Canada the loser in softwood deal
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Canada is getting clobbered in the proposed softwood lumber deal.
After 18 months of fighting, thousands of lost jobs and almost $2 billion in penalties, the Americans are getting want they wanted.
And B.C.'s forest industry is being clamped in a straitjacket.
Sometimes a bad deal is all you can get, but there are some big concerns in this case. Ottawa has been indifferent to the dispute. Jean Chretien famously claimed B.C. wasn't even being hurt, and wondered what all the fuss was about.
And B.C.'s efforts have been contradictory and confused.
B.C. is on the verge of accepting exactly the kind of deal that Forest Minister Mike de Jong said was unacceptable only months ago. "I'm not interested in any kind of a deal that would allocate to individual companies a fixed quota," he said back in May.
But that's what we're getting.
Then proposed settlement, still being debated, would cap Canadian duty-free exports at 31.5 per cent of the U.S. market. That's about 10 per cent less than Canadian producers have been shipping to the U.S.
Any shipments above that level and Canadian companies would have to pay $200 per thousand board feet. That's such a punitive duty that exports are effectively capped.
That's obviously bad news for Canada. B.C.'s largest export industry has lost the chance to compete freely in its most important market.
But wait. It gets worse.
Companies can't just magically keep shipments under the ceiling. The federal government is going to have to judge the size of the market, and then allocate export quotas to provinces and companies. Success won't be determined by efficiency, or ability to meet customers' needs. It will depend on who gets quota from government.
It looks now like some B.C. companies will be winners. Ottawa's current proposal is to base the quotas on each company's share of shipments since April 1, 2001.
That's great news for some of the big Interior forest companies, like Canfor and Slocan. They ramped up production during the dispute, hoping to push their costs down. Exports from large Interior companies jumped almost 20 per cent during that period, at the expense mainly of the industry in Quebec.
Under the proposed deal, those companies would grab a big chunk of quota. Good news for them, and the communities in which they operate.
But Coastal companies, which have reduced production, will get much lower quotas. And once the quota is in place, they'll be locked out of the U.S. market again.
The deal would also hammer B.C.'s remanufacturing industry, the people who make doors and windows and value-added products. They've been hurt badly by the duties and been forced to slash production. Their temporary problems will be made permanent, bad news for the province's hope of generating more jobs per tree.
The agreement would have a faint hope clause. If Canadian provinces show they've moved to market-based stumpage, through some sort of auction system, the quota could be raised.
But only a sap would believe that's going to happen. U.S. producers have shown that they'll fight any increase in exports from Canada, and they will have no trouble in raising a wall of objections to any Canadian proposal.
And Canada and B.C., by talking tough and then caving, have made a fundamental mistake. U.S. producers have just been taught that our bluffs can be called. They will have no reason to take Canada seriously in other trade disputes.
There's no clear solution. Fighting on through legal challenges could take several costly years. And clearly, an end to the dispute has value.
But this agreement violates all the principles B.C. took into these negotiations. The government owes us a clear explanation of why this deal makes sense. And they owe aid to the companies and communities that will be the losers.
Footnote: Despite the misgivings, an end to the dispute on these terms would still be positive for the province, according to first comments from ecnomists. And share values of Interior companies rose after the announcement, and indication that binvestors think their profits will rise.
Health ad campaign a waste of your money
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Gordon Campbell used to hate those taxpayer-funded government flyers and TV commercials telling people what a great job the NDP was doing.
"Disgusting," he said. "How many people were left on waiting lists so that we could have more NDP propaganda?"
And when the NDP was slow to say what one particularly objectionable pre-election ad campaign cost, Campbell was outraged. "The taxpayers who are funding this latest exercise in NDP election propaganda deserve to know the full cost, in terms of preparation, production and distribution,'' said the then-opposition leader.
How time flies, and promises along with them.
This month every household in the province got an eight-page flyer outlining what a great job the Liberals are doing on health care, and the next wave of TV ads started. The flyer's key information is that health care costs a lot, the Liberals have increased spending, B.C. compares well with other provinces, wages are a big cost in health care and that, by the way, did we mention that we're doing a great job.
There's nothing in it than anyone reading newspapers or keeping half-an-eye on the government's press releases and speeches wouldn't have known. There's no new ideas on staying healthy, except about 50 words on the flu and a brief bit about the BC NurseLine, a useful service. (Call 1-866-215-4700 for help with medical questions. If everyone could safely avoid one doctor visit, we'd save $250 million.)
