneak through a 15-per-cent raise. The public went wild, NDP Leader Carole James reneged on the deal and the plan was abandoned.
This time, Premier Gordon Campbell tried a different approach, appointing an independent panel to look at the whole issue of politicians' compensation.
Class is an issue here as well. There's nothing wrong with the panel, which included a senior lawyer who specializes in _helping employers with labour issues, a former B.C. _Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British _Columbia business professor
But I'd be surprised if any of the three had income under $150,000. For them, $76,100 - even the $121,100 paid the premier - is going to look inadequate as they consider the cuts they would have to make to live on that income.
The premier would have been wise to include some typical British Columbians on the panel.
The pay is only a part of the boost in compensation the panel recommended. MLAs already have a pension plan, with taxpayers contributing about $6,900 year going into into their RRSPs. Not great, but not bad.
The panel proposes a generous plan that would cost taxpayers at least $35,000 per year for each MLA. Since most British Columbians don't have any pension plan, they will be cranky about paying taxes to fund a lavish MLA plan.
Politicians do deserve a raise, from my admitted perspective in the comfortable class.
Many of them take a pay cut to serve. Most sacrifice years when they could be laying the groundwork for their futures, choosing instead a job with no security. The hours are long and there's a lot of slogging. And, based on all I've seen, they're in it to make their communities better places for people to live.
But the proposed raises and pension increases are outrageous. Someone working at minimum wage - unchanged for six years, unlike MLAs' pay, which increases each year - makes $15,600 in a year.
The proposal would see MLAs paid as much for seven or eight weeks' on the job as a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
The NDP has already rejected the recommendations. It's hard to see the Liberals pressing ahead.
Footnote: The best course now would be for Campbell to scrap the report, except for a recommendation for a long-term disability plan for MLAs who become sick or injured on the job. (That's needed, but politicians will be asked why they aren't content with the provincial disability benefit - $11,000 a year - that they consider adequate for the rest of us.)
A new, representative panel could be set up and report next year, with any changes to take effect after the 2009 election.
Not like England, or course, where your accent and school define your place in the world.
But your reaction to a recommendation that MLAs get a 30-per-cent raise and the premier a 50-per-cent raise - retroactive, no less - is not a bad class litmus test.
If you think the idea makes sense, you are likely in the comfortable class.
If you are amazed that some people who sought a job two years ago now figure it's reasonable to boost their base pay from $76,100 to $98,000 and the premier's pay from $121,100 to $186,000, then you're in the struggling class.
Not struggling to survive, in most cases. But nervous about being able to pay all the bills at the end of the month if something big goes wrong with the family car.
Those people are going to find it hard to imagine that the current base income of $76,100 isn't enough for a good life. (Especially since 75 per cent of MLAs get extra pay for heading up a committee, a cabinet post or other roles.)
Remember, the average full-time wage in B.C. is about $38,500. A typical MLA already makes twice that much. The raise would mean they would be paid more than 90 per cent of the people they represent.
But a lot of other people - the comfortable - can see how $76,100 isn't enough for all the sacrifices involved in a politician's life. That includes a fair portion of the journalists reporting on the issue, who are paid in the same range. If it's worth that much to have someone write about MLAs, surely they deserve a little more for actually doing the work.
The politicians thought so. In 2005, they secretly hatched a plan to sneak through a 15-per-cent raise. The public went wild, NDP Leader Carole James reneged on the deal and the plan was abandoned.
This time, Premier Gordon Campbell tried a different approach, appointing an independent panel to look at the whole issue of politicians' compensation.
Class is an issue here as well. There's nothing wrong with the panel, which included a senior lawyer who specializes in _helping employers with labour issues, a former B.C. _Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British _Columbia business professor
But I'd be surprised if any of the three had income under $150,000. For them, $76,100 - even the $121,100 paid the premier - is going to look inadequate as they consider the cuts they would have to make to live on that income.
The premier would have been wise to include some typical British Columbians on the panel.
The pay is only a part of the boost in compensation the panel recommended. MLAs already have a pension plan, with taxpayers contributing about $6,900 year going into into their RRSPs. Not great, but not bad.
The panel proposes a generous plan that would cost taxpayers at least $35,000 per year for each MLA. Since most British Columbians don't have any pension plan, they will be cranky about paying taxes to fund a lavish MLA plan.
Politicians do deserve a raise, from my admitted perspective in the comfortable class.
Many of them take a pay cut to serve. Most sacrifice years when they could be laying the groundwork for their futures, choosing instead a job with no security. The hours are long and there's a lot of slogging. And, based on all I've seen, they're in it to make their communities better places for people to live.
But the proposed raises and pension increases are outrageous. Someone working at minimum wage - unchanged for six years, unlike MLAs' pay, which increases each year - makes $15,600 in a year.
The proposal would see MLAs paid as much for seven or eight weeks' on the job as a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
The NDP has already rejected the recommendations. It's hard to see the Liberals pressing ahead.
Footnote: The best course now would be for Campbell to scrap the report, except for a recommendation for a long-term disability plan for MLAs who become sick or injured on the job. (That's needed, but politicians will be asked why they aren't content with the provincial disability benefit - $11,000 a year - that they consider adequate for the rest of us.)
A new, representative panel could be set up and report next year, with any changes to take effect after the 2009 election.
Dobell hits back, but questions continue
Ken Dobell came to Victoria this week in a bid to end questions about possible real or perceived conflicts of interest in his two roles - as a special adviser to Premier Gordon Campbell and a consultant and registered lobbyist for the City of Vancouver.
The NDP has been all over the issue since the legislature resumed sitting after the Easter break. Some of their questions have been fair; some have over-reached. The government has done a consistently poor job of answering.
Dobell, who retired as the province's top bureaucrat in 2005, held what he billed as his first press conference in 37 years in the public sector to take on the critics. By the end, a fair-minded observer might still be left with questions.
Dobell has a good reputation. And part of his argument can be boiled down to the claim that he's a person of integrity who has taken steps to avoid any conflicts. He sees no conflicts, so they don't exist.
As Dobell prepared to meet the press, the premier's office handed out a memo from Campbell's deputy minister, Jessica McDonald, offering a similar argument.
McDonald said Dobell told her and the Vancouver city manager about the risk of a perceived conflict of interest as he was being paid both to advise the premier and help Vancouver get provincial support for a major arts project and social housing initiative.
She decided there was no conflict.
In the case of the effort to develop a multi-million-dollar cultural precinct, because of "the significant alignment of interests between the province and the city on this important joint project."
And in the case of the social housing initiative, because "his disclosure enabled me to be aware that his views on this file emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such."
McDonald's memo, written last Friday, would be helpful to anyone conducting an impartial review of the issues.
But it's not likely to satisfy people who are concerned about potential conflicts.
It's good that McDonald was aware that Dobell's comments on housing "emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such." But what about others in government who read or heard Dobell's thoughts, directly or indirectly, on the housing in initiative? Were they all aware that he was speaking as a consultant to the city on the issue and not as an adviser to the premier?
McDonald's note also says she dealt with the issue last October, six months after Dobell started work for the city.
There are also questions worth asking about the cultural precinct project. Dobell said when Vancouver hired him, at $250 an hour, the city manager told him that Campbell and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan had talked and both wanted him to work on it.
