Our inability to manage health care is one of the great public policy failures of the last 25 years, at least. The same issues and the same lack of information come up again and again and again.
Given Kevin Falcon's musings on private and two-tier care, this New Yorker article is must reading.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Falcon fumbles on two-tier health care
Kevin Falcon is off to a bumbling and alarming start as health minister.
Falcon sat down with the Vancouver Sun's health reporter and said he saw nothing wrong with letting affluent people pay for speedier treatment than the rest of British Columbians.
"I do not have any objection to people using their own money just as they do for dental care or sending their kids to private school," he told Pamela Fayerman. "I think choice is a good thing."
That's a radical shift away from equal, universal access to health care as promised under medicare.
After Fayerman sat down to write, Falcon phoned.
He should only have been talking about plastic surgery or treatments that aren't medically necessary, he said.
The Canada Health Act bars paying for better or faster care in any other case.
I'm new on the job, he explained.
Which is troubling on at least three levels. First, any cabinet minister - anyone who has been paying attention - should have known about the two-tier care issue and the basics of the Canada Health Act. But it appears Falcon only caught on when his handlers boxed his ears.
Second, Falcon's retreat was less than reassuring for those who think equal access to health care is important.
He didn't say he believed in the principles of the Canada Health Act or supported equal access to care. Just that it was the law and the official Liberal position was to support it, so he would.
And third, Falcon hardly came across as a medicare supporter. When he called Fayerman to clarify what he meant to say, he had this comment: "If we're talking about medically necessary care, we don't have the right to allow people to do that. Frankly, in my second week in the health portfolio, I haven't yet got my mind wrapped around that."
Before you take the health job, you should have "your mind around that." It's the law, federally and provincially. If you haven't decided whether you understand or support the principle, health might not be the right ministry.
It matters that Falcon didn't support equal access to care in the first interview.
And that even in the correction call, he talked about the law, not principle.
A full debate on health policy is important. But some principles are also important.
And Falcon's stumbling is telling.
What Canadians have said, so far, is that the right to health care shouldn't be restricted by wealth.
If two little girls are sick they should get treatment based on their needs. A child with rich parents shouldn't get speedy treatment help, while another child suffers on a waiting list. The sickest child should get the promptest care.
That's not what would happen if people could pay for better, faster treatment.
Nor would two-tier care reduce health costs. In fact, it would inevitably increase them. More money would be spent on the same treatment as extra charges were piled on. If proponents of two-tier care were proved right, and more procedures were done overall, then costs would rise even faster.
Falcon's comments came as three private clinics are suing the government, claiming the right to extra-bill patients for faster or better care.
The government has been fighting the case, pointing to the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, which both bar extra-billing.
Falcon's confused and confusing comments won't help the case.
Two-tier care has been increasing in the province for about 15 years, as NDP and Liberal governments turned a blind eye to a growing number of private clinics that charge a fee to those who can afford speedier treatment.
The increase has at least been slowed by occasional government threats to crack down on the practice, although the clinics now treat some 50,000 patients a year who can pay to beat the public system's waiting lists.
Falcon's failure to state a clear, principled position on two-tier care will be a great encouragement to the private providers.
Footnote: The debate about extra fees, queue-jumping and two-tier care is separate from a discussion of the best way to deliver services under a universal, public plan. Private providers already play a significant role in the system. The benefits and risks rate a separate column.
Falcon sat down with the Vancouver Sun's health reporter and said he saw nothing wrong with letting affluent people pay for speedier treatment than the rest of British Columbians.
"I do not have any objection to people using their own money just as they do for dental care or sending their kids to private school," he told Pamela Fayerman. "I think choice is a good thing."
That's a radical shift away from equal, universal access to health care as promised under medicare.
After Fayerman sat down to write, Falcon phoned.
He should only have been talking about plastic surgery or treatments that aren't medically necessary, he said.
The Canada Health Act bars paying for better or faster care in any other case.
I'm new on the job, he explained.
Which is troubling on at least three levels. First, any cabinet minister - anyone who has been paying attention - should have known about the two-tier care issue and the basics of the Canada Health Act. But it appears Falcon only caught on when his handlers boxed his ears.
Second, Falcon's retreat was less than reassuring for those who think equal access to health care is important.
He didn't say he believed in the principles of the Canada Health Act or supported equal access to care. Just that it was the law and the official Liberal position was to support it, so he would.
And third, Falcon hardly came across as a medicare supporter. When he called Fayerman to clarify what he meant to say, he had this comment: "If we're talking about medically necessary care, we don't have the right to allow people to do that. Frankly, in my second week in the health portfolio, I haven't yet got my mind wrapped around that."
Before you take the health job, you should have "your mind around that." It's the law, federally and provincially. If you haven't decided whether you understand or support the principle, health might not be the right ministry.
It matters that Falcon didn't support equal access to care in the first interview.
And that even in the correction call, he talked about the law, not principle.
A full debate on health policy is important. But some principles are also important.
And Falcon's stumbling is telling.
What Canadians have said, so far, is that the right to health care shouldn't be restricted by wealth.
If two little girls are sick they should get treatment based on their needs. A child with rich parents shouldn't get speedy treatment help, while another child suffers on a waiting list. The sickest child should get the promptest care.
That's not what would happen if people could pay for better, faster treatment.
Nor would two-tier care reduce health costs. In fact, it would inevitably increase them. More money would be spent on the same treatment as extra charges were piled on. If proponents of two-tier care were proved right, and more procedures were done overall, then costs would rise even faster.
Falcon's comments came as three private clinics are suing the government, claiming the right to extra-bill patients for faster or better care.
The government has been fighting the case, pointing to the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, which both bar extra-billing.
Falcon's confused and confusing comments won't help the case.
Two-tier care has been increasing in the province for about 15 years, as NDP and Liberal governments turned a blind eye to a growing number of private clinics that charge a fee to those who can afford speedier treatment.
The increase has at least been slowed by occasional government threats to crack down on the practice, although the clinics now treat some 50,000 patients a year who can pay to beat the public system's waiting lists.
Falcon's failure to state a clear, principled position on two-tier care will be a great encouragement to the private providers.
Footnote: The debate about extra fees, queue-jumping and two-tier care is separate from a discussion of the best way to deliver services under a universal, public plan. Private providers already play a significant role in the system. The benefits and risks rate a separate column.
Friday, June 26, 2009
'Seismic change' for First Nations needs close look
I have no idea what to make of Gordon Campbell's proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act. There's just not enough information.
The Liberals think it's huge, in a good way.
Some critics - business and First Nations - think it's huge, in a worrying way.
The initiative was born in quiet talks between a few First Nations leaders and the premier's office. The only public document from the government is a discussion paper of less than five pages, plus a map showing the province divided into 23 "sovereign indigenous nations."
It's thin gruel to explain a proposal billed as bringing "seismic change" to the relationship with First Nations.
The First Nations' leadership has started limited consultations in a handful of communities.
But there has been no apparent process for talking to business, municipalities or the non-native public. No public hearings are planned. The legislature's aboriginal affairs committee, inactive since 2001, hasn't been the chance to consider the changes.
Broadly, the act would bring about three sweeping changes.
First, the government would recognize aboriginal title and rights. The province now requires First Nations to prove they have occupied or used territory over generations before it accepts their claims. Under the act, title could be acknowledged without those tests.
Second, the provincial government would accept a First Nations' role in decisions on land and resource use and revenue sharing. A government-to-government partnership would be in effect.
Third, in return, First Nations would make it easier for the government - and industry - to deal with them. Now, the government deals with 203 councils and bands. The act envisions a shift to 20 to 30 "sovereign indigenous nations" that could speak for aboriginals within a region.
The discussion paper includes a map that shows the province carved up into 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The Secwepemc nation, for example, would stretch from Kamloops to Williams Lake to Golden (and into Alberta).
The discussion paper sets out a three-stage approach to implementing the new relationship. The initial level offers a little more joint decision-making then the status quo. The farther First Nations move toward the "indigenous nation" model, the greater the commitment to their right to shared decision-making, a claim on resource revenues and government-to-government relations.
The new act would override all other provincial land and resource legislation, the government says. But it would not apply to private land or current Crown tenures.
The aim is laudable. After 17 years and some $1.5 billion, the treaty process has produced few results. Life in most First Nations is still substandard by economic and social measures. It's hard to defend sticking with the same approach.
But the concerns about the act - in part because of the secrecy - are piling up. Municipalities, especially regional districts, worry they'll lose planning authority to the new indigenous nations. Companies wonder if the nations' share of resource revenues will come from the provincial government's current take, or result in higher payments. The whole notion of a new form of government, with unclear powers, worries some.
At the same time, some First Nations are rejecting the act. They argue the form of title it conveys is too weak and falls short of the standard set in court rulings.
And they're suspicious of the new form of government too, worried about giving up the local authority of a band or tribal council for an as-yet undefined sovereign indigenous nation.
The government hoped to pass the act in the spring, but abandoned the plan at the last minute in the face of concerns. Campbell says it's still a priority.
But this isn't the kind of change to be made without consultation and debate about the impacts.
The best option would be to introduce the bill as soon as possible and put off the debate and vote until the spring, allowing all British Columbians a chance to consider and discuss the implications of this "seismic change."
Footnote: The act never became an election issue, in part because the New Democrats are - at least broadly - sympathetic to the direction the government is going. That increases the onus on First Nations communities, municipalities, business, MLAs and individuals to make sure the act gets a thorough review.
The Liberals think it's huge, in a good way.
Some critics - business and First Nations - think it's huge, in a worrying way.
The initiative was born in quiet talks between a few First Nations leaders and the premier's office. The only public document from the government is a discussion paper of less than five pages, plus a map showing the province divided into 23 "sovereign indigenous nations."
It's thin gruel to explain a proposal billed as bringing "seismic change" to the relationship with First Nations.
The First Nations' leadership has started limited consultations in a handful of communities.
But there has been no apparent process for talking to business, municipalities or the non-native public. No public hearings are planned. The legislature's aboriginal affairs committee, inactive since 2001, hasn't been the chance to consider the changes.
Broadly, the act would bring about three sweeping changes.
First, the government would recognize aboriginal title and rights. The province now requires First Nations to prove they have occupied or used territory over generations before it accepts their claims. Under the act, title could be acknowledged without those tests.
Second, the provincial government would accept a First Nations' role in decisions on land and resource use and revenue sharing. A government-to-government partnership would be in effect.
Third, in return, First Nations would make it easier for the government - and industry - to deal with them. Now, the government deals with 203 councils and bands. The act envisions a shift to 20 to 30 "sovereign indigenous nations" that could speak for aboriginals within a region.
The discussion paper includes a map that shows the province carved up into 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The Secwepemc nation, for example, would stretch from Kamloops to Williams Lake to Golden (and into Alberta).
The discussion paper sets out a three-stage approach to implementing the new relationship. The initial level offers a little more joint decision-making then the status quo. The farther First Nations move toward the "indigenous nation" model, the greater the commitment to their right to shared decision-making, a claim on resource revenues and government-to-government relations.
The new act would override all other provincial land and resource legislation, the government says. But it would not apply to private land or current Crown tenures.
The aim is laudable. After 17 years and some $1.5 billion, the treaty process has produced few results. Life in most First Nations is still substandard by economic and social measures. It's hard to defend sticking with the same approach.