Most of the information the flyer does provide would be considered appropriate propaganda from a political party. It's fine to point out that the number of surgeries and other procedures done increased 4.6 per cent in the last fiscal year. But a government bent on communicating real information would also note that waiting lists increased by 20 per cent, and offered some explanation and solutions. Likewise, it's fine for a political party to boast of lowering PharmaCare costs for 280,000; a government should acknowledge that they also raised costs for 400,000 other people and cut the Pharmacare budget.
It is, in short, taxpayer funded political advertising, exactly like the NDP efforts the Liberals used to find so appalling.
But the Liberals have gone the NDP one better. They're keeping the cost of the individual ad campaigns secret - even though it's your money. I'd figure around $250,000 for this one. That's on top of more than $600,000 for last year's TV ad campaign on health, $900,000 to sell the Pharmacare cuts, $500,000 for a self-congratulatory education ad campaign - and of course, the campaign to try and persuade people in the Interior that the Coquihalla privatization plan was a good idea.
Health Minister Colin Hansen defends the ad spending. People all over the province want more information, he says. Groups like Hospital Employees' Union are spreading misinformation. And anyway, the money comes from the $20-million ad budget under the premier's office, not the health ministry. (That $20 million is about one-fifth less than the NDP spent.)
But there's lots of ways to provide more facts and combat misinformation without spending taxpayers' money. And the HEU - while it did advertise heavily earlier - can't compete with the access a government has to the public. MLAs' columns, speeches, press releases, TV appearances, the Internet. All there, and all free.
The argument that the money doesn't matter because it comes from the premier's office is patently silly. If some $2 million hadn't been spent selling health policy since the election, it could have been spent immediately on reducing waiting lists.
Campbell had it right before.
It's a blatant abuse of taxpayers to finance party propaganda with their money. And it's a dumb waste of the money. People form their views of the health care system from the information they gather, and more critically from their own experiences. And on that basis, most believe that things have got worse, not better, under the Liberals.
And self-serving ad campaigns aren't going to change their minds.
Footnote: Who speaks for health care consumers? Doctors have the BCMA, employees have the HEU and other unions (at least for now), the government has its PR arm. Patients don't have any collective voice; it's past time for a BC Association of Health Care Consumers.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Monday, December 01, 2003
Liberals head for extra-billing fight with doctors
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Who would have thought the Liberals would be the ones to battle doctors over extra-billing and private health care?
The New Democrats pretended nothing was going on as doctors and clinics found more and more ways to charge patients directly. Jumping the waiting list, at a price, is routine for many procedures, from surgery to diagnostic tests, and the violations of the Canada Health Act are blatant.
But the Liberals seem to have put principle ahead of both pragmatism and politics, introducing a bill that will end much of the direct-billing that has fueled the growth of private clinics.
In the process they have opened another front in what will be a bitter war with doctors over the next six months.
The Liberals are due to pass the Medicare Protection Amendment Act in the next few days. Health Minister Colin Hansen introduced the bill modestly, promising only "greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices for medically necessary health care services."
In fact the bill outlaws most direct billing for medically necessary procedures. It specifically bans the most common abuse, in which patients get around the ban on direct billing by having a friend pay. And it sets up tough enforcement powers and maximum penalties of $20,000 per violation.
Mr. Hansen's position is that if clinics are operating in accord with the Canada Health Act, they shouldn't have a problem.
But they aren't, as the doctors' immediate reaction confirmed. The BC Medical Association called the act "Draconian," warning it was "basically setting up a medicare Gestapo.'' And doctors complained bitterly that they hadn't been consulted.
It's tough to say how many thousands of procedures would be banned under the new act. But Dr. Brian Day, medical director of the private Cambie Surgery Centre, predicted some of the province's 50 private clinics would have to close. They would just lose too much business.
Not all direct billing violates the Canada Health Act. If a procedure isn't medically necessary - if you're just curious and want a CAT scan, or opt for a facelift - you can pay. And the federal government has legalized queue-jumping by organizations like the WCB, which are allowed to pay for fats private treatment for clients. (The Liberals used to think that was unfair, but have changed their minds since the election.)
But doctors and clinics the act to have a big impact, and everyone will feel the shock wave.
Waiting lists will grow. Leaving aside the question of fairness, every operation done in a private clinic means one less name on the waiting lists for hospital treatment.
And despite Mr. Hansen's denial, the crackdown will cause big problems in already troubled negotiations with doctors. Doctors already complain that inadequate funding has forced hospitals to close operating rooms, meaning they can't work or get paid. Private facilities - and direct billing - allow them to perform more operations and add to their incomes.
Proposing to take that opportunity away - while at the same time refusing any increase in doctors' fees under the Medical Services Plan - will lead to a major confrontation as negotiations head towards an April deadline.