But should the premier really be in discussions that reach the conclusion that the best way to move the project forward was for the city to hire a consultant who has been his close associate for more than two decades?
Dobell also tried to deal with concerns that there was a risk of conflict in his simultaneous roles as paid advisor to the premier - with a desk in the government's Vancouver offices - and lobbyist for the city.
Simple, Dobell said. He's not a lobbyist, he's a "content consultant."
But Dobell did officially sign up as a lobbyist on the government's registry, saying he intended to try and win support from Campbell, Housing Minister Rich Coleman and Tourism Minister Stan Hagen on behalf of Vancouver. (Dobell didn't register until months after he reported started lobbying work, an apparent violation of the act now being investigated.)
He was simply following advice from the city's lawyers, Dobell said this week.
The government has created this problem. It should be doing a better job both of answering legitimate questions and considering how to avoid such issue in future.
Footnote: Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong has been handling all the questions for the Liberals, for the most part relying on indignation and bluster. But hopes the issue would just go away appeared less likely Tuesday as the NDP asked questions about other people who had moved from senior public sector posts to related work.
The NDP has been all over the issue since the legislature resumed sitting after the Easter break. Some of their questions have been fair; some have over-reached. The government has done a consistently poor job of answering.
Dobell, who retired as the province's top bureaucrat in 2005, held what he billed as his first press conference in 37 years in the public sector to take on the critics. By the end, a fair-minded observer might still be left with questions.
Dobell has a good reputation. And part of his argument can be boiled down to the claim that he's a person of integrity who has taken steps to avoid any conflicts. He sees no conflicts, so they don't exist.
As Dobell prepared to meet the press, the premier's office handed out a memo from Campbell's deputy minister, Jessica McDonald, offering a similar argument.
McDonald said Dobell told her and the Vancouver city manager about the risk of a perceived conflict of interest as he was being paid both to advise the premier and help Vancouver get provincial support for a major arts project and social housing initiative.
She decided there was no conflict.
In the case of the effort to develop a multi-million-dollar cultural precinct, because of "the significant alignment of interests between the province and the city on this important joint project."
And in the case of the social housing initiative, because "his disclosure enabled me to be aware that his views on this file emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such."
McDonald's memo, written last Friday, would be helpful to anyone conducting an impartial review of the issues.
But it's not likely to satisfy people who are concerned about potential conflicts.
It's good that McDonald was aware that Dobell's comments on housing "emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such." But what about others in government who read or heard Dobell's thoughts, directly or indirectly, on the housing in initiative? Were they all aware that he was speaking as a consultant to the city on the issue and not as an adviser to the premier?
McDonald's note also says she dealt with the issue last October, six months after Dobell started work for the city.
There are also questions worth asking about the cultural precinct project. Dobell said when Vancouver hired him, at $250 an hour, the city manager told him that Campbell and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan had talked and both wanted him to work on it.
But should the premier really be in discussions that reach the conclusion that the best way to move the project forward was for the city to hire a consultant who has been his close associate for more than two decades?
Dobell also tried to deal with concerns that there was a risk of conflict in his simultaneous roles as paid advisor to the premier - with a desk in the government's Vancouver offices - and lobbyist for the city.
Simple, Dobell said. He's not a lobbyist, he's a "content consultant."
But Dobell did officially sign up as a lobbyist on the government's registry, saying he intended to try and win support from Campbell, Housing Minister Rich Coleman and Tourism Minister Stan Hagen on behalf of Vancouver. (Dobell didn't register until months after he reported started lobbying work, an apparent violation of the act now being investigated.)
He was simply following advice from the city's lawyers, Dobell said this week.
The government has created this problem. It should be doing a better job both of answering legitimate questions and considering how to avoid such issue in future.
Footnote: Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong has been handling all the questions for the Liberals, for the most part relying on indignation and bluster. But hopes the issue would just go away appeared less likely Tuesday as the NDP asked questions about other people who had moved from senior public sector posts to related work.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Early days of Basi-Virk trial bring tough questions for Liberals
The corruption trial of ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is only days old, and the bombshells are already shaking B.C. politics.
Basi and Virk are charged with taking bribes in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail. The evidence is expected to include testimony from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist, who will say he paid the bribes. Bornman hasn't been charged, one of the issues the defence lawyers are questioning. All this flows from the legislature raids more than three years ago.
Three years is a long time to wait for answers. Not just on the question of guilt or innocence, important as that is. But about what sparked the investigation, why policed raided a who's who of federal Liberal party wheels, how the government responded to the concerns, how the B.C. Rail deal was affected and just what happened.
So far, none of those questions have been answered. But defence lawyers, using wiretap material and other documents, have already raised a raft of damaging charges against the Campbell Liberals and the RCMP.
They're trying to make the case that the wiretap evidence was wrongly obtained and shouldn't be allowed. They're also suggesting that the RCMP failed to investigate the politicians properly and that Basi and Virk were simply doing their bosses' bidding. To establish that, the lawyers argue, they need access to a lot more government records.
Along the way the lawyers have been offering examples from the evidence to support their arguments. The examples seem chosen to make life difficult for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
The lawyers said the evidence showed that Basi performed political dirty tricks for the government, with the knowledge and support of the premier's office.
Basi paid a man $100 to heckle fish farm protesters at a Victoria supermarket. He lined up callers when politicians were on radio talk shows, people who would use fake names and lob softball questions at the premier and other Liberals. He recruited callers to attack opponents - even long retired former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
All with knowledge of the senior people in the premier's office - including, according to one e-mail, Campbell.
It's no secret parties sometimes try and stack call-ins. But the notion of this being government strategy, managed at taxpayers' expense, is offensive.
And the idea that the Liberals might be paying people to disrupt legitimate demonstrations is just ugly. Secret agents of a political party shouldn't harass citizens trying to make a point.
The lawyers dropped more bombs. They said politicians had been wrongly excluded from the investigation. One of the lead RCMP officers on the case was the brother-in- law of the B.C. Liberal party president and didn't immediately disclose the conflict, the lawyers claimed.
These are all just allegations. But they raised some serious concerns about the way the Liberal party and the government operate.
And the New Democrats were quick to jump on the issue in question period. The questions have varied. But basically, the NDP has been asking about the allegations of dirty tricks. So have reporters.
Campbell isn't talking. He says he won't answer any questions about allegations or evidence at the trial until the case is resolved. He's taking the position out of respect for the courts, he says.
You can make the argument. There's no worry about influencing a jury; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. But the premier could say he doesn't want to risk even the appearance that he's trying to influence the court.
But there's a stronger case for some answers, too.
The New Democrats have managed to narrow the questions to remove references to the trial, asking Campbell simply to confirm that no one in his office is currently involved in such political tricks.
The questions are serious, raising the issue of the ethical standards - the sense of decency and respect - we expect from those in public life.
Footnote: The New Democrats also continued to raise questions about potential conflicts in the roles occupied by former top bureaucrat Ken Dobell, who is being paid both as an advisor to the premier and a lobbyist for the City of Vancouver attempting to get money from the province. Attorney General Wally Oppal has struggled in dealing with what look legitimate concerns.
Basi and Virk are charged with taking bribes in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail. The evidence is expected to include testimony from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist, who will say he paid the bribes. Bornman hasn't been charged, one of the issues the defence lawyers are questioning. All this flows from the legislature raids more than three years ago.