But the concerns about the act - in part because of the secrecy - are piling up. Municipalities, especially regional districts, worry they'll lose planning authority to the new indigenous nations. Companies wonder if the nations' share of resource revenues will come from the provincial government's current take, or result in higher payments. The whole notion of a new form of government, with unclear powers, worries some.
At the same time, some First Nations are rejecting the act. They argue the form of title it conveys is too weak and falls short of the standard set in court rulings.
And they're suspicious of the new form of government too, worried about giving up the local authority of a band or tribal council for an as-yet undefined sovereign indigenous nation.
The government hoped to pass the act in the spring, but abandoned the plan at the last minute in the face of concerns. Campbell says it's still a priority.
But this isn't the kind of change to be made without consultation and debate about the impacts.
The best option would be to introduce the bill as soon as possible and put off the debate and vote until the spring, allowing all British Columbians a chance to consider and discuss the implications of this "seismic change."
Footnote: The act never became an election issue, in part because the New Democrats are - at least broadly - sympathetic to the direction the government is going. That increases the onus on First Nations communities, municipalities, business, MLAs and individuals to make sure the act gets a thorough review.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Liberals heading back into 2001-style change, cuts
It's looking liken the Liberals are ready to launch their third term as they did their first - with a full-tilt overhaul of government, conducted on so many fronts and so quickly that critics are left behind.
Speculation, of course. Gordon Campbell and company are not chatty about their intentions.
But the signs are there. In 2001, the Liberals blindly cut taxes by 25 per cent and then set out to shrink government to make up the $1.2-billion in lost revenue.
This time, the shortfall will be much greater. Instead of tax cuts, overly optimistic revenue projections will be the cause. Economic growth, natural gas prices, housing starts - the budget over-estimated them all.
Campbell still says the deficit this year will be close to the $495 million in the budget. That number relied on spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries.
Now another $1 billion or more in savings are needed.
It sets the stage for a repeat of the 18 months following the 2001, when the Liberals rolled out massive change.
In health, for example, the government created five regional health authorities and a provincial authority for specialized care.
The core review was hunting for anything government could stop doing.
And the Liberals were preparing a destructive treaty referendum, which they almost immediately repudiated.
Now, the health authorities are being pushed to find up to $320 million in spending cuts. That's before the next round of cost control to deal with the faulty budget numbers. Another re-org is also rumoured. And Kevin Falcon is the new health minister. Falcon is underestimated; his willingness to say what he thinks should get more credit. But he brings a bulldozer history to a ministry where problems are often best faced with a scalpel.
And once again, something much like the core review is under way. The main order of business for new ministers, said Campbell, is looking for savings. Rich Coleman has cancelled, at least so far, a program that allowed poor and disabled children to go to summer camp to save about $365,000. Shameful, and an indication of how deep the coming cuts will go.
Instead of a referendum aimed, hopelessly and irrelevantly, at curtailing First Nation rights, Campbell is embarked on a dramatic - "seismic" - effort to recognize them and enshrine co-government and shared decision-making and revenue.
It's an effective tactic. If you want to make big changes in any setting, create a crisis. People become more willing to accept disruption, lost services and haste. Those opposed to any policy are overwhelmed by the flood of changes.
For example, the coming Recognition and Reconciliation Act, redefining relations with First Nations, would be a tough sell in normal times. (I'll look at it a subsequent column.)
For everyone - First Nations, business, non-aboriginals, municipalities - the act means big changes. And aboriginal, business, municipal representatives are nervous about this deal, basically reached behind closed doors.
But, as with the forgotten treaty referendum, the government is pressing ahead.
There are a few big differences between now and 2001. The fiscal pressures haven't been created by tax cuts; the economic is real.
There aren't just two opposition MLAs this time to try and keep track of the sweeping changes. The New Democrats have a chance to help make sure the public gets a chance to consider the impact of cuts and changes. That didn't happen in the Liberals' first years.
Nor do the Liberals have the same mandate. About 46 per cent of voters supported the party, down from 58 per cent in 2001. A majority of voters wanted another party in power.
But our system has somehow turned into a winner-takes-all event. We elect, more or less, a dictator for four years and then get to decide how we feel about the results.
Expect wild times, much more like the Liberals' first years after the 2001 election than their second term.
Footnote: Campbell has promised a revised budget Sept. 1. The next financial news will come in mid-July, when the auditor general releases the final numbers for the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Speculation, of course. Gordon Campbell and company are not chatty about their intentions.
But the signs are there. In 2001, the Liberals blindly cut taxes by 25 per cent and then set out to shrink government to make up the $1.2-billion in lost revenue.
This time, the shortfall will be much greater. Instead of tax cuts, overly optimistic revenue projections will be the cause. Economic growth, natural gas prices, housing starts - the budget over-estimated them all.
Campbell still says the deficit this year will be close to the $495 million in the budget. That number relied on spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries.
Now another $1 billion or more in savings are needed.
It sets the stage for a repeat of the 18 months following the 2001, when the Liberals rolled out massive change.
In health, for example, the government created five regional health authorities and a provincial authority for specialized care.
The core review was hunting for anything government could stop doing.
And the Liberals were preparing a destructive treaty referendum, which they almost immediately repudiated.
Now, the health authorities are being pushed to find up to $320 million in spending cuts. That's before the next round of cost control to deal with the faulty budget numbers. Another re-org is also rumoured. And Kevin Falcon is the new health minister. Falcon is underestimated; his willingness to say what he thinks should get more credit. But he brings a bulldozer history to a ministry where problems are often best faced with a scalpel.
And once again, something much like the core review is under way. The main order of business for new ministers, said Campbell, is looking for savings. Rich Coleman has cancelled, at least so far, a program that allowed poor and disabled children to go to summer camp to save about $365,000. Shameful, and an indication of how deep the coming cuts will go.
Instead of a referendum aimed, hopelessly and irrelevantly, at curtailing First Nation rights, Campbell is embarked on a dramatic - "seismic" - effort to recognize them and enshrine co-government and shared decision-making and revenue.
It's an effective tactic. If you want to make big changes in any setting, create a crisis. People become more willing to accept disruption, lost services and haste. Those opposed to any policy are overwhelmed by the flood of changes.
For example, the coming Recognition and Reconciliation Act, redefining relations with First Nations, would be a tough sell in normal times. (I'll look at it a subsequent column.)
For everyone - First Nations, business, non-aboriginals, municipalities - the act means big changes. And aboriginal, business, municipal representatives are nervous about this deal, basically reached behind closed doors.
But, as with the forgotten treaty referendum, the government is pressing ahead.
There are a few big differences between now and 2001. The fiscal pressures haven't been created by tax cuts; the economic is real.
There aren't just two opposition MLAs this time to try and keep track of the sweeping changes. The New Democrats have a chance to help make sure the public gets a chance to consider the impact of cuts and changes. That didn't happen in the Liberals' first years.
Nor do the Liberals have the same mandate. About 46 per cent of voters supported the party, down from 58 per cent in 2001. A majority of voters wanted another party in power.
But our system has somehow turned into a winner-takes-all event. We elect, more or less, a dictator for four years and then get to decide how we feel about the results.
Expect wild times, much more like the Liberals' first years after the 2001 election than their second term.
Footnote: Campbell has promised a revised budget Sept. 1. The next financial news will come in mid-July, when the auditor general releases the final numbers for the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
New faces get big roles in big cabinet
Governing must be harder than it looks from the outside.
Back in 1996, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat's 18-person cabinet was way too big - bloated, expensive and out of touch. The Liberal platform promised no more than 12 ministers in cabinet.
That was then. This week, Campbell appointed a 25-member cabinet (including himself). The Liberals only have 49 MLAs; more than half of them are now cabinet ministers. By the time various committee jobs and other posts are handed out, almost everyone should get a little recognition - and extra money.
There were no huge shocks, but some chaåçnges were significant.
Campbell dumped four ministers - Linda Reid, John van Dongen, Gordon Hogg and Joan McIntyre.
That made room for some new faces, including a couple of brand new MLAs thrust into high-profile jobs.
Kash Heed, the former West Vancouver police chief, steps in as solicitor general, responsible for crime, gambling enforcement, ICBC and the coroners. Given concerns about gang violence and RCMP accountability - and Heed's support for regional policing - it is a place he could shine.
Margaret MacDiarmid , another Vancouver rookie, gets education. But she's far from a neophyte. A doctor, MacDiarmid was the B.C. Medical Association president in 2006-7. That meant a lot of work with government. She still faces a tough challenge, as school districts cope with underfunding.
Steve Thomson, a highly respected newcomer from the Okanagan, gets agriculture and lands.
In total, there will be nine new faces around the cabinet table, including seven elected for the first time last month.
The biggest promotion - sort of - went to Langley's Mary Polak, who went from health living to the ministry of children and families. Polak has been typecast, inaccurately, as a hardcore social conservative. But she still faces an immense challenge dealing with a ministry that continues to struggle and faces big money problems. Its budget is projected to grow at less than one per cent a year, as demand rises.
The other minister facing a huge challenge is Kevin Falcon, who goes from transportation to health. Falcon is underestimated. He's not one of cabinet's deep thinkers, but he has shown an ability to set a goal and plow toward it. But health, like children and families, faces big budget problems - health authorities have are looking for ways to comply with a provincial edict to help cut $320 million in spending. And Falcon's partisan approach could backfire when the issue becomes waits for hip replacement or long-term care.
George Abbott, his predecessor in health, gets aboriginal affairs. The issue will be a focus of the government, especially with its new recognition and reconciliation act. But the effort is being driven from the premier's office.
And Shirley Bond goes from education to transportation. Perhaps a Prince George MLA in the job will mean more attention to issues outside the Lower Mainland. Or perhaps not.
Three key ministers stay put. Pat Bell remains in forests. He was only appointed a year ago, but so far has not made much of a mark.
Rich Coleman keeps housing and social development. He seems keen on housing; but less so on the problems for people on - or unable to get - the dismal welfare payments.
And Colin Hansen - an eerily competent minister most of the time - stays in finance.
You do wonder about some of the jobs. Does B.C. really need both a minister of healthy living and sport and a minister for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., which promotes healthy living and sport? Or a minister for climate action, or intergovernmental relations?
But cabinet posts keep MLAs happy and loyal. And who knows, perhaps the new ministers - especially those just elected - will bring a fresh attitude and frankness to cabinet meetings.
That hasn't happened in the past - at least based on the Liberal experiment with open meetings - but you can hope.
Footnote: Cabinet ministers get an extra $50,000 on top of the $100,000 MLAs are paid. But it's not about the money for most. They get access to the premier and staff to walk them to meetings and arrange their days and a chance to feel they're making a difference. They are the cool kids, which is powerful given their nerd roots.
Back in 1996, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat's 18-person cabinet was way too big - bloated, expensive and out of touch. The Liberal platform promised no more than 12 ministers in cabinet.
That was then. This week, Campbell appointed a 25-member cabinet (including himself). The Liberals only have 49 MLAs; more than half of them are now cabinet ministers. By the time various committee jobs and other posts are handed out, almost everyone should get a little recognition - and extra money.
There were no huge shocks, but some chaåçnges were significant.
Campbell dumped four ministers - Linda Reid, John van Dongen, Gordon Hogg and Joan McIntyre.