Three years is a long time to wait for answers. Not just on the question of guilt or innocence, important as that is. But about what sparked the investigation, why policed raided a who's who of federal Liberal party wheels, how the government responded to the concerns, how the B.C. Rail deal was affected and just what happened.
So far, none of those questions have been answered. But defence lawyers, using wiretap material and other documents, have already raised a raft of damaging charges against the Campbell Liberals and the RCMP.
They're trying to make the case that the wiretap evidence was wrongly obtained and shouldn't be allowed. They're also suggesting that the RCMP failed to investigate the politicians properly and that Basi and Virk were simply doing their bosses' bidding. To establish that, the lawyers argue, they need access to a lot more government records.
Along the way the lawyers have been offering examples from the evidence to support their arguments. The examples seem chosen to make life difficult for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
The lawyers said the evidence showed that Basi performed political dirty tricks for the government, with the knowledge and support of the premier's office.
Basi paid a man $100 to heckle fish farm protesters at a Victoria supermarket. He lined up callers when politicians were on radio talk shows, people who would use fake names and lob softball questions at the premier and other Liberals. He recruited callers to attack opponents - even long retired former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
All with knowledge of the senior people in the premier's office - including, according to one e-mail, Campbell.
It's no secret parties sometimes try and stack call-ins. But the notion of this being government strategy, managed at taxpayers' expense, is offensive.
And the idea that the Liberals might be paying people to disrupt legitimate demonstrations is just ugly. Secret agents of a political party shouldn't harass citizens trying to make a point.
The lawyers dropped more bombs. They said politicians had been wrongly excluded from the investigation. One of the lead RCMP officers on the case was the brother-in- law of the B.C. Liberal party president and didn't immediately disclose the conflict, the lawyers claimed.
These are all just allegations. But they raised some serious concerns about the way the Liberal party and the government operate.
And the New Democrats were quick to jump on the issue in question period. The questions have varied. But basically, the NDP has been asking about the allegations of dirty tricks. So have reporters.
Campbell isn't talking. He says he won't answer any questions about allegations or evidence at the trial until the case is resolved. He's taking the position out of respect for the courts, he says.
You can make the argument. There's no worry about influencing a jury; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. But the premier could say he doesn't want to risk even the appearance that he's trying to influence the court.
But there's a stronger case for some answers, too.
The New Democrats have managed to narrow the questions to remove references to the trial, asking Campbell simply to confirm that no one in his office is currently involved in such political tricks.
The questions are serious, raising the issue of the ethical standards - the sense of decency and respect - we expect from those in public life.
Footnote: The New Democrats also continued to raise questions about potential conflicts in the roles occupied by former top bureaucrat Ken Dobell, who is being paid both as an advisor to the premier and a lobbyist for the City of Vancouver attempting to get money from the province. Attorney General Wally Oppal has struggled in dealing with what look legitimate concerns.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Dobell conflict issue could hurt Liberals
The Liberals' problem in dealing with the great Ken Dobell controversy is that their explanations just won't strike most people as reasonable.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Liberals sitting pretty, and not much the NDP can do
Heading toward the halfway point in the Liberal government’s second term and a new poll has some New Democrats in a lather.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Liberals defend their own fast ferries
The out-of-control Vancouver convention centre project is looking a lot like the Liberals' own version of the fast ferries.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Private ER worrying, but no big threat
It's not good that a private emergency room in Vancouver will offer a promise of better care for people with the cash to pay for preferential treatment.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A simple way to save lives on our roads
Another year, another 50 unnecessary deaths in B.C., victims of the government's unwillingness to put politics and ideology ahead of public safety.
Governments like to talk about keeping our streets safe. So why do the Liberals steadfastly refuse to introduce a simple, cheap measure that could save so many lives and keep thousands of people from hospital every year?
I'm referring to photo radar, reminded of the lost opportunity by a British report assessing the effectiveness of the "speed cameras," as they call them. The Department for Transportation report found that in 1996, before photo radar was introduced, only 28 per cent of drivers in England were obeying the 30-mph speed limit in built-up areas. By last year, more than 50 per cent of drivers were obeying the law.
The number of drivers going more than 35 mph - the point at which tickets are issued based on photo radar - was cut almost in half, from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. (The study looked at a wide sample of roads, not just at areas where photo radar was installed.)
Speeding down residential streets and through business districts is still a big problem. And photo radar has had made only a slight impact on highway violations. But the reduction in speeding is still huge. And so is the reduction in deaths.
The study found pedestrian deaths had fallen from 997 in 1996 to 671 in 2005. That's more than 300 people a year going home to their families instead of the morgue.
There's nothing surprising in the study. The reviews of B.C.'s photo-radar experiment found similar reductions in speeding, crashes, deaths and injuries. Drivers don't speed when they think they might get caught. So offenders slowed down.
Despite the arguments of people who believe that speed limits are unnecessary - that every driver should be able to drive at the speed he decides is safe - all the evidence shows speed limit enforcement saves lives.
A major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo-radar studies from around the world. The results were striking. The number of crashes was reduced by 14 per cent to 72 per cent once photo radar was installed. Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 per cent to 46 per cent.
Or look at the evidence here.
The B.C. government introduced photo radar in 1996. In the preceding five years an average 510 people had died annually in crashes. During photo radar's almost six years of operation the annual death rate fell to 412 - almost two fewer deaths each week.
The Liberals killed photo radar after the 2001 election.
In the first three years after it was gone the average number of deaths was 449, an increase of 37 a year from the photo-radar era. In 2005, 459 people died in crashes.
A study done on the first year of photo radar in B.C. found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites, accompanied by a decrease in collisions, injuries and deaths.
"The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
A lot of British Columbians didn't like photo radar. They thought - wrongly - that it was a cash grab. The implementation was unnecessarily costly and labour intensive.
So the Liberals said during the 2001 election campaign that they would kill the cameras.
But the evidence shows that was a bad decision. It has cost hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries, shattered families and put needless pressure on the health care system.
Fixing the 2001 mistake would be as simple as using the red-light cameras already in place at intersections around the province to catch speeders.
Other high-risk areas - neighbourhoods used as shortcuts by commuters, high-accident streets, school zones - could also be targeted.
It's hard to see why the government won't act. Solicitor General John Les says he doesn't think photo radar saves lives, but he can't really believe that in the face of all the clear evidence.
And given the ease with which the Liberals shed other campaign promises, that can't be the issue.
Photo radar would save lives, reduce injuries and help ease the health-care crunch.
What's the government waiting for?
Governments like to talk about keeping our streets safe. So why do the Liberals steadfastly refuse to introduce a simple, cheap measure that could save so many lives and keep thousands of people from hospital every year?
I'm referring to photo radar, reminded of the lost opportunity by a British report assessing the effectiveness of the "speed cameras," as they call them. The Department for Transportation report found that in 1996, before photo radar was introduced, only 28 per cent of drivers in England were obeying the 30-mph speed limit in built-up areas. By last year, more than 50 per cent of drivers were obeying the law.
The number of drivers going more than 35 mph - the point at which tickets are issued based on photo radar - was cut almost in half, from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. (The study looked at a wide sample of roads, not just at areas where photo radar was installed.)
Speeding down residential streets and through business districts is still a big problem. And photo radar has had made only a slight impact on highway violations. But the reduction in speeding is still huge. And so is the reduction in deaths.
The study found pedestrian deaths had fallen from 997 in 1996 to 671 in 2005. That's more than 300 people a year going home to their families instead of the morgue.
There's nothing surprising in the study. The reviews of B.C.'s photo-radar experiment found similar reductions in speeding, crashes, deaths and injuries. Drivers don't speed when they think they might get caught. So offenders slowed down.
Despite the arguments of people who believe that speed limits are unnecessary - that every driver should be able to drive at the speed he decides is safe - all the evidence shows speed limit enforcement saves lives.
A major Australian review last year analyzed data from 26 photo-radar studies from around the world. The results were striking. The number of crashes was reduced by 14 per cent to 72 per cent once photo radar was installed. Fatalities were reduced by an even more dramatic 40 per cent to 46 per cent.
Or look at the evidence here.
The B.C. government introduced photo radar in 1996. In the preceding five years an average 510 people had died annually in crashes. During photo radar's almost six years of operation the annual death rate fell to 412 - almost two fewer deaths each week.
The Liberals killed photo radar after the 2001 election.
In the first three years after it was gone the average number of deaths was 449, an increase of 37 a year from the photo-radar era. In 2005, 459 people died in crashes.
A study done on the first year of photo radar in B.C. found "a dramatic reduction of speed" at deployment sites, accompanied by a decrease in collisions, injuries and deaths.
"The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the study reported.
A lot of British Columbians didn't like photo radar. They thought - wrongly - that it was a cash grab. The implementation was unnecessarily costly and labour intensive.
So the Liberals said during the 2001 election campaign that they would kill the cameras.
But the evidence shows that was a bad decision. It has cost hundreds of lives and thousands of injuries, shattered families and put needless pressure on the health care system.
Fixing the 2001 mistake would be as simple as using the red-light cameras already in place at intersections around the province to catch speeders.
Other high-risk areas - neighbourhoods used as shortcuts by commuters, high-accident streets, school zones - could also be targeted.
It's hard to see why the government won't act. Solicitor General John Les says he doesn't think photo radar saves lives, but he can't really believe that in the face of all the clear evidence.
And given the ease with which the Liberals shed other campaign promises, that can't be the issue.
Photo radar would save lives, reduce injuries and help ease the health-care crunch.
What's the government waiting for?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Why not a drug policy just like our anti-smoking efforts?
What if we treated other problem drugs like tobacco?
The province’s latest move to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces was a reminder of how successful we’ve been in dealing with tobacco use.
Watch an old movie and everybody is smoking. Even 20 years ago, people smoked at work, in bars. The people who asked for the non-smoking rooms in hotels were kind of weird and often disappointed.
Smoking was still cool and socially acceptable.
But we decided smoking was bad - addictive, gives you cancer and a brace of other illnesses.
Taxes made it more and more expensive, until it got hard to deny you were hooked. Not many people would happily spend $60 a week unless there was addiction involved.
Life insurance cost more. You couldn’t smoke at work. Restaurant smoking areas kept shrinking. People started to talk more and more about the fact that 40 per cent of hospitalizations are smoking-related.
And then, finally, there was another big shift. Smoking became largely a mark of loserdom. Not entirely - tautly wounded artists and blues performers still get away with it. But broadly, smokers are people you would be less likely to hire.
In a relatively short time, we took a deadly drug that was almost completely accepted, used by a majority of adults and highly addictive, and slashed its use.
We could have made tobacco illegal, like drugs, 20 years ago. But we chose a different approach - managed use, with education and financial penalties to decrease smoking.
And it’s worked quite well.
So why not try the same approach with drugs, or at least some of them?
What if we say heroin and cocaine are like tobacco - things we really wish people wouldn’t use, but that we still accept some probably will.
Under that approach we would commit a lot of resources to making sure people didn’t start, as we did with smoking. We’d target kids, but also vulnerable adults.
We’d make a big effort to help people quit.
And for people who wanted to keep using, we would prescribe heroin or cocaine or working substitutes they could pick up at a clinic. (The current half-hearted, restrictive methadone program really doesn’t count.)
What are the downsides? It feels wrong to provide a drug like cocaine to people, for one thing. You could argue that others - young people - might see the practice as condoning drug use. (Though we’ve managed to allow controlled sale of tobacco products while condemning its use.)
Against those are negatives, look at what we would gain.
The people being prescribed drugs wouldn’t have to stealing to get the money to buy them. Police estimate up to 90-per-cent of break-ins and thefts are drug-related.
Organized criminals would lose a huge market. There would still be demand, but not enough to make the business so attractive.
Instead of spending their days and nights scrambling for money and drugs, users would have time to think about work and developing more stable lives.
Based on similar efforts in other countries, a significant number would seek treatment. During a prescribed heroin trial in Switzerland, not only did crime by users plummet but about seven per cent quit during their time in the program.
Since people wouldn’t be using in alleys and dodgey settings, we’d save a fortune in health costs.
People with both mental health problems and addictions would get a chance to reduce the chaos their lives and deal with their mental illness.
And all the while we’d follow the path set by the anti-smoking campaign.
About 55 per cent of adults smoked in 1965, compaed witrh 15 per cent in B.C. today. Only about two per cent of Canadians are heroin and cocaine users. If we could make the same relative gains, the number of addicts would be tiny.
That’s a long list of benefits, with few costs.
Yet we push on with tactics and strategies that have failed to deal with prohibited substances for almost a century. We fight to reduce supply, unsuccessfully, and create crime and chaos and costs.
For whatever reason, we tried something different with tobacco. Maybe the big companies had too much clout for prohibition to be tried, or there were just too many smokers. But we didn’t ban cigarettes or arrest people. We worked on reducing demand.
And it worked. Why not for other drugs?
The province’s latest move to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces was a reminder of how successful we’ve been in dealing with tobacco use.
Watch an old movie and everybody is smoking. Even 20 years ago, people smoked at work, in bars. The people who asked for the non-smoking rooms in hotels were kind of weird and often disappointed.
Smoking was still cool and socially acceptable.
But we decided smoking was bad - addictive, gives you cancer and a brace of other illnesses.
Taxes made it more and more expensive, until it got hard to deny you were hooked. Not many people would happily spend $60 a week unless there was addiction involved.
Life insurance cost more. You couldn’t smoke at work. Restaurant smoking areas kept shrinking. People started to talk more and more about the fact that 40 per cent of hospitalizations are smoking-related.
And then, finally, there was another big shift. Smoking became largely a mark of loserdom. Not entirely - tautly wounded artists and blues performers still get away with it. But broadly, smokers are people you would be less likely to hire.
In a relatively short time, we took a deadly drug that was almost completely accepted, used by a majority of adults and highly addictive, and slashed its use.
We could have made tobacco illegal, like drugs, 20 years ago. But we chose a different approach - managed use, with education and financial penalties to decrease smoking.
And it’s worked quite well.
So why not try the same approach with drugs, or at least some of them?
What if we say heroin and cocaine are like tobacco - things we really wish people wouldn’t use, but that we still accept some probably will.
Under that approach we would commit a lot of resources to making sure people didn’t start, as we did with smoking. We’d target kids, but also vulnerable adults.
We’d make a big effort to help people quit.