That made room for some new faces, including a couple of brand new MLAs thrust into high-profile jobs.
Kash Heed, the former West Vancouver police chief, steps in as solicitor general, responsible for crime, gambling enforcement, ICBC and the coroners. Given concerns about gang violence and RCMP accountability - and Heed's support for regional policing - it is a place he could shine.
Margaret MacDiarmid , another Vancouver rookie, gets education. But she's far from a neophyte. A doctor, MacDiarmid was the B.C. Medical Association president in 2006-7. That meant a lot of work with government. She still faces a tough challenge, as school districts cope with underfunding.
Steve Thomson, a highly respected newcomer from the Okanagan, gets agriculture and lands.
In total, there will be nine new faces around the cabinet table, including seven elected for the first time last month.
The biggest promotion - sort of - went to Langley's Mary Polak, who went from health living to the ministry of children and families. Polak has been typecast, inaccurately, as a hardcore social conservative. But she still faces an immense challenge dealing with a ministry that continues to struggle and faces big money problems. Its budget is projected to grow at less than one per cent a year, as demand rises.
The other minister facing a huge challenge is Kevin Falcon, who goes from transportation to health. Falcon is underestimated. He's not one of cabinet's deep thinkers, but he has shown an ability to set a goal and plow toward it. But health, like children and families, faces big budget problems - health authorities have are looking for ways to comply with a provincial edict to help cut $320 million in spending. And Falcon's partisan approach could backfire when the issue becomes waits for hip replacement or long-term care.
George Abbott, his predecessor in health, gets aboriginal affairs. The issue will be a focus of the government, especially with its new recognition and reconciliation act. But the effort is being driven from the premier's office.
And Shirley Bond goes from education to transportation. Perhaps a Prince George MLA in the job will mean more attention to issues outside the Lower Mainland. Or perhaps not.
Three key ministers stay put. Pat Bell remains in forests. He was only appointed a year ago, but so far has not made much of a mark.
Rich Coleman keeps housing and social development. He seems keen on housing; but less so on the problems for people on - or unable to get - the dismal welfare payments.
And Colin Hansen - an eerily competent minister most of the time - stays in finance.
You do wonder about some of the jobs. Does B.C. really need both a minister of healthy living and sport and a minister for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., which promotes healthy living and sport? Or a minister for climate action, or intergovernmental relations?
But cabinet posts keep MLAs happy and loyal. And who knows, perhaps the new ministers - especially those just elected - will bring a fresh attitude and frankness to cabinet meetings.
That hasn't happened in the past - at least based on the Liberal experiment with open meetings - but you can hope.
Footnote: Cabinet ministers get an extra $50,000 on top of the $100,000 MLAs are paid. But it's not about the money for most. They get access to the premier and staff to walk them to meetings and arrange their days and a chance to feel they're making a difference. They are the cool kids, which is powerful given their nerd roots.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
It's pay the tax you want day, says Catalyst
Property taxes are too high, complains Catalyst Paper Corp. (Like a lot of big industrial taxpayers in communities across B.C.)
Can't pay, won't pay, the corporation insists, to quote Italian playwright Dario Fo.
Instead, Catalyst's president says it will write cheques to four B.C. municipalities based on what it has decided its taxes should be, based on services used.
And that's about one-quarter the tax the municipalities - Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River and North Cowichan - have been receiving.
Catalyst says it's willing to pay $1.5 million in Campbell River. Its actual tax bill is $4.6 million, down 10 per cent from last year.
That would leave the municipality $3.1 million short this year, with two solutions. It could raises taxes 20 per cent for residents and small business to make up the difference. Or it could start laying off staff and cutting services for residents.
And Campbell River is in relatively goååçod shape. North Cowichan residents would face a 70-per-cent tax increase to make up the amount Catalyst has decided not to pay.
Catalyst is playing rough. If the municipalities don't go along, the company says it will close one of the four mills, based on tax rates and the willingness of the union local to accept concessions.
It's also challenging the tax levies in B.C. Supreme Court under the Local Government Act, arguing the taxes are "unreasonable." (That actually might be good news for the municipalities. The section of the act the company is relying on says that taxes or fees must be paid even if they are being challenged.)
This isn't really about Catalyst. It's about the end of B.C's. first 150 years. The colony, and then province, has offered extraordinary riches. Big trees, easy to get from the woods and highly sought after. Gold, coal, energy. A lot of buyers and not too many competitors. And money for everyone - owners, companies, employees and towns.
Times have changed, and the adjustments are wrenching - and mostly unhappy.
The mill and mine owners weren't just being kindly when they took on a big share of municipal costs. They needed employees and wanted a stable workforce, which meant families had to be lured. Paying taxes for an arena and policing and parks created the kind of community that ensured a stable workforce. The companies had the money, in those days. And there was even some goodwill and social responsibility involved.
Now, Catalyst looks at competitors in other places paying one-tenth as much in taxes and decides its responsibility to shareholders comes first.
There's no easy good guy/bad guy choice in all this. Industries have a legitimate grievance. Municipalities have been trying to address the issue - they have cut the company's taxes by a combined 11 per cent this year, after several of tax cuts.
This isn't a new issue. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council - chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller - said industrial taxes were putting operations at risk of closure. It called for a 50-per-cent cut. (Catalyst is proposing a 75-per-cent cut.) The Premier's Progress Board has raised similar concerns.
But the province hasn't acted on the warnings. (Rich Coleman suggested towns across B.C. should cut spending to reduce the industrial tax burden.)
Catalyst and the municipal governments agree on one thing - the provincial government should be involved in this dispute.
Catalyst acknowledges the municipalities would be in big trouble if it didn't pay its tax bills. It says the province should provide several years of transitional funding to allow them to cut services or shift the costs onto other taxpayers.
That too has risks, especially if this is to be repeated across the province.
But the current deadlock is destructive for everyone involved.
It's time for the provincial government to get off its hands and lead.
Footnote: The Liberals' lack of interest in the issue could be strategic - staying out of the negotiations creates a pressure on Catalyst and the municipalities to compromise. Or principled - letting the market decide on business and jobs survival. Or lack of interest.
Can't pay, won't pay, the corporation insists, to quote Italian playwright Dario Fo.
Instead, Catalyst's president says it will write cheques to four B.C. municipalities based on what it has decided its taxes should be, based on services used.
And that's about one-quarter the tax the municipalities - Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River and North Cowichan - have been receiving.
Catalyst says it's willing to pay $1.5 million in Campbell River. Its actual tax bill is $4.6 million, down 10 per cent from last year.
That would leave the municipality $3.1 million short this year, with two solutions. It could raises taxes 20 per cent for residents and small business to make up the difference. Or it could start laying off staff and cutting services for residents.
And Campbell River is in relatively goååçod shape. North Cowichan residents would face a 70-per-cent tax increase to make up the amount Catalyst has decided not to pay.
Catalyst is playing rough. If the municipalities don't go along, the company says it will close one of the four mills, based on tax rates and the willingness of the union local to accept concessions.
It's also challenging the tax levies in B.C. Supreme Court under the Local Government Act, arguing the taxes are "unreasonable." (That actually might be good news for the municipalities. The section of the act the company is relying on says that taxes or fees must be paid even if they are being challenged.)
This isn't really about Catalyst. It's about the end of B.C's. first 150 years. The colony, and then province, has offered extraordinary riches. Big trees, easy to get from the woods and highly sought after. Gold, coal, energy. A lot of buyers and not too many competitors. And money for everyone - owners, companies, employees and towns.
Times have changed, and the adjustments are wrenching - and mostly unhappy.
The mill and mine owners weren't just being kindly when they took on a big share of municipal costs. They needed employees and wanted a stable workforce, which meant families had to be lured. Paying taxes for an arena and policing and parks created the kind of community that ensured a stable workforce. The companies had the money, in those days. And there was even some goodwill and social responsibility involved.
Now, Catalyst looks at competitors in other places paying one-tenth as much in taxes and decides its responsibility to shareholders comes first.
There's no easy good guy/bad guy choice in all this. Industries have a legitimate grievance. Municipalities have been trying to address the issue - they have cut the company's taxes by a combined 11 per cent this year, after several of tax cuts.
This isn't a new issue. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council - chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller - said industrial taxes were putting operations at risk of closure. It called for a 50-per-cent cut. (Catalyst is proposing a 75-per-cent cut.) The Premier's Progress Board has raised similar concerns.
But the province hasn't acted on the warnings. (Rich Coleman suggested towns across B.C. should cut spending to reduce the industrial tax burden.)
Catalyst and the municipal governments agree on one thing - the provincial government should be involved in this dispute.
Catalyst acknowledges the municipalities would be in big trouble if it didn't pay its tax bills. It says the province should provide several years of transitional funding to allow them to cut services or shift the costs onto other taxpayers.
That too has risks, especially if this is to be repeated across the province.
But the current deadlock is destructive for everyone involved.
It's time for the provincial government to get off its hands and lead.
Footnote: The Liberals' lack of interest in the issue could be strategic - staying out of the negotiations creates a pressure on Catalyst and the municipalities to compromise. Or principled - letting the market decide on business and jobs survival. Or lack of interest.
Monday, June 08, 2009
An optimistic view of newspapers' future
Leaving aside the personal vested interest, I'd argue the future of newspapers, journalism and community are all closely linked.
The industry is struggling to come up with a working business model, as they say. If it can't, who will pay for people to spend their days gathering news and information? There's a ready market for specialized information - companies and individuals will pay significant money for corporate news or updates on legal judgments.
But it's much less clear who will pay for reporters to sit in Victoria courts or cover health authority issues or even report on provincial politics. (The point, for now, is not how well the existing commercial media are doing the job. It's whether anyone will do it.)
And without that reporting to provide a common starting point for communities, what will happen to then. Back in my early days in newspapers, the small daily I worked for was read by more than 70 per cent of adults each day. If we did a decent job on an issue, people had a shared base of information and were motivated to talk about it at work or over the back fence.
Today, about 40 per cent of residents read that paper each day. So where is the common concerns and starting point for considering issues?
Which leads, in a rambling way, to an interesting piece in The Tyee on Glacier Media, a newspaper operator with significant B.C. holdings that sees a future.
The industry is struggling to come up with a working business model, as they say. If it can't, who will pay for people to spend their days gathering news and information? There's a ready market for specialized information - companies and individuals will pay significant money for corporate news or updates on legal judgments.
But it's much less clear who will pay for reporters to sit in Victoria courts or cover health authority issues or even report on provincial politics. (The point, for now, is not how well the existing commercial media are doing the job. It's whether anyone will do it.)
And without that reporting to provide a common starting point for communities, what will happen to then. Back in my early days in newspapers, the small daily I worked for was read by more than 70 per cent of adults each day. If we did a decent job on an issue, people had a shared base of information and were motivated to talk about it at work or over the back fence.
Today, about 40 per cent of residents read that paper each day. So where is the common concerns and starting point for considering issues?
Which leads, in a rambling way, to an interesting piece in The Tyee on Glacier Media, a newspaper operator with significant B.C. holdings that sees a future.
Friday, June 05, 2009
B.C. worst for child poverty for sixth year
The good news is that fewer B.C. kids were living in poverty in 2007.
The bad news is that the “Best Place on Earth” has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, according to Statistics Canada.