And for people who wanted to keep using, we would prescribe heroin or cocaine or working substitutes they could pick up at a clinic. (The current half-hearted, restrictive methadone program really doesn’t count.)
What are the downsides? It feels wrong to provide a drug like cocaine to people, for one thing. You could argue that others - young people - might see the practice as condoning drug use. (Though we’ve managed to allow controlled sale of tobacco products while condemning its use.)
Against those are negatives, look at what we would gain.
The people being prescribed drugs wouldn’t have to stealing to get the money to buy them. Police estimate up to 90-per-cent of break-ins and thefts are drug-related.
Organized criminals would lose a huge market. There would still be demand, but not enough to make the business so attractive.
Instead of spending their days and nights scrambling for money and drugs, users would have time to think about work and developing more stable lives.
Based on similar efforts in other countries, a significant number would seek treatment. During a prescribed heroin trial in Switzerland, not only did crime by users plummet but about seven per cent quit during their time in the program.
Since people wouldn’t be using in alleys and dodgey settings, we’d save a fortune in health costs.
People with both mental health problems and addictions would get a chance to reduce the chaos their lives and deal with their mental illness.
And all the while we’d follow the path set by the anti-smoking campaign.
About 55 per cent of adults smoked in 1965, compaed witrh 15 per cent in B.C. today. Only about two per cent of Canadians are heroin and cocaine users. If we could make the same relative gains, the number of addicts would be tiny.
That’s a long list of benefits, with few costs.
Yet we push on with tactics and strategies that have failed to deal with prohibited substances for almost a century. We fight to reduce supply, unsuccessfully, and create crime and chaos and costs.
For whatever reason, we tried something different with tobacco. Maybe the big companies had too much clout for prohibition to be tried, or there were just too many smokers. But we didn’t ban cigarettes or arrest people. We worked on reducing demand.
And it worked. Why not for other drugs?
B.C. making mixed headlines in the U.S.
It’s been a big month for B.C. in the U.S. media, but the messages have probably been confusing for any Americans actually paying attention.
Premier Gordon Campbell zipped down to California for a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that was mostly a good news story. Hands across the border to battle greenhouse gases and all that. It even made the Washington Post, admittedly back on Page A18, but still good publicity for the province.
But at almost the same time, B.C. was being also portrayed as the environmental bad guy threatening an important Montana river. Plans for a coal mine in the Kootenays near the U.S. border are once again under fire.
And for the first time, the Bush administration is backing the complaints. The State Department wrote to B.C. last month putting its concerns about the mine on the record.
We’re about four years in to this long squabble with Montana over plans for a coal mine on our side of the border, but in the headwaters of the state’s Flathead River.
Partly, the mine’s problems are just collateral damage in the ongoing battle between environmentalists and the mining and energy industries within the state. Montana has had some bad experiences, especially with poorly regulated coalbed methane wells. There’s a lot of sensitivity about any development.
B.C. has made an effort to stay on the right side of the issue. The province even cancelled Cline Mining’s rights to develop one coal mine close to the border.
But Cline has another property, about 30 kms from the border, and it wants to go ahead with a relatively small open-pit coal mine. The province, while citing the need for environmental studies, seems too enthusiastic about the mine for Montana.
So there’s been some testy exchanges back and forth. The noisiest came when MLA Bill Bennett even got into a heated debate with Montana Senator Max “Blame Canada” Baucus in Fernie over the project. Gov. Brian Schweitzer is also an opponent.
And now the Montana crew have their federal government onside, at least in a modest way. The State Department have written to B.C. complaining that Cline proposed just north of Glacier National Park could cause "significant adverse environmental effects."
The letter is the mildest of White House responses to the political pressure from Montana.
Still, the game is afoot. And coal mines are not exactly seen in a favourable light right now. The B.C. government will likely have to decide if this mine is worth a fight with some pretty savvy opponents.
Especially when a fight over a coal mine against an earnest group of Montana environmentalists, backed by all their mainstream politicians, would sabotage the whole Schwarzenegger thing.
The charming bodybuilder-actor-governor will be up in B.C. in a few weeks to talk with Campbell about climate change. The linkage with Arnie is useful. As Campbell notes, B.C. as a market of four million people can’t bring much pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Aligning with California, with 36 million people, gives the government some influence.
And politically it never hurts to be seen with a movie star.
Though the whole Campbell-Schwarzenegger meeting got a slightly different play in the U.S.
The Washington Post, for example characterized Campbell as the premier who “wanted to bring coal-burning plants and offshore oil rigs to this lush province.”
His new green leanings were stunning, the newspaper said, and owed a big debt to Arnie.
“Campbell sought advice from Schwarzenegger, who had reversed his own sagging political fortunes by championing some of the toughest environmental regulations in the United States,” the Washington Post reported. “Schwarzenegger dispatched his chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, to Victoria, B.C., where he worked quietly with Campbell's staff to draft a far-reaching plan.”
Take the two stories together and you get an important reminder. We are a bit player in the dramas the American politicians script for themselves. We - our politicians - are either leaning on the action hero for help or plotting to destroy a wild river.
It’s tough to make it to the end of the movie when you’re not the star.
Footnote: Meanwhile, a popular San Francisco column described Schwarzenegger’s Canadian connection as boring but necessary to promote trade. "There are sexier places,'' a unnamed member of “Arnold's Team Canada” was quoted. "But there is a ton of money involved -- and we absolutely have to go.''
Premier Gordon Campbell zipped down to California for a meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that was mostly a good news story. Hands across the border to battle greenhouse gases and all that. It even made the Washington Post, admittedly back on Page A18, but still good publicity for the province.
But at almost the same time, B.C. was being also portrayed as the environmental bad guy threatening an important Montana river. Plans for a coal mine in the Kootenays near the U.S. border are once again under fire.
And for the first time, the Bush administration is backing the complaints. The State Department wrote to B.C. last month putting its concerns about the mine on the record.
We’re about four years in to this long squabble with Montana over plans for a coal mine on our side of the border, but in the headwaters of the state’s Flathead River.
Partly, the mine’s problems are just collateral damage in the ongoing battle between environmentalists and the mining and energy industries within the state. Montana has had some bad experiences, especially with poorly regulated coalbed methane wells. There’s a lot of sensitivity about any development.
B.C. has made an effort to stay on the right side of the issue. The province even cancelled Cline Mining’s rights to develop one coal mine close to the border.
But Cline has another property, about 30 kms from the border, and it wants to go ahead with a relatively small open-pit coal mine. The province, while citing the need for environmental studies, seems too enthusiastic about the mine for Montana.
So there’s been some testy exchanges back and forth. The noisiest came when MLA Bill Bennett even got into a heated debate with Montana Senator Max “Blame Canada” Baucus in Fernie over the project. Gov. Brian Schweitzer is also an opponent.
And now the Montana crew have their federal government onside, at least in a modest way. The State Department have written to B.C. complaining that Cline proposed just north of Glacier National Park could cause "significant adverse environmental effects."
The letter is the mildest of White House responses to the political pressure from Montana.
Still, the game is afoot. And coal mines are not exactly seen in a favourable light right now. The B.C. government will likely have to decide if this mine is worth a fight with some pretty savvy opponents.
Especially when a fight over a coal mine against an earnest group of Montana environmentalists, backed by all their mainstream politicians, would sabotage the whole Schwarzenegger thing.
The charming bodybuilder-actor-governor will be up in B.C. in a few weeks to talk with Campbell about climate change. The linkage with Arnie is useful. As Campbell notes, B.C. as a market of four million people can’t bring much pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Aligning with California, with 36 million people, gives the government some influence.
And politically it never hurts to be seen with a movie star.
Though the whole Campbell-Schwarzenegger meeting got a slightly different play in the U.S.
The Washington Post, for example characterized Campbell as the premier who “wanted to bring coal-burning plants and offshore oil rigs to this lush province.”
His new green leanings were stunning, the newspaper said, and owed a big debt to Arnie.
“Campbell sought advice from Schwarzenegger, who had reversed his own sagging political fortunes by championing some of the toughest environmental regulations in the United States,” the Washington Post reported. “Schwarzenegger dispatched his chief environmental adviser, Terry Tamminen, to Victoria, B.C., where he worked quietly with Campbell's staff to draft a far-reaching plan.”
Take the two stories together and you get an important reminder. We are a bit player in the dramas the American politicians script for themselves. We - our politicians - are either leaning on the action hero for help or plotting to destroy a wild river.
It’s tough to make it to the end of the movie when you’re not the star.
Footnote: Meanwhile, a popular San Francisco column described Schwarzenegger’s Canadian connection as boring but necessary to promote trade. "There are sexier places,'' a unnamed member of “Arnold's Team Canada” was quoted. "But there is a ton of money involved -- and we absolutely have to go.''
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Politicians' sneak attack on library backfires
VICTORIA - There's something nastily symbolic about the politicans' plan to shut down the magnificent legislative library so they could have better offices.
Especially the sneaky way they were going about it.
The library is the coolest part of the legislative buildings, an annex designed by Francis Rattenbury 13 years after his main building was finished in 1898.
A hall directly behind the red-carpeted legislative chamber leads to a round, marble-clad room that rises four stories to a dome. Off to one side there's a reading room; files and computers are on the other; and behind the desks there are floors of reference material, much of it unavailable anywhere else.
The library has been in the current location since 1915. But late last week politicians revealed they wanted to shut it down. The rotunda would make a grand reception hall for the premier to meet visiting dignitaries and the rest of the space could be carved up for offices. Premier Gordon Campbell went through a couple of weeks ago on a personal tour to consider possibilities.
The plan might be unravelling in the face of public outrage. The NDP, which seemed to be on side, now says the library should stay put.
Space is tight in some parts of the legislature building and up to six more MLAs are expected after the next election as a result of the riding boundaries' review now under way.
And the library is likely used less often as people turn to Google, especially for recent information.
But the fact that politicians didn't try to make a proper case for shutting the library and have released no studies showing either the case for moving - or killing - the library is telling.
Instead, they secretly hatched the idea. The first public revelation came when librarians received transfer notices.
The politicians tried to say the closure was just for two years as part of seismic upgrades for the legislature.
But consider the weasley responses from Speaker Bill Barisoff, nominally responsible for the building.
"We're not closing it down," he told the Vancouver Province columnist Mike Smyth. "We have to move the staff out of there to do some seismic upgrading."
So, Smyth asked, the library will re-open once the work is done?
Barisoff paused, then carefully said, "There will continue to be library services in the legislative precincts, yes." Translated, that meant the library wouldn't re-open. Library services in the legislature precincts could mean a warehouse within five blocks and no staff and no access to the moldering materials.
(I hate it when politicians opt for those silly evasions. Barisoff, from everything I've seen, is a decent guy who would never try that kind of con on people in his real life. Why do they think it's OK when they're trying to put one over on you?)
Maybe there's a case for closing the library, one that goes beyond people's desires for bigger offices and more staff. Most MLAs have crummy cubicles, but they're not around that much.
But maybe there are other solutions to any space problems.
Cabinet ministers have large and posh digs. Perhaps they could be subdivided.
Perhaps the government doesn't even need staffers to stand in the halls, waiting to tape interviews between reporters and cabinet ministers, so more staffers can transcribe them. No previous government has needed that kind of surveillance of its ministers.
The unwillingness to own up to the closure suggests strongly that the politicians have no case.
The odd part is that the library has always seemed an example of how government should work. MLAs, bureaucrats, journalists and the public - anyone looking for answers to tough questions - get fast, excellent service and invaluable information.
It's a model of efficiency.
The politicians, the premier's office, the Speaker, they seem to have forgotten the building belongs to you, not them. Before they start the reno, they owe the owners some justifications beyond their own decide for nicer digs.
Footnote: The decision, officially, will be made by the legislative assembly management committee. That's the same secretive group of MLAs who hatched the doomed plan for politicians' pay increases of up to 30-per-cent - plus a costly pension plan. A little openness might go a long way in avoiding future such debacles.
Especially the sneaky way they were going about it.
The library is the coolest part of the legislative buildings, an annex designed by Francis Rattenbury 13 years after his main building was finished in 1898.
A hall directly behind the red-carpeted legislative chamber leads to a round, marble-clad room that rises four stories to a dome. Off to one side there's a reading room; files and computers are on the other; and behind the desks there are floors of reference material, much of it unavailable anywhere else.
The library has been in the current location since 1915. But late last week politicians revealed they wanted to shut it down. The rotunda would make a grand reception hall for the premier to meet visiting dignitaries and the rest of the space could be carved up for offices. Premier Gordon Campbell went through a couple of weeks ago on a personal tour to consider possibilities.
The plan might be unravelling in the face of public outrage. The NDP, which seemed to be on side, now says the library should stay put.
Space is tight in some parts of the legislature building and up to six more MLAs are expected after the next election as a result of the riding boundaries' review now under way.
And the library is likely used less often as people turn to Google, especially for recent information.
But the fact that politicians didn't try to make a proper case for shutting the library and have released no studies showing either the case for moving - or killing - the library is telling.
Instead, they secretly hatched the idea. The first public revelation came when librarians received transfer notices.
The politicians tried to say the closure was just for two years as part of seismic upgrades for the legislature.
But consider the weasley responses from Speaker Bill Barisoff, nominally responsible for the building.
"We're not closing it down," he told the Vancouver Province columnist Mike Smyth. "We have to move the staff out of there to do some seismic upgrading."
So, Smyth asked, the library will re-open once the work is done?
Barisoff paused, then carefully said, "There will continue to be library services in the legislative precincts, yes." Translated, that meant the library wouldn't re-open. Library services in the legislature precincts could mean a warehouse within five blocks and no staff and no access to the moldering materials.
(I hate it when politicians opt for those silly evasions. Barisoff, from everything I've seen, is a decent guy who would never try that kind of con on people in his real life. Why do they think it's OK when they're trying to put one over on you?)
Maybe there's a case for closing the library, one that goes beyond people's desires for bigger offices and more staff. Most MLAs have crummy cubicles, but they're not around that much.
But maybe there are other solutions to any space problems.
Cabinet ministers have large and posh digs. Perhaps they could be subdivided.
Perhaps the government doesn't even need staffers to stand in the halls, waiting to tape interviews between reporters and cabinet ministers, so more staffers can transcribe them. No previous government has needed that kind of surveillance of its ministers.
The unwillingness to own up to the closure suggests strongly that the politicians have no case.