Worse, perhaps, is the fact that despite six consecutive years of that dismal distinction, poor children — children generally — weren’t mentioned much in the provincial election campaign.
That bothered Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislature’s Representative for Children and Youth. Turpel-Lafond, the first representative appointed after Ted Hughes’ damning report called for an advocate and watchdog for children and families, was hoping for more.
“I was quite disappointed with the fact that the situation for children was not a central issue,” said Turpel-Lafond. It’s not just child poverty, she noted. There are also the grim stats for aboriginal children, on indicators from health to education to their over-representation in government care, and a list of other issues.
Instead, Turpel-Lafond said the campaign seemed to focus on the leaders’ personalities, with a nod to the economy and the environment as issues.
Based on her travels and contacts with British Columbians, Turpel-Lafond says the politicians are out of touch. The public cares about issues affecting children and expects non-partisan action.
That’s what she’s hoping for the new session. The representative reports to a legislative committee, which was supposed to be working for children and youth but too often bogged down in politics — “The government side was there to defend and the opposition side was there to attack.” She’s hoping all MLAs — especially the chair and vice-chair — will set aside past differences.
The need for effective action is greater now. Turpel-Lafond says the situation for children has deteriorated with the economy. Services like legal aid and family court are underfunded and demand is mounting.
But often, she says, the focus seems to be on managing the way the public views issues rather than actually tackling the problems.
There’s another risk as government looks at spending cuts to reduce a deficit soaring far beyond the budgeted $495 million. The Ministry of Children and Families was to get a 1.8 per cent budget increase to cover this year and the next two. Not 1.8 per cent a year; that’s the total increase over three years to cope with increasing caseloads and rising costs.
“The bottom line is when you cut services and programs there is one group affected more than anybody — poor people,” Turpel-Lafond says. “Poor kids get hurt.”
Which leads back to child poverty. If you want to predict children’s futures, don’t look at IQ, where they were born, age of parents, gender, race or any other factors.
Look at family income. Poor kids start in a deep hole.
You can have an interesting debate about how to define poor or low income. Statistics Canada uses the low-income cutoff (LICO). If a family spends more than 70 per cent of its pre-tax income on shelter, food and clothing, it is low income.
On average, an urban Canadian family of four with a total pre-tax income of less than $40,000 is considered low income. That’s two parents, working full-time at $10.25 an hour. Which sounds poor to me.
Across Canada, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children do. Since 2001, B.C. has had a higher proportion of children living in poverty than any other province.
That was through, for the most part, pretty good times. As the economy worsens, more and more children fall into poverty.
Yet the provincial government has no plan specifically aimed at reducing child poverty. There are no targets or timelines or accountability measures.
Turpel-Lafond says there is nothing mysterious or magical about improving life for children in B.C. “We know what to do, we just aren’t doing it.”
The needs are greater than ever before. We’ll know in the next few months how seriously the government takes its responsibility.
Footnote: The representative’s role, as recommended by Hughes, includes monitoring and reporting on the ministry’s progress. The next update is due soon.
The impression from outside is that the ministry continues to struggle; the report should provide a decent briefing paper for whoever succeeds the retired Tom Christensen as minister — the fifth person to hold the job since the Liberals were elected.
The bad news is that the “Best Place on Earth” has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, according to Statistics Canada.
Worse, perhaps, is the fact that despite six consecutive years of that dismal distinction, poor children — children generally — weren’t mentioned much in the provincial election campaign.
That bothered Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislature’s Representative for Children and Youth. Turpel-Lafond, the first representative appointed after Ted Hughes’ damning report called for an advocate and watchdog for children and families, was hoping for more.
“I was quite disappointed with the fact that the situation for children was not a central issue,” said Turpel-Lafond. It’s not just child poverty, she noted. There are also the grim stats for aboriginal children, on indicators from health to education to their over-representation in government care, and a list of other issues.
Instead, Turpel-Lafond said the campaign seemed to focus on the leaders’ personalities, with a nod to the economy and the environment as issues.
Based on her travels and contacts with British Columbians, Turpel-Lafond says the politicians are out of touch. The public cares about issues affecting children and expects non-partisan action.
That’s what she’s hoping for the new session. The representative reports to a legislative committee, which was supposed to be working for children and youth but too often bogged down in politics — “The government side was there to defend and the opposition side was there to attack.” She’s hoping all MLAs — especially the chair and vice-chair — will set aside past differences.
The need for effective action is greater now. Turpel-Lafond says the situation for children has deteriorated with the economy. Services like legal aid and family court are underfunded and demand is mounting.
But often, she says, the focus seems to be on managing the way the public views issues rather than actually tackling the problems.
There’s another risk as government looks at spending cuts to reduce a deficit soaring far beyond the budgeted $495 million. The Ministry of Children and Families was to get a 1.8 per cent budget increase to cover this year and the next two. Not 1.8 per cent a year; that’s the total increase over three years to cope with increasing caseloads and rising costs.
“The bottom line is when you cut services and programs there is one group affected more than anybody — poor people,” Turpel-Lafond says. “Poor kids get hurt.”
Which leads back to child poverty. If you want to predict children’s futures, don’t look at IQ, where they were born, age of parents, gender, race or any other factors.
Look at family income. Poor kids start in a deep hole.
You can have an interesting debate about how to define poor or low income. Statistics Canada uses the low-income cutoff (LICO). If a family spends more than 70 per cent of its pre-tax income on shelter, food and clothing, it is low income.
On average, an urban Canadian family of four with a total pre-tax income of less than $40,000 is considered low income. That’s two parents, working full-time at $10.25 an hour. Which sounds poor to me.
Across Canada, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children do. Since 2001, B.C. has had a higher proportion of children living in poverty than any other province.
That was through, for the most part, pretty good times. As the economy worsens, more and more children fall into poverty.
Yet the provincial government has no plan specifically aimed at reducing child poverty. There are no targets or timelines or accountability measures.
Turpel-Lafond says there is nothing mysterious or magical about improving life for children in B.C. “We know what to do, we just aren’t doing it.”
The needs are greater than ever before. We’ll know in the next few months how seriously the government takes its responsibility.
Footnote: The representative’s role, as recommended by Hughes, includes monitoring and reporting on the ministry’s progress. The next update is due soon.
The impression from outside is that the ministry continues to struggle; the report should provide a decent briefing paper for whoever succeeds the retired Tom Christensen as minister — the fifth person to hold the job since the Liberals were elected.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Welfare too low, Campbell says, but no action promised
Gordon Campbell has discovered that the province's low welfare rates are hurting people and communities.
A bit late, in terms of the poverty problem in the province, but still welcome.
Or it would be, if there was a clearer sense that the government is prepared to do something about it.
Campbell's epiphany has come as more and more British Columbians are being thrown out of work. They are either unable to access employment insurance benefits or have used up their benefits.
The next step, for those who qualify, is welfare.
Campbell is pressing the federal government for two main reforms to employment insurance. Most attention was paid to his call for a uniform standard across Canada. Right now, people in high unemployment areas can get benefits after fewer weeks of work and for longer periods than those who lose their jobs in low unemployment areas. A laid-off forestry worker on north Vancouver Island, for example, can collect benefits for up to 47 weeks. In Victoria, benefits last 43 weeks. In Cape Breton, 50 weeks. The number of weeks required to earn eligibility are also lower in areas where unemployment is greater.
That's wrong, says Campbell, especially now. There is no place in Canada where it's an easy matter to find new work. Treatment should be equal. Some regions would lose, and some gain, under a standardized system.
But Campbell went farther in his pitch for change.
It's important to head off a flood of out-of-work people falling on to welfare, he said. The federal government should reach a deal with B.C. The province will send chip in what it would have spent on welfare on each person; the federal government should add money to that and keep them on employment insurance for up to two years.
Why? Campbell made the case in an op-ed column in The Globe and Mail.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
He's right. An employable single mom with two school-age children on welfare receives about $650 a month, plus up to $660 for accommodation. (Where can a family of three live in this region for $660 in rent?) That's $150 a week for food, clothes, transportation, birthdays, everything for three people.
But Campbell's government has maintained this is adequate and touted successful efforts to help some people find work.
Now, he's not sure.
"The reality is that as long as a worker is on EI, they tend to have more hope about their eventual job prospects and the temporary nature of their predicament," he wrote. "Many workers are now faced with the reality or prospect of exhausting their EI benefits - and they're scared."
And what they're scared of is a "bleak" financial future and the chance they will "wind up on welfare."
Campbell is right about the bleakness and hopelessness of life for many, or most, welfare recipients in B.C.
And his bid to try and get the federal government to top up welfare payments, at least for new recipients, is worth a try. The Harper Conservatives have proven willing to step up with taxpayers' dollars to meet regional deeds, as the automakers' bailouts have shown.
But, as Campbell points out, there is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from the federal or provincial government.
The government has kept rates low because a "bleak" existence was an incentive for diligent job hunts.
Campbell acknowledges diligence isn't enough right now. It's hard to see a justification for deciding some unemployed people deserve additional income, while leaving others to suffer under income assistance rates the government acknowledges are destructive.
Footnote: It's a bold move for Campbell, who has followed a policy of playing nice with whoever is prime minister. Further EI changes have been rejected by Harper and supported by the federal Liberals. The B.C. government's bid for reform and additional benefits is bound to strain relationships at least a little.
A bit late, in terms of the poverty problem in the province, but still welcome.
Or it would be, if there was a clearer sense that the government is prepared to do something about it.
Campbell's epiphany has come as more and more British Columbians are being thrown out of work. They are either unable to access employment insurance benefits or have used up their benefits.
The next step, for those who qualify, is welfare.
Campbell is pressing the federal government for two main reforms to employment insurance. Most attention was paid to his call for a uniform standard across Canada. Right now, people in high unemployment areas can get benefits after fewer weeks of work and for longer periods than those who lose their jobs in low unemployment areas. A laid-off forestry worker on north Vancouver Island, for example, can collect benefits for up to 47 weeks. In Victoria, benefits last 43 weeks. In Cape Breton, 50 weeks. The number of weeks required to earn eligibility are also lower in areas where unemployment is greater.
That's wrong, says Campbell, especially now. There is no place in Canada where it's an easy matter to find new work. Treatment should be equal. Some regions would lose, and some gain, under a standardized system.
But Campbell went farther in his pitch for change.
It's important to head off a flood of out-of-work people falling on to welfare, he said. The federal government should reach a deal with B.C. The province will send chip in what it would have spent on welfare on each person; the federal government should add money to that and keep them on employment insurance for up to two years.
Why? Campbell made the case in an op-ed column in The Globe and Mail.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
He's right. An employable single mom with two school-age children on welfare receives about $650 a month, plus up to $660 for accommodation. (Where can a family of three live in this region for $660 in rent?) That's $150 a week for food, clothes, transportation, birthdays, everything for three people.
But Campbell's government has maintained this is adequate and touted successful efforts to help some people find work.
Now, he's not sure.
"The reality is that as long as a worker is on EI, they tend to have more hope about their eventual job prospects and the temporary nature of their predicament," he wrote. "Many workers are now faced with the reality or prospect of exhausting their EI benefits - and they're scared."
And what they're scared of is a "bleak" financial future and the chance they will "wind up on welfare."
Campbell is right about the bleakness and hopelessness of life for many, or most, welfare recipients in B.C.
And his bid to try and get the federal government to top up welfare payments, at least for new recipients, is worth a try. The Harper Conservatives have proven willing to step up with taxpayers' dollars to meet regional deeds, as the automakers' bailouts have shown.
But, as Campbell points out, there is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from the federal or provincial government.
The government has kept rates low because a "bleak" existence was an incentive for diligent job hunts.
Campbell acknowledges diligence isn't enough right now. It's hard to see a justification for deciding some unemployed people deserve additional income, while leaving others to suffer under income assistance rates the government acknowledges are destructive.
Footnote: It's a bold move for Campbell, who has followed a policy of playing nice with whoever is prime minister. Further EI changes have been rejected by Harper and supported by the federal Liberals. The B.C. government's bid for reform and additional benefits is bound to strain relationships at least a little.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Oppal’s defeat, independent MLA a chance for progress
It’s good news that Wally Oppal was defeated in Delta South, at least barring a new result from a judicial recount. That sounds harsh, I suppose. Oppal is pleasant. His reputation as a judge and in the community is good.
But he was an ineffective cabinet minister. After four years as attorney general, accomplishments are scant to non-existent. The list of unaddressed issues - gang violence, lobbyist legislation, FOI reform, court delays and costs - is long. Oppal often seemed out of touch, as if he hadn’t even read the summaries of reports that other ministers would pore over.
So, objectively, his departure from the scene isn’t really a bad thing. And the election of an independent MLA, that’s a great thing. Oppal lost to Vicki Huntington, the first independent elected in 60 years. The voters in Delta South - or 43 per cent of them - decided they didn’t want a representative tied to a party. They thought Huntington could represent them in the legislature, using her own good judgment.
It was a big slap at Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. In a 1999 byelection, at the NDP’s nadir, only 433 voters - one in 40 - supported the New Democrats. This should be a Liberal riding. But it wasn’t, despite a supposed star candidate. The election of Huntington is encouraging. No party leader or communications staffers will tell her what to do or say or how to vote. She only has to think about her constituents and her conscience. After a decade watching the legislature from the press gallery, that strikes me as a very fine thing.
MLAs are good people. That’s why they get elected, because the voters back in their ridings respect them and think they will do a good job representing them in the legislature.
And then they lose their minds. Not all of them, but most. They shout and heckle, like schoolyard goons, in question period. They reduce complex issues in the lives of the people who elected them to talking points. Huntington doesn’t have to do that. She can speak for the people in Delta South, not a political party.
The result is an aberration, admittedly. The people in Delta South feel profoundly betrayed by the Campbell Liberals. They’ve seen farmland lost, hospital problems, new highways and unwanted power lines. And their Liberal MLA, Val Roddick, has been perceived - in the classic description - as the party’s representative in the riding, not the community’s voice in Victoria.
It would be wonderful to have the most of the 85 MLAs in the legislature thinking about the people back in their ridings, not the other MLAs or the leaders’ offices or the communications staff and strategists.
That’s the chance Huntington has.
It will be challenging. The New Democrats and Liberals have caucus budgets. Huntington can expect to be shut out. It will be lonely, but liberating, to be outside the clubs.
And the main parties should respect the voters’ choice and ensure Huntington is called on in question period, gets committee assignments and has a full chance to do the job.
The results are a good wake-up call for the political parties. Delta South was supposed to be safe Liberal seat, especially with Oppal as the candidate. The voters disagreed. That’s good. The voters pay MLAs $100,000 a year. They are entitled to strong representation. If Roddick had been allowed to fill that role and represent constituents’ interests, especially on local issues, then Oppal would likely be preparing for a second term as attorney general today. Our system is based on parties and adherence to a set of share broad principles is required.
But that doesn’t need to mean that MLAs must shuffle along like zombies behind the party leaders.
It won’t be easy. But British Columbians should be rooting for Huntington. She has the chance to change politics for the better. F
ootnote: The pundits are predicting a tough time for Huntington as an independent and questioning her effectiveness outside a party. But there are many advantages in her position.
But he was an ineffective cabinet minister. After four years as attorney general, accomplishments are scant to non-existent. The list of unaddressed issues - gang violence, lobbyist legislation, FOI reform, court delays and costs - is long. Oppal often seemed out of touch, as if he hadn’t even read the summaries of reports that other ministers would pore over.
So, objectively, his departure from the scene isn’t really a bad thing. And the election of an independent MLA, that’s a great thing. Oppal lost to Vicki Huntington, the first independent elected in 60 years. The voters in Delta South - or 43 per cent of them - decided they didn’t want a representative tied to a party. They thought Huntington could represent them in the legislature, using her own good judgment.
It was a big slap at Gordon Campbell and the Liberals. In a 1999 byelection, at the NDP’s nadir, only 433 voters - one in 40 - supported the New Democrats. This should be a Liberal riding. But it wasn’t, despite a supposed star candidate. The election of Huntington is encouraging. No party leader or communications staffers will tell her what to do or say or how to vote. She only has to think about her constituents and her conscience. After a decade watching the legislature from the press gallery, that strikes me as a very fine thing.
MLAs are good people. That’s why they get elected, because the voters back in their ridings respect them and think they will do a good job representing them in the legislature.
And then they lose their minds. Not all of them, but most. They shout and heckle, like schoolyard goons, in question period. They reduce complex issues in the lives of the people who elected them to talking points. Huntington doesn’t have to do that. She can speak for the people in Delta South, not a political party.
The result is an aberration, admittedly. The people in Delta South feel profoundly betrayed by the Campbell Liberals. They’ve seen farmland lost, hospital problems, new highways and unwanted power lines. And their Liberal MLA, Val Roddick, has been perceived - in the classic description - as the party’s representative in the riding, not the community’s voice in Victoria.
It would be wonderful to have the most of the 85 MLAs in the legislature thinking about the people back in their ridings, not the other MLAs or the leaders’ offices or the communications staff and strategists.
That’s the chance Huntington has.
It will be challenging. The New Democrats and Liberals have caucus budgets. Huntington can expect to be shut out. It will be lonely, but liberating, to be outside the clubs.
And the main parties should respect the voters’ choice and ensure Huntington is called on in question period, gets committee assignments and has a full chance to do the job.
The results are a good wake-up call for the political parties. Delta South was supposed to be safe Liberal seat, especially with Oppal as the candidate. The voters disagreed. That’s good. The voters pay MLAs $100,000 a year. They are entitled to strong representation. If Roddick had been allowed to fill that role and represent constituents’ interests, especially on local issues, then Oppal would likely be preparing for a second term as attorney general today. Our system is based on parties and adherence to a set of share broad principles is required.
But that doesn’t need to mean that MLAs must shuffle along like zombies behind the party leaders.
It won’t be easy. But British Columbians should be rooting for Huntington. She has the chance to change politics for the better. F
ootnote: The pundits are predicting a tough time for Huntington as an independent and questioning her effectiveness outside a party. But there are many advantages in her position.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
How many nuclear-armed countries are too many?
It is alarming to think about North Korea armed with nuclear weapons. Or Pakistan or Israel or Russia.
But I read The Atomic Bazaar on the weekend. William Langewiesche makes the argument that it's inevitable that many countries will get nuclear weapons. The technology isn't all that challenging. The fuel can be found. There are people and companies willing to sell the components.
And there's great pride in a country like Pakistan or North Korea over building a nuclear bomb.
There is also a legitimate grievance. The five original nuclear powers - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - aren't giving up their nuclear weapons. But they don't want other countries to have the same capabilities.
Langewiesche says proliferation is inevitable. The emphasis should be, he argues, on slowing it and - more importantly - on keeping the weapons out of the hands of terror groups. People willing to sacrifice everything for a cause are immune to all the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. If they can steal or buy a bomb or two, everything could change. Consider the changes since 9/11. Consider the changes after a nuclear blast in Mumbai or New York or Tokyo, with 50,000 dead.
It's sad though. I grew up with nuclear war as a real threat. Calculated whether Clarkson was worth a Soviet bomb - there was an oil refinery nearby. And what if they aimed at Buffalo and missed? Froze when the sirens went. Had a nightmare about being separated from my family when the night sky turned into day as the bomb fell.
It was a great thing when those fears faded. It would be a great step backward if a new generation, perhaps far away, had to live with them again.
But I read The Atomic Bazaar on the weekend. William Langewiesche makes the argument that it's inevitable that many countries will get nuclear weapons. The technology isn't all that challenging. The fuel can be found. There are people and companies willing to sell the components.
And there's great pride in a country like Pakistan or North Korea over building a nuclear bomb.
There is also a legitimate grievance. The five original nuclear powers - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - aren't giving up their nuclear weapons. But they don't want other countries to have the same capabilities.
Langewiesche says proliferation is inevitable. The emphasis should be, he argues, on slowing it and - more importantly - on keeping the weapons out of the hands of terror groups. People willing to sacrifice everything for a cause are immune to all the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. If they can steal or buy a bomb or two, everything could change. Consider the changes since 9/11. Consider the changes after a nuclear blast in Mumbai or New York or Tokyo, with 50,000 dead.
It's sad though. I grew up with nuclear war as a real threat. Calculated whether Clarkson was worth a Soviet bomb - there was an oil refinery nearby. And what if they aimed at Buffalo and missed? Froze when the sirens went. Had a nightmare about being separated from my family when the night sky turned into day as the bomb fell.
It was a great thing when those fears faded. It would be a great step backward if a new generation, perhaps far away, had to live with them again.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Why it's a good thing that Wally Oppal lost
Wally Oppal is an affable person, with a good pre-politics reputation.
But he's been an ineffectual minister, often appearing poorly informed and out of touch on issues that were his responsibility.
Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman offers a small, but telling example, based on an FOI request.
And the biggest train wreck of a scrum I've seen in years came during the controversy over the death of Sherry Charlie. Oppal was responsible for the Children and Youth Officer at that point. On a hugely critical issue - the death of a toddler for whom the government had a responsibility - he was slapdash, uninformed about his responsibilities and hadn't read the basic report. It was dismal.
More positively, the result - if it stands up after a judicial recount - means that the voters in Delta South decided they wanted an independent candidate they respected and believed would represent them well.
It's a solidly Liberal riding, or should be. The result indicates how badly the people there feel abused by the government, over health care, a treaty settlement they believe ignored their concerns, unwanted roads and controversial power line forced in the community.
And it shows the price that can be paid if MLAs - like Liberal Val Roddick - are seen as more loyal to the party than the community.
Independent Vicki Huntington will be wooed by the Liberals. It would be better for democracy - or more interesting - if seven Liberal MLAs joined her as independents. That would mean that in any vote, the MLAs voting the party line as ordered wouldn't decide the issue. The independents would.
But he's been an ineffectual minister, often appearing poorly informed and out of touch on issues that were his responsibility.
Over at publiceyeonline.com, Sean Holman offers a small, but telling example, based on an FOI request.
And the biggest train wreck of a scrum I've seen in years came during the controversy over the death of Sherry Charlie. Oppal was responsible for the Children and Youth Officer at that point. On a hugely critical issue - the death of a toddler for whom the government had a responsibility - he was slapdash, uninformed about his responsibilities and hadn't read the basic report. It was dismal.