The odd part is that the library has always seemed an example of how government should work. MLAs, bureaucrats, journalists and the public - anyone looking for answers to tough questions - get fast, excellent service and invaluable information.
It's a model of efficiency.
The politicians, the premier's office, the Speaker, they seem to have forgotten the building belongs to you, not them. Before they start the reno, they owe the owners some justifications beyond their own decide for nicer digs.
Footnote: The decision, officially, will be made by the legislative assembly management committee. That's the same secretive group of MLAs who hatched the doomed plan for politicians' pay increases of up to 30-per-cent - plus a costly pension plan. A little openness might go a long way in avoiding future such debacles.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Little for B.C. in unConservative budget
Mostly, Stephen Harper’s latest budget seemed benign, a grab bag of unrelated spending plans and minor tax cuts designed to persuade people that a Conservative majority wouldn’t be so bad.
Slip a few hundred extra dollars to parents. Repair a small bit of the damage from the foolish child-care cuts. Send more cash along to the provinces, especially Quebec, with all those critical swing seats.
Not much of that old Harper talk about tax cuts and defence spending and slashing the role of government.
In fact, it practically could have been a Liberal budget.
And that’s not such a bad thing really. What’s wrong with a government that decides to cater to voters?
A couple of things, actually.
For starters, this kind of budget doesn’t really show any plan of vision for the country and doesn’t deal with the long-term challenges facing Canada. It’s about the next 12 months.
And the rush to woo the politically significant swing voter blocks — Quebec, Ontario, middle-class families - risks leaving out those who don’t count so much.
Like B.C., at least according to Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe. The government put Thorpe up to respond to the budget, a surprising choice. It is spring break, but the decision also allowed Gordon Campbell and Carole Taylor to avoid being the bad guys.
Thorpe made it clear that the government isn’t happy. If his comments weren’t the sharpest rebuke for a federal government since Campbell was elected, they were in the top few.
And they were pretty legitimate.
The budget bumped spending for the coming year by an unconservative 5.6 per cent, on top of this year’s 7.9-per-cent increase in program spending.
A large chunk of that was additional money to be sent out to provinces, as equalization payments and increased transfers for health and education and social services. The Conservatives even put back a tiny bit of the money they foolishly cut from child-care budgets, recognizing that their vague idea to have businesses open day cares for employees was just foolish. B.C. wll get $33 million a year for child care under the budget; the federal-provincial child-care deal cancelled by Harper was worth $150 million a year.
And tax cuts. A very useful move to cut taxes for the poorest of the working poor. A weird but popular move to give all parents a credit worth $310 per child. (A smarter program would recognize that we would get much greater results by at least slashing the amount going to high-income families and investing heavily where children need the most help.)
And a big business tax break aimed at manufacturers — again, Ontario and Quebec.
But not so much for B.C., as Thorpe pointed out.
The provincial government had been hoping for good news on several fronts.
The whole Pacfic Gateway idea, for one. Campbell sees the task of building roads and railways and airports and ports to improve transportation links with Asia as a national dream, St. Lawrence Seaway kind of national megaproject.
Harper, based on the budget, sees it as something less. There’s an extra $50 million a year toward the Gateway projects, far from what B.C. was seeking.
B.C. has also been looking for more serious help with the pine beetle disaster. In a few years, when the beetle wood is harvested, communities across the North and Interior face huge job losses. The timber supply - the base for up to four out of five jobs in some communities - will be slashed, possibly in half, for decades.
So far, the Conservatives have promised $100 million a year for 10 years. But much more is needed to help communities prepare to make the best of tough times. (Though the province’s lack of urgency on the threat undermines its case for more aid from Ottawa.)
And while Thorpe didn’t raise it, Campbell must be irked by that he has been unable to get the federal government to take First Nations issues seriously or honour at least the spirit of the Kelowna Accord. There’s about $20 million a year in new job training money, but nothing that reflects the Kelowna commitment, the terrible poverty and dislocation on reserves or the province’s “new relationship.”
There’s not much for B.C., especially compared with the bounty sent to Quebec and Ontario.
But the goal here is to set the stage for a Conservative majority government in the next election. And B.C.’s few seats are not all that important.
Footnote: The federal Liberals and the NDP say they oppose the budget, but the Bloc Quebecois will support it. The Bloc is afraid that, given the big jump in federal payments for Quebec in the budget, it would face a backlash if it forced an election. More critically, it fears hurting the Parti Quebecois’ chances in next week’s provincial election. Instead, the Bloc is claiming credit for delivering the cash.
Slip a few hundred extra dollars to parents. Repair a small bit of the damage from the foolish child-care cuts. Send more cash along to the provinces, especially Quebec, with all those critical swing seats.
Not much of that old Harper talk about tax cuts and defence spending and slashing the role of government.
In fact, it practically could have been a Liberal budget.
And that’s not such a bad thing really. What’s wrong with a government that decides to cater to voters?
A couple of things, actually.
For starters, this kind of budget doesn’t really show any plan of vision for the country and doesn’t deal with the long-term challenges facing Canada. It’s about the next 12 months.
And the rush to woo the politically significant swing voter blocks — Quebec, Ontario, middle-class families - risks leaving out those who don’t count so much.
Like B.C., at least according to Revenue Minister Rick Thorpe. The government put Thorpe up to respond to the budget, a surprising choice. It is spring break, but the decision also allowed Gordon Campbell and Carole Taylor to avoid being the bad guys.
Thorpe made it clear that the government isn’t happy. If his comments weren’t the sharpest rebuke for a federal government since Campbell was elected, they were in the top few.
And they were pretty legitimate.
The budget bumped spending for the coming year by an unconservative 5.6 per cent, on top of this year’s 7.9-per-cent increase in program spending.
A large chunk of that was additional money to be sent out to provinces, as equalization payments and increased transfers for health and education and social services. The Conservatives even put back a tiny bit of the money they foolishly cut from child-care budgets, recognizing that their vague idea to have businesses open day cares for employees was just foolish. B.C. wll get $33 million a year for child care under the budget; the federal-provincial child-care deal cancelled by Harper was worth $150 million a year.
And tax cuts. A very useful move to cut taxes for the poorest of the working poor. A weird but popular move to give all parents a credit worth $310 per child. (A smarter program would recognize that we would get much greater results by at least slashing the amount going to high-income families and investing heavily where children need the most help.)
And a big business tax break aimed at manufacturers — again, Ontario and Quebec.
But not so much for B.C., as Thorpe pointed out.
The provincial government had been hoping for good news on several fronts.
The whole Pacfic Gateway idea, for one. Campbell sees the task of building roads and railways and airports and ports to improve transportation links with Asia as a national dream, St. Lawrence Seaway kind of national megaproject.
Harper, based on the budget, sees it as something less. There’s an extra $50 million a year toward the Gateway projects, far from what B.C. was seeking.
B.C. has also been looking for more serious help with the pine beetle disaster. In a few years, when the beetle wood is harvested, communities across the North and Interior face huge job losses. The timber supply - the base for up to four out of five jobs in some communities - will be slashed, possibly in half, for decades.
So far, the Conservatives have promised $100 million a year for 10 years. But much more is needed to help communities prepare to make the best of tough times. (Though the province’s lack of urgency on the threat undermines its case for more aid from Ottawa.)