More positively, the result - if it stands up after a judicial recount - means that the voters in Delta South decided they wanted an independent candidate they respected and believed would represent them well.
It's a solidly Liberal riding, or should be. The result indicates how badly the people there feel abused by the government, over health care, a treaty settlement they believe ignored their concerns, unwanted roads and controversial power line forced in the community.
And it shows the price that can be paid if MLAs - like Liberal Val Roddick - are seen as more loyal to the party than the community.
Independent Vicki Huntington will be wooed by the Liberals. It would be better for democracy - or more interesting - if seven Liberal MLAs joined her as independents. That would mean that in any vote, the MLAs voting the party line as ordered wouldn't decide the issue. The independents would.
Be scared, very scared, about the coming cuts
Dave Obee of the Times Colonist says that unless there is an immediate change of direction in the Liberal government, the province is facing program and service cuts that will affect everything from schools to hospitals to community service agencies.
Read it here.
Read it here.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Mulroney and the privileges of princes
I wasn't going to write about Brian Mulroney. But the TV coverage of his testimony at the Oliphant inquiry was weirdly compelling.
Mulroney, in his pompous, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying way, revealed more than his own character flaws. His performance showed much of what is wrong with politics.
Mulroney was mostly asked about why he spent a great deal of time with Karlheinz Schreiber, a fixer for arms manufacturers. Mulroney took, on three occasions, envelopes full of $1,000 bills - $225,000 in total. (Or maybe $250,000, or $300,000.)
He said he was supposed to help, in some undefined way, sell military vehicles from a Canadian plant internationally. Schreiber was trying to promote the project on behalf of a German corporation. The plant didn't exist. He never had a contract, or even any written directions or reports. The cash was stashed in safes and a safety deposit box. The money never showed up on his books.
Mulroney didn't declare the income when he got it, or when he says he did the work.
When he did, six years later, his lawyer negotiated a deal with Revenue Canada so he paid tax on half the actual amount he had received as income. (The deal was common, apparently, for Quebec resident who didn't pay tax when they were supposed to and came forward letter. Better half than none, Revenue Canada thought. The rest of us paid proper taxes.)
It was all sordid.
What was also striking was the disconnect between Mulroney's world and the place where almost all other Canadians live.
I met Mulroney a couple of times, and was creeped out. When I was in Saint John, in perhaps 1989, he did an editorial board at the newspaper. There was an advance visit - the security guys wanted the conference room drapes closed, in case of snipers. We'll call when the motorcade is close, the said, and you can wait to greet the prime minister in the entrance.
No worries, I said sincerely. The front desk person was great. She would call me as soon as he arrived.
They explained it didn't work that way. People waited for the prime minister; he didn't wait for them. (I should note that Mulroney charmed everyone as he made his way through the building once he did arrive.) People carry their bags and clean up their messes and tell them how smart they are.
So Mulroney thought it OK, once he had left office, to take envelopes of cash for ill-defined assignments. He should have asked for cheques, he allowed, or deposited the money - even if only to get the interest.
But, Mulroney testified sadly, he had no support staff when he took the first envelope of cash. What could he do? Most Canadians manage their finances without support staff. Not big-time politicians.
In 1996, Mulroney was suing the federal government for $50 million. He was called to given sworn evidence about his relationship with Schreiber.
When lawyers asked about their dealings, Mulroney said they had coffee a few times. Schreiber talked about hiring Liberal lobbyists, he said.
But Mulroney didn't say he had taken envelopes of cash to work for Schreiber. The lawyers didn't ask the right questions, he explained.
As for his tax deal, that wasn't his doing either. Mulroney said he didn't think he had to declare the income until he judged the assignment was over. And when he told his tax lawyer to sort it out, the lawyer negotiated a deal to declare just half the actual income. I didn't know about that, said Mulroney.
Most Canadians know those things. They tell the truth and pay their taxes. They don't have support staff or tax lawyers. They don't get envelopes full of cash. No one tells them how smart they are or carries their briefcase.
Increasingly, too many of our politicians live a life apart. How can they govern for Canadians, when they have forgotten how we live?
Footnote: Whatever Schreiber paid, he didn't get much value for the money. Mulroney says he chatted about the idea of the United Nations buying military vehicles of its own with a few world leaders, but nothing came of it.
Mulroney, in his pompous, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying way, revealed more than his own character flaws. His performance showed much of what is wrong with politics.
Mulroney was mostly asked about why he spent a great deal of time with Karlheinz Schreiber, a fixer for arms manufacturers. Mulroney took, on three occasions, envelopes full of $1,000 bills - $225,000 in total. (Or maybe $250,000, or $300,000.)
He said he was supposed to help, in some undefined way, sell military vehicles from a Canadian plant internationally. Schreiber was trying to promote the project on behalf of a German corporation. The plant didn't exist. He never had a contract, or even any written directions or reports. The cash was stashed in safes and a safety deposit box. The money never showed up on his books.
Mulroney didn't declare the income when he got it, or when he says he did the work.
When he did, six years later, his lawyer negotiated a deal with Revenue Canada so he paid tax on half the actual amount he had received as income. (The deal was common, apparently, for Quebec resident who didn't pay tax when they were supposed to and came forward letter. Better half than none, Revenue Canada thought. The rest of us paid proper taxes.)
It was all sordid.
What was also striking was the disconnect between Mulroney's world and the place where almost all other Canadians live.
I met Mulroney a couple of times, and was creeped out. When I was in Saint John, in perhaps 1989, he did an editorial board at the newspaper. There was an advance visit - the security guys wanted the conference room drapes closed, in case of snipers. We'll call when the motorcade is close, the said, and you can wait to greet the prime minister in the entrance.
No worries, I said sincerely. The front desk person was great. She would call me as soon as he arrived.
They explained it didn't work that way. People waited for the prime minister; he didn't wait for them. (I should note that Mulroney charmed everyone as he made his way through the building once he did arrive.) People carry their bags and clean up their messes and tell them how smart they are.
So Mulroney thought it OK, once he had left office, to take envelopes of cash for ill-defined assignments. He should have asked for cheques, he allowed, or deposited the money - even if only to get the interest.
But, Mulroney testified sadly, he had no support staff when he took the first envelope of cash. What could he do? Most Canadians manage their finances without support staff. Not big-time politicians.
In 1996, Mulroney was suing the federal government for $50 million. He was called to given sworn evidence about his relationship with Schreiber.
When lawyers asked about their dealings, Mulroney said they had coffee a few times. Schreiber talked about hiring Liberal lobbyists, he said.
But Mulroney didn't say he had taken envelopes of cash to work for Schreiber. The lawyers didn't ask the right questions, he explained.
As for his tax deal, that wasn't his doing either. Mulroney said he didn't think he had to declare the income until he judged the assignment was over. And when he told his tax lawyer to sort it out, the lawyer negotiated a deal to declare just half the actual income. I didn't know about that, said Mulroney.
Most Canadians know those things. They tell the truth and pay their taxes. They don't have support staff or tax lawyers. They don't get envelopes full of cash. No one tells them how smart they are or carries their briefcase.
Increasingly, too many of our politicians live a life apart. How can they govern for Canadians, when they have forgotten how we live?
Footnote: Whatever Schreiber paid, he didn't get much value for the money. Mulroney says he chatted about the idea of the United Nations buying military vehicles of its own with a few world leaders, but nothing came of it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Gambling, the NHL and the B.C. government
Bob Ritchie is a frequent e-mail correspondent and always interesting. He shared this thought.
"Paul, it is a taboo for sports stars in the U.S. to advertise on behalf of liquor or gambling organizations. President Obama is even calling for tougher regulations with teeth.
Our Canucks' sports hero Roberto Luongo placed his smiling face on a Pokerstars TV ad. Integrity at the lowest level. If his common sense and caring is at such a low point, get rid of the money crabbing bum.
Doesn't he realize that gambling addictions are tearing our society apart bit by bit?
The Vancouver sports writers seem to work within a circle of fear."
There's more on the NHL's ties with the online gambling industry here.
And, speaking of online gambling (and a certain sleazy dishonesty), B.C. Lotteries has been advertising the big 6/49 jackpot heavily this week. The ads have also promised a $5 credit for new gamblers who sign up for online betting through the lotteries' PlayNow Internet gambling portal.
There is something profoundly wrong when a government sets out to recruit new gamblers, especially in the most dangerous forms of betting - like online gambling, available to the desperate or drunk or ill around the clock. And especially when, in opposition, the Liberals were fierce about the need to halt gambling expansion because of the misery it caused. Instead, they introduced online betting, mini-casinos with VLTs in communities large and small and aggressive targets to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount lost.
The PlayNow FAQ give a good sense of the government's real concern for problem gambling and addiction.
"Self-Exclusion
If I choose to exclude myself from PlayNow play, will I still be able to buy lottery products from a lottery store, enter a bingo hall or casino?
When you register, you must agree that BCLC may share your information amongst its various other business units, such as bingo halls or casinos. At this time, if you elect to self-exclude from PlayNow, BCLC is not yet able to automatically exclude you from its other gaming venues."
So, if you've lost way more than you can afford, can't control your compulsion and have decided to have yourself barred from Internet betting with the government, golly, they just can't figure out a way to let you also put your name on casino exclusion lists at the same time.
For a government that claims to be on the tech cutting edge, that is simply not credible.
"Paul, it is a taboo for sports stars in the U.S. to advertise on behalf of liquor or gambling organizations. President Obama is even calling for tougher regulations with teeth.
Our Canucks' sports hero Roberto Luongo placed his smiling face on a Pokerstars TV ad. Integrity at the lowest level. If his common sense and caring is at such a low point, get rid of the money crabbing bum.
Doesn't he realize that gambling addictions are tearing our society apart bit by bit?
The Vancouver sports writers seem to work within a circle of fear."
There's more on the NHL's ties with the online gambling industry here.
And, speaking of online gambling (and a certain sleazy dishonesty), B.C. Lotteries has been advertising the big 6/49 jackpot heavily this week. The ads have also promised a $5 credit for new gamblers who sign up for online betting through the lotteries' PlayNow Internet gambling portal.
There is something profoundly wrong when a government sets out to recruit new gamblers, especially in the most dangerous forms of betting - like online gambling, available to the desperate or drunk or ill around the clock. And especially when, in opposition, the Liberals were fierce about the need to halt gambling expansion because of the misery it caused. Instead, they introduced online betting, mini-casinos with VLTs in communities large and small and aggressive targets to recruit more gamblers and increase the average amount lost.
The PlayNow FAQ give a good sense of the government's real concern for problem gambling and addiction.
"Self-Exclusion
If I choose to exclude myself from PlayNow play, will I still be able to buy lottery products from a lottery store, enter a bingo hall or casino?
When you register, you must agree that BCLC may share your information amongst its various other business units, such as bingo halls or casinos. At this time, if you elect to self-exclude from PlayNow, BCLC is not yet able to automatically exclude you from its other gaming venues."
So, if you've lost way more than you can afford, can't control your compulsion and have decided to have yourself barred from Internet betting with the government, golly, they just can't figure out a way to let you also put your name on casino exclusion lists at the same time.
For a government that claims to be on the tech cutting edge, that is simply not credible.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Government job cuts and services
Some public sector workers are going to be taking one day a week off this summer to help the government cut spending.
And the change is the first of what looks to be a big series of cuts in the government workforce.
So far, it's unclear where or how the cuts will be made, how they will affect services - and their impact on the economy.
The government, after a couple of employee surveys and talks with unions, has announced a 10-week pilot program of voluntary workweek reductions. Eligible employees will be able to apply for approval to work a four-day week, with a 20-per-cent pay reduction. Benefits and pension contributions won't be affected.
The plan makes sense. About half the 32,200 government employees are eligible to apply. The decision, the government says, will be based on the ability to keep up with the work. (That aspect worries the B.C. Government Employees Union, which fears work will pile up when employees are off.)
But it's a small step. The savings would be about $2,500 per person who takes the reduced workweek - if 2,000 people sign on, the savings would be about $5 million.
The government plans much deeper cuts.
Information on the plans, or goals, so far has been unavailable.
The budget projects no major job cuts over this year and the next two. The Attorney General's ministry is to lose 168 people by 2011/12; children and families will lose 267; housing and social development 128.
In total, though the government is projecting 31,872 full-time equivalents by 2011/12, compared with 32,214 this year. That's about a one-per-cent cut.
But other indications suggest a much more dramatic reduction.
On budget day, Jessica McDonald, the deputy minister to the premier and top public sector manager, wrote to government employees.
The memo, quickly reprinted in publiceyeonline.com, said "overall staffing costs will go down substantially in the next few years." McDonald pointed first to "increasing attrition and recruitment lag."
That's consistent with the government's analysis over the last few years. It has projected that a large number of government employees will retire or quit over the next 10 years. At the same time, there will be competition for a smaller number of young people entering the workforce. It could be tough, in that environment, to keep jobs filled.
But McDonald went on to write that "direct staff impacts" - a euphemism for layoffs - could occur as "a last resort."
The memo also the need to "adjust to delivering services as a smaller organization."
And then it suggests that even after retirements, other attrition and a hiring chill, layoffs were possible.
McDonald said the government would work hard to lessen the impact and layoffs would definitely not affect more than five per cent of the workforce.
That's still 1,600 people. And those cuts would be on top of reductions as people retired or quit and their positions went unfilled.
There is slack in any organization, of course. And effective operations are always looking for ways to be more efficient or eliminate tasks that provide little benefit.
But after eight years under the Liberals, you might expect that process to be well advanced.
So what will be sacrificed if, as McDonald suggests in another e-mail obtained by publiceyeonline.com, the public sector sheds 10,000 positions in the next 10 years?
Even with clever efficiencies and new ways of doing things, that represents an enormous reduction in the number of people doing the work of protecting children or the environment or healthy care quality.
And what will be the impact of job losses on communities, particularly during the current recession? Government doesn't exist as a giant make-work program. But it seems puzzling to look for ways to create jobs with stimulus measures while cutting services and employment.
Government workers are already twitchy about what lies ahead. Given the extent of the job cuts, the public should be just as concerned.
Footnote: It's impossible to say when the way ahead will be clearer. Some indication could come when Gordon Campbell appoints the new cabinet, likely in mid-June.
And the change is the first of what looks to be a big series of cuts in the government workforce.
So far, it's unclear where or how the cuts will be made, how they will affect services - and their impact on the economy.
The government, after a couple of employee surveys and talks with unions, has announced a 10-week pilot program of voluntary workweek reductions. Eligible employees will be able to apply for approval to work a four-day week, with a 20-per-cent pay reduction. Benefits and pension contributions won't be affected.
The plan makes sense. About half the 32,200 government employees are eligible to apply. The decision, the government says, will be based on the ability to keep up with the work. (That aspect worries the B.C. Government Employees Union, which fears work will pile up when employees are off.)
But it's a small step. The savings would be about $2,500 per person who takes the reduced workweek - if 2,000 people sign on, the savings would be about $5 million.
The government plans much deeper cuts.
Information on the plans, or goals, so far has been unavailable.
The budget projects no major job cuts over this year and the next two. The Attorney General's ministry is to lose 168 people by 2011/12; children and families will lose 267; housing and social development 128.
In total, though the government is projecting 31,872 full-time equivalents by 2011/12, compared with 32,214 this year. That's about a one-per-cent cut.
But other indications suggest a much more dramatic reduction.
On budget day, Jessica McDonald, the deputy minister to the premier and top public sector manager, wrote to government employees.
The memo, quickly reprinted in publiceyeonline.com, said "overall staffing costs will go down substantially in the next few years." McDonald pointed first to "increasing attrition and recruitment lag."
That's consistent with the government's analysis over the last few years. It has projected that a large number of government employees will retire or quit over the next 10 years. At the same time, there will be competition for a smaller number of young people entering the workforce. It could be tough, in that environment, to keep jobs filled.
But McDonald went on to write that "direct staff impacts" - a euphemism for layoffs - could occur as "a last resort."
The memo also the need to "adjust to delivering services as a smaller organization."
And then it suggests that even after retirements, other attrition and a hiring chill, layoffs were possible.
McDonald said the government would work hard to lessen the impact and layoffs would definitely not affect more than five per cent of the workforce.
That's still 1,600 people. And those cuts would be on top of reductions as people retired or quit and their positions went unfilled.
There is slack in any organization, of course. And effective operations are always looking for ways to be more efficient or eliminate tasks that provide little benefit.
But after eight years under the Liberals, you might expect that process to be well advanced.
So what will be sacrificed if, as McDonald suggests in another e-mail obtained by publiceyeonline.com, the public sector sheds 10,000 positions in the next 10 years?
Even with clever efficiencies and new ways of doing things, that represents an enormous reduction in the number of people doing the work of protecting children or the environment or healthy care quality.
And what will be the impact of job losses on communities, particularly during the current recession? Government doesn't exist as a giant make-work program. But it seems puzzling to look for ways to create jobs with stimulus measures while cutting services and employment.
Government workers are already twitchy about what lies ahead. Given the extent of the job cuts, the public should be just as concerned.
Footnote: It's impossible to say when the way ahead will be clearer. Some indication could come when Gordon Campbell appoints the new cabinet, likely in mid-June.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Time for the Green party to call it a day
If the Green party hadn't been so boneheaded four years ago, it might have several MLAs waiting to be sworn in today.
The party's failure to support the single transferable vote in the 2005 referendum is one of the great all-time political bumbles.
Greens would have been the big winners if STV had passed. It has enough support to be sure of winning seats under the system.
Bizarrely, then leader Adriane Carr first fought against STV and then said the party would be neutral.
STV received 58 per cent support in that referendum, just below the 60 per cent needed. An extra 500 yes votes in each riding could have changed the outcome. And a strong Green effort could have delivered those votes.
The Green referendum position reinforces the perception that most parties on the outside, on some level, are happy to be there. The hardcore base equates popular support with ideological weakness. It took Stephen Harper, after all, to drag the Reform/Alliance base into the mainstream from its comfy, crabby outsider den.
Carr, now one of two deputy leaders in the federal Green party, wanted a different form of electoral reform - a mixed member proportional system. That would see two kinds of MLAs. Some would be elected from constituencies and then others would be appointed, from lists proposed by the parties, to ensure the legislature reflected the popular vote.
The system is widely used in other countries and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
But the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform didn't recommend it. The members, after months of study, thought STV was a better choice for B.C. That's what was on the ballot.
Carr initially threatened to throw the party into the battle against STV. After some internal wrangling, the Greens decided to remain neutral.
No one can know whether Green support could have tipped the balance. I think it would have.
This time, the Greens took eight per cent of the vote. That could have produced three seats under STV.
Earlier this year, polls had the party as high as 16 per cent. Many of those people abandoned the party because they judged a Green vote would be wasted. They decided that it was better to back a Liberal or NDP candidate. Or to stay home.
With STV, they would have stayed with the party, which could have meant more Green MLAs.
And then, of course, there are the other impacts. What high-profile candidates might have come forward to run for the Greens if they had a real chance of being elected?
But that chance was thrown away. STV fell just short in 2005 and was soundly rejected this time.
Which leads to a question. Is it time for the Green party to dissolve, at least as a party running candidates?
Leader Jane Sterk got 17 per cent of the vote in her riding, the best Green showing. She finished third. The party's overall support fell again, as it did in the last election.
It's hard to see the point of running for office if there is no hope of being elected. And equally hard to see the point of voting Green, particularly when that costs you a chance to have a say in the battle between the two main parties.
British Columbians, in rejecting STV, have opted for a two-party system. Greens could have influence by joining the Liberals or New Democrats and pushing their issues. They could become a voting bloc and support a party or candidates that back their goals.
Otherwise, they're going to a lot of trouble for an opportunity to be in candidates' forums.
And they are choosing not to have a voice in deciding who represents them and which party governs.
Certainly, the Green party can keep raising issues. But by failing to fight for STV in 2005, they lost any hope of electing MLAs. The party seems, if not pointless, at least an ineffective way to bring change.
Footnote: If Green voters had shifted to the Liberals or New Democrats, the outcome could have been much different - from an NDP majority government to a more dominant Liberal one. There were 18 races close enough that Green votes, redistributed, could have changed the outcome.
The party's failure to support the single transferable vote in the 2005 referendum is one of the great all-time political bumbles.
Greens would have been the big winners if STV had passed. It has enough support to be sure of winning seats under the system.
Bizarrely, then leader Adriane Carr first fought against STV and then said the party would be neutral.
STV received 58 per cent support in that referendum, just below the 60 per cent needed. An extra 500 yes votes in each riding could have changed the outcome. And a strong Green effort could have delivered those votes.
The Green referendum position reinforces the perception that most parties on the outside, on some level, are happy to be there. The hardcore base equates popular support with ideological weakness. It took Stephen Harper, after all, to drag the Reform/Alliance base into the mainstream from its comfy, crabby outsider den.
Carr, now one of two deputy leaders in the federal Green party, wanted a different form of electoral reform - a mixed member proportional system. That would see two kinds of MLAs. Some would be elected from constituencies and then others would be appointed, from lists proposed by the parties, to ensure the legislature reflected the popular vote.
The system is widely used in other countries and has its own strengths and weaknesses.
But the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform didn't recommend it. The members, after months of study, thought STV was a better choice for B.C. That's what was on the ballot.
Carr initially threatened to throw the party into the battle against STV. After some internal wrangling, the Greens decided to remain neutral.
No one can know whether Green support could have tipped the balance. I think it would have.
This time, the Greens took eight per cent of the vote. That could have produced three seats under STV.
Earlier this year, polls had the party as high as 16 per cent. Many of those people abandoned the party because they judged a Green vote would be wasted. They decided that it was better to back a Liberal or NDP candidate. Or to stay home.
With STV, they would have stayed with the party, which could have meant more Green MLAs.
And then, of course, there are the other impacts. What high-profile candidates might have come forward to run for the Greens if they had a real chance of being elected?
But that chance was thrown away. STV fell just short in 2005 and was soundly rejected this time.
Which leads to a question. Is it time for the Green party to dissolve, at least as a party running candidates?
Leader Jane Sterk got 17 per cent of the vote in her riding, the best Green showing. She finished third. The party's overall support fell again, as it did in the last election.
It's hard to see the point of running for office if there is no hope of being elected. And equally hard to see the point of voting Green, particularly when that costs you a chance to have a say in the battle between the two main parties.