And while Thorpe didn’t raise it, Campbell must be irked by that he has been unable to get the federal government to take First Nations issues seriously or honour at least the spirit of the Kelowna Accord. There’s about $20 million a year in new job training money, but nothing that reflects the Kelowna commitment, the terrible poverty and dislocation on reserves or the province’s “new relationship.”
There’s not much for B.C., especially compared with the bounty sent to Quebec and Ontario.
But the goal here is to set the stage for a Conservative majority government in the next election. And B.C.’s few seats are not all that important.
Footnote: The federal Liberals and the NDP say they oppose the budget, but the Bloc Quebecois will support it. The Bloc is afraid that, given the big jump in federal payments for Quebec in the budget, it would face a backlash if it forced an election. More critically, it fears hurting the Parti Quebecois’ chances in next week’s provincial election. Instead, the Bloc is claiming credit for delivering the cash.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Heartlands hurting, but government can't even see it
That was a lame performance by the Liberals this week on the tough future facing most of B.C.'s Interior and Northern communities.
Even for people paying attention, the 2006 census numbers came a shock. The province's population grew by 5.3 per cent between 2001 and 2006, just behind the national average. (The first time in Canada's history that B.C. has lagged the rest of Canada.)
But the growth came in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island.
Across the rest of the province, from small villages to major centres, populations were shrinking.
That's not surprising. Around the world, people are moving to the big cities, where the jobs and opportunities are. That's as true in B.C. as it is in Nigeria or China.
But the Liberals have made a big deal about sharing the benefits of growth across the province.
Remember the Heartlands strategy in 2003? The promise was a renewed future for all those communities coping with courthouse and government office closures, or cutting their schools back to four days a week because that's all they could afford.
There was no strategy behind the slogans. Within a year, it all pretty much collapsed like a pyramid scheme.
That was too bad. Based on the census results, those communities could have used real help.
Consider Prince Rupert, which lost 13 per cent of its population between 2001 and 2006. Trail, down 4.5 per cent. Terrace, 6.5 per cent. Prince George, down two per cent.
From here in Victoria, or Vancouver, those are just numbers.
But if you've got a grocery store or contracting business in Quesnel, and the population declines by seven per cent, that's a problem. There are fewer people to shop, or hire you.
So businesses struggle. School enrolments fall and they close, or go to four-day weeks. It gets harder to attract people. Main Street has as many vacant stores as successful ones.
Government can't actually fix all this. But it can help counter the bad effects and be straight with people about their futures. Then it's up to them to decide what to do.
The NDP leaped on the numbers in the first available question period.
The government put up Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen to handle them, even though the questions were directed to Communities Minister Ida Chong. (The day before, Agriculture Minister Pat Bell had answered for Labour Minister Olga Illich.)
As health minister, Hansen had faced the toughest questions with facts and common sense.
But this time he was terrible, offering irrelevant prepackaged spin. He didn't acknowledge the reality of peoples' lives in these communities, or the facts.
People are moving back to B.C., Hansen said.
But not to most of the Interior or North.
Unemployment is at a record low even in these communities, he said.
True enough and a good thing. People who couldn't find work have moved away, an often painful but practical response.
But the number of people working in Prince George today is lower than in the mid-90s.
For the community, that's a problem, even if its sons and daughters are doing well in the Lower Mainland.
Government can't stop these changes, at least without running big risks.
But it can slow them, perhaps choosing to keep a ministry branch office open to help a community or to make forest companies process trees where they cut them down, buying mills a few more years. It can fund schools to be open five days a week.
Stop-gaps, for sure. Mills that can compete don't have a long-term future. That's simply reality.
Still, stop-gaps aren't so bad sometimes.
What was most alarming was the government's apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge that so many communities are facing difficult times, as the census results show. That suggest their problems aren't even being considered.
People in Interior and Northern communities living through these changes have to be wondering how they have become invisible to their governments.
Footnote: Forest Minister Rich Coleman also disappointed. Many of these communities face a drastic cut in the available timber for decades as a result of the pine beetle disaster. But Coleman, asked for an indication of the likely impact and timing, refused to answer. Families and businesses in the affected areas deserved a real answer to a serious question.
Even for people paying attention, the 2006 census numbers came a shock. The province's population grew by 5.3 per cent between 2001 and 2006, just behind the national average. (The first time in Canada's history that B.C. has lagged the rest of Canada.)
But the growth came in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island.
Across the rest of the province, from small villages to major centres, populations were shrinking.
That's not surprising. Around the world, people are moving to the big cities, where the jobs and opportunities are. That's as true in B.C. as it is in Nigeria or China.
But the Liberals have made a big deal about sharing the benefits of growth across the province.
Remember the Heartlands strategy in 2003? The promise was a renewed future for all those communities coping with courthouse and government office closures, or cutting their schools back to four days a week because that's all they could afford.
There was no strategy behind the slogans. Within a year, it all pretty much collapsed like a pyramid scheme.
That was too bad. Based on the census results, those communities could have used real help.
Consider Prince Rupert, which lost 13 per cent of its population between 2001 and 2006. Trail, down 4.5 per cent. Terrace, 6.5 per cent. Prince George, down two per cent.
From here in Victoria, or Vancouver, those are just numbers.
But if you've got a grocery store or contracting business in Quesnel, and the population declines by seven per cent, that's a problem. There are fewer people to shop, or hire you.
So businesses struggle. School enrolments fall and they close, or go to four-day weeks. It gets harder to attract people. Main Street has as many vacant stores as successful ones.
Government can't actually fix all this. But it can help counter the bad effects and be straight with people about their futures. Then it's up to them to decide what to do.
The NDP leaped on the numbers in the first available question period.
The government put up Economic Development Minister Colin Hansen to handle them, even though the questions were directed to Communities Minister Ida Chong. (The day before, Agriculture Minister Pat Bell had answered for Labour Minister Olga Illich.)
As health minister, Hansen had faced the toughest questions with facts and common sense.
But this time he was terrible, offering irrelevant prepackaged spin. He didn't acknowledge the reality of peoples' lives in these communities, or the facts.
People are moving back to B.C., Hansen said.
But not to most of the Interior or North.
Unemployment is at a record low even in these communities, he said.
True enough and a good thing. People who couldn't find work have moved away, an often painful but practical response.
But the number of people working in Prince George today is lower than in the mid-90s.
For the community, that's a problem, even if its sons and daughters are doing well in the Lower Mainland.
Government can't stop these changes, at least without running big risks.
But it can slow them, perhaps choosing to keep a ministry branch office open to help a community or to make forest companies process trees where they cut them down, buying mills a few more years. It can fund schools to be open five days a week.
Stop-gaps, for sure. Mills that can compete don't have a long-term future. That's simply reality.
Still, stop-gaps aren't so bad sometimes.
What was most alarming was the government's apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge that so many communities are facing difficult times, as the census results show. That suggest their problems aren't even being considered.
People in Interior and Northern communities living through these changes have to be wondering how they have become invisible to their governments.
Footnote: Forest Minister Rich Coleman also disappointed. Many of these communities face a drastic cut in the available timber for decades as a result of the pine beetle disaster. But Coleman, asked for an indication of the likely impact and timing, refused to answer. Families and businesses in the affected areas deserved a real answer to a serious question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