British Columbians, in rejecting STV, have opted for a two-party system. Greens could have influence by joining the Liberals or New Democrats and pushing their issues. They could become a voting bloc and support a party or candidates that back their goals.
Otherwise, they're going to a lot of trouble for an opportunity to be in candidates' forums.
And they are choosing not to have a voice in deciding who represents them and which party governs.
Certainly, the Green party can keep raising issues. But by failing to fight for STV in 2005, they lost any hope of electing MLAs. The party seems, if not pointless, at least an ineffective way to bring change.
Footnote: If Green voters had shifted to the Liberals or New Democrats, the outcome could have been much different - from an NDP majority government to a more dominant Liberal one. There were 18 races close enough that Green votes, redistributed, could have changed the outcome.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Old media, new media and the election
Over at my favorite blog, the Gazeteer posted last night on the impact of non-traditional media in this election.
Would the gap between the Liberals and NDP have been much greater without the role played by The Tyee and bloggers and other non-traditional media, he asks.
To which I commented:
"There was some excellent coverage from non-traditional media, for want of a better term, during the campaign - Holman, Tyee, here.
But would the gap have been much different without it? The results are close to identical to 2005, in terms of popular vote. The most significant change might be the emergence of a Conservative vote in some regions.
The mass news media has suffered audience declines in the last four years; non-traditional coverage has expanded. But I'm not sure of the influence of either at this point.
One factor, I'd argue, is a tendency to be non-inclusive in many non-traditional news/commentary sources. The argument starts based on shared assumptions. But often those assumptions are shared by a minority.
Not that they are necessarily wrong. But the majority are left out of the discussion. It's like forming a hiking club and announcing that the first walk will start at the 7,000-foot mark on Mt Robson."
It's an important discussion. Mainstream media or whatever you want to call them have great benefits. They provide a shared starting point for community discussion on an inclusive basis. People in Lillooet might not all love the Lillooet-Bridge River News. But when there's a controversy - like the one right now about proposed water meters - most people have read its coverage. They can develop opinions based on it and can do their own research and advance the discussion. (Today, more than ever.) Blogs don't offer that universal starting point that sees 80 per cent of the people in a community literally on the same page on Wednesday when the paper comes out.
That reach also imposes a discipline on writers or journalists or whatever you call them. When I wrote editorials long ago for the Red Deer Advocate - a fine newspaper - I knew that probably two-thirds of the people in that Central Alberta would at least glance at them. Retired farmers, rig workers, store owners, college instructors, car salesman. So if the editorial was to be persuasive, it had to start at a place where all of them could be comfortable and make an argument they could all consider seriously. Otherwise, what would be the point?
That, I think, is missing in the role non-traditional media play. They are mostly starting at a place that shuts a majority of the population out of the argument.
I'm not sure how that can change. One critical question is how you create a community that is broader than people who share beliefs about policy or politics, whether its geographic or occupation-based or.....
Would the gap between the Liberals and NDP have been much greater without the role played by The Tyee and bloggers and other non-traditional media, he asks.
To which I commented:
"There was some excellent coverage from non-traditional media, for want of a better term, during the campaign - Holman, Tyee, here.
But would the gap have been much different without it? The results are close to identical to 2005, in terms of popular vote. The most significant change might be the emergence of a Conservative vote in some regions.
The mass news media has suffered audience declines in the last four years; non-traditional coverage has expanded. But I'm not sure of the influence of either at this point.
One factor, I'd argue, is a tendency to be non-inclusive in many non-traditional news/commentary sources. The argument starts based on shared assumptions. But often those assumptions are shared by a minority.
Not that they are necessarily wrong. But the majority are left out of the discussion. It's like forming a hiking club and announcing that the first walk will start at the 7,000-foot mark on Mt Robson."
It's an important discussion. Mainstream media or whatever you want to call them have great benefits. They provide a shared starting point for community discussion on an inclusive basis. People in Lillooet might not all love the Lillooet-Bridge River News. But when there's a controversy - like the one right now about proposed water meters - most people have read its coverage. They can develop opinions based on it and can do their own research and advance the discussion. (Today, more than ever.) Blogs don't offer that universal starting point that sees 80 per cent of the people in a community literally on the same page on Wednesday when the paper comes out.
That reach also imposes a discipline on writers or journalists or whatever you call them. When I wrote editorials long ago for the Red Deer Advocate - a fine newspaper - I knew that probably two-thirds of the people in that Central Alberta would at least glance at them. Retired farmers, rig workers, store owners, college instructors, car salesman. So if the editorial was to be persuasive, it had to start at a place where all of them could be comfortable and make an argument they could all consider seriously. Otherwise, what would be the point?
That, I think, is missing in the role non-traditional media play. They are mostly starting at a place that shuts a majority of the population out of the argument.
I'm not sure how that can change. One critical question is how you create a community that is broader than people who share beliefs about policy or politics, whether its geographic or occupation-based or.....
The battle of the pollsters
There was some pundit sniffing at the credibility of an Angus Reid Strategies poll showing a narrower gap between the Liberals and the NDP, in part because the company uses an online panel rather than telephone sampling.
But Angus Reid claims victory today as the most acccurate forecaster. (As the company was in the last federal election.
For the dedicated, there's a rundown of the polls here.
But Angus Reid claims victory today as the most acccurate forecaster. (As the company was in the last federal election.
For the dedicated, there's a rundown of the polls here.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Now we find out what the Liberals will really do
After four weeks of official campaigning - and months of unofficial efforts - we're back where we started.
As I write this, with ballots still being counted, the legislature will look much as it did before the election, with a comfortable Liberal majority.
That is a significant achievement for Gordon Campbell, who is only the third B.C. premier to win three consecutive majority terms.
But we're not really back where we started. We allowed the politicians to pull the wool over our eyes and almost down to our ankles.
The biggest issue, especially, was never acknowledged by either of the two main parties.
So now we have a sort-of new government with no real mandate - and thus no base of public support for some very tough decisions ahead.
The Liberals and the NDP both campaigned as if the budget tabled in February was credible. It is not. The deficit, forecast at $495 million, will be substantially over $1 billion.
Just two areas - slower than forecast economic growth and low natural gas prices - means a revenue shortfall of almost $1 billion. The lower GDP, based on the budget documents, will mean $320 million revenue than forecast. The gas prices are far below forecast levels and a $600-million budget shortfall is a likely result.
That's huge, and it should have been at the centre of the campaign. The big issue, for most British Columbians, will be how the government deals with that reality.
The impact is enormous. Finding new revenue to make up the shortfalls - at last in this fiscal year - would be impossible. There is at least the potential for tax increases to address the continuing problems next year and the year after.
And cutting spending to balance the revenue gap would be horrendous. The budget already called for cuts in eight of 19 ministries, just to meet the deficit target of $495 million. A significant chunk of those savings hadn't even been identified at budget time, but cuts to park wardens and campgrounds show the kind of changes that were coming.
Finding another $900 million in cuts - especially if health and education are protected - would mean an eight-per-cent across the board cut in other ministries. (Actually, quite a bit more, since the fiscal year is already well under way.)
Or Campbell could just claim things had changed dramatically since the budget - even though he has denied that up until now - and announce bigger deficits, perhaps lasting more than the forecast two years.
So far, Campbell has insisted that the budget numbers are set. That means deep cuts to services and significant government job cuts.
It's an agenda that will sit well with some Liberals, the ones who really aren't keen on government and would like to see it smaller, even at a considerable cost to services and programs.
But not all Liberal MLAs are going to share that view.
Especially ones who look ahead to their chances of getting re-elected in 2013 if the next two or three years are spent making life more difficult for a lot of people.
Much will depend on what message the Liberals, and Campbell, take from the results.
The Liberal campaign stressed the need for continuity and stability and the risks of an NDP government.
A lurch to the hard right, with major cuts to services, would betray that expectation. The Liberals face a tough challenge to avoid facing their own fudge-it budget accusations when the next budget rolls around.
But alternately, the Liberals have a great chance to work toward a fourth term. A competent, moderate government through a few difficult years will likely continue to have a solid base of support.
The outcome of the 2013 election will be greatly affected by the Liberals'decisions over the next few months.
The party promised stability; Campbell's challenge now is to deliver that at a challenging time.
Footnote: The STV system, sadly, appears to be falling well short of the threshold for approval. British Columbians have lost the chance to reform politics, probably for decades. It is a great blow to chances for a better, more representative system.
As I write this, with ballots still being counted, the legislature will look much as it did before the election, with a comfortable Liberal majority.
That is a significant achievement for Gordon Campbell, who is only the third B.C. premier to win three consecutive majority terms.
But we're not really back where we started. We allowed the politicians to pull the wool over our eyes and almost down to our ankles.
The biggest issue, especially, was never acknowledged by either of the two main parties.
So now we have a sort-of new government with no real mandate - and thus no base of public support for some very tough decisions ahead.
The Liberals and the NDP both campaigned as if the budget tabled in February was credible. It is not. The deficit, forecast at $495 million, will be substantially over $1 billion.
Just two areas - slower than forecast economic growth and low natural gas prices - means a revenue shortfall of almost $1 billion. The lower GDP, based on the budget documents, will mean $320 million revenue than forecast. The gas prices are far below forecast levels and a $600-million budget shortfall is a likely result.
That's huge, and it should have been at the centre of the campaign. The big issue, for most British Columbians, will be how the government deals with that reality.
The impact is enormous. Finding new revenue to make up the shortfalls - at last in this fiscal year - would be impossible. There is at least the potential for tax increases to address the continuing problems next year and the year after.
And cutting spending to balance the revenue gap would be horrendous. The budget already called for cuts in eight of 19 ministries, just to meet the deficit target of $495 million. A significant chunk of those savings hadn't even been identified at budget time, but cuts to park wardens and campgrounds show the kind of changes that were coming.
Finding another $900 million in cuts - especially if health and education are protected - would mean an eight-per-cent across the board cut in other ministries. (Actually, quite a bit more, since the fiscal year is already well under way.)
Or Campbell could just claim things had changed dramatically since the budget - even though he has denied that up until now - and announce bigger deficits, perhaps lasting more than the forecast two years.
So far, Campbell has insisted that the budget numbers are set. That means deep cuts to services and significant government job cuts.
It's an agenda that will sit well with some Liberals, the ones who really aren't keen on government and would like to see it smaller, even at a considerable cost to services and programs.
But not all Liberal MLAs are going to share that view.
Especially ones who look ahead to their chances of getting re-elected in 2013 if the next two or three years are spent making life more difficult for a lot of people.
Much will depend on what message the Liberals, and Campbell, take from the results.
The Liberal campaign stressed the need for continuity and stability and the risks of an NDP government.
A lurch to the hard right, with major cuts to services, would betray that expectation. The Liberals face a tough challenge to avoid facing their own fudge-it budget accusations when the next budget rolls around.
But alternately, the Liberals have a great chance to work toward a fourth term. A competent, moderate government through a few difficult years will likely continue to have a solid base of support.
The outcome of the 2013 election will be greatly affected by the Liberals'decisions over the next few months.
The party promised stability; Campbell's challenge now is to deliver that at a challenging time.
Footnote: The STV system, sadly, appears to be falling well short of the threshold for approval. British Columbians have lost the chance to reform politics, probably for decades. It is a great blow to chances for a better, more representative system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