Mr. Hansen says B.C. is under pressure from Ottawa, which complains the province isn't enforcing the Canada Health Act. (B.C. was docked $5,000 in federal health transfer payments this year over two direct billing cases in 1999.) The Ontario government introduced similar legislation this week.
And he may have decided that it's worth a showdown with doctors to clear away a number of issues. This week the auditor general reported major problems with the $300-million alternate payments program to doctors, which is an alternative to fee-for-service. Planning is inadequate, spending is crisis-driven and results are unmeasured, said the report, done at the health ministry's request. But any changes risk another battle with doctors.
Mr. Hansen is doing the right thing. But his timing, and tactics, are ensuring a very tough New Year for B.C.'s health care system.
VICTORIA - Who would have thought the Liberals would be the ones to battle doctors over extra-billing and private health care?
The New Democrats pretended nothing was going on as doctors and clinics found more and more ways to charge patients directly. Jumping the waiting list, at a price, is routine for many procedures, from surgery to diagnostic tests, and the violations of the Canada Health Act are blatant.
But the Liberals seem to have put principle ahead of both pragmatism and politics, introducing a bill that will end much of the direct-billing that has fueled the growth of private clinics.
In the process they have opened another front in what will be a bitter war with doctors over the next six months.
The Liberals are due to pass the Medicare Protection Amendment Act in the next few days. Health Minister Colin Hansen introduced the bill modestly, promising only "greater clarity to both patients and private clinic operators about billing practices for medically necessary health care services."
In fact the bill outlaws most direct billing for medically necessary procedures. It specifically bans the most common abuse, in which patients get around the ban on direct billing by having a friend pay. And it sets up tough enforcement powers and maximum penalties of $20,000 per violation.
Mr. Hansen's position is that if clinics are operating in accord with the Canada Health Act, they shouldn't have a problem.
But they aren't, as the doctors' immediate reaction confirmed. The BC Medical Association called the act "Draconian," warning it was "basically setting up a medicare Gestapo.'' And doctors complained bitterly that they hadn't been consulted.
It's tough to say how many thousands of procedures would be banned under the new act. But Dr. Brian Day, medical director of the private Cambie Surgery Centre, predicted some of the province's 50 private clinics would have to close. They would just lose too much business.
Not all direct billing violates the Canada Health Act. If a procedure isn't medically necessary - if you're just curious and want a CAT scan, or opt for a facelift - you can pay. And the federal government has legalized queue-jumping by organizations like the WCB, which are allowed to pay for fats private treatment for clients. (The Liberals used to think that was unfair, but have changed their minds since the election.)
But doctors and clinics the act to have a big impact, and everyone will feel the shock wave.
Waiting lists will grow. Leaving aside the question of fairness, every operation done in a private clinic means one less name on the waiting lists for hospital treatment.
And despite Mr. Hansen's denial, the crackdown will cause big problems in already troubled negotiations with doctors. Doctors already complain that inadequate funding has forced hospitals to close operating rooms, meaning they can't work or get paid. Private facilities - and direct billing - allow them to perform more operations and add to their incomes.
Proposing to take that opportunity away - while at the same time refusing any increase in doctors' fees under the Medical Services Plan - will lead to a major confrontation as negotiations head towards an April deadline.
Mr. Hansen says B.C. is under pressure from Ottawa, which complains the province isn't enforcing the Canada Health Act. (B.C. was docked $5,000 in federal health transfer payments this year over two direct billing cases in 1999.) The Ontario government introduced similar legislation this week.
And he may have decided that it's worth a showdown with doctors to clear away a number of issues. This week the auditor general reported major problems with the $300-million alternate payments program to doctors, which is an alternative to fee-for-service. Planning is inadequate, spending is crisis-driven and results are unmeasured, said the report, done at the health ministry's request. But any changes risk another battle with doctors.
Mr. Hansen is doing the right thing. But his timing, and tactics, are ensuring a very tough New Year for B.C.'s health care system.
CN the big winner in BC Rail deal
VICTORIA - First, count the BC Rail sale as a broken promise, and one that's being handled with a notable lack of honesty.
CN Rail is buying the railway -- a 90-year deal counts as a sale. And public ownership of the rails and land under them doesn't change that reality. The Liberals promised not to sell or privatize the Crown corporation. They broke their word.
That out of the way, is it a good deal?
It is for CN Rail, for certain. CN is paying $1 billion. But $250 million of that is buying BC Rail's past losses; CN hopes to reduce its own taxes by at least that much. If Revenue Canada turns down the plan, then the government has to give the money back.
That leaves $750 million for a debt-free railway and all its equipment and buildings, valued at more than $250 million. CN will put some extra cash in for new cars to serve the forest industry and improved container service. It will make some quick cash by selling some locomotives and 1,300 of BC Rail's existing cars.
But work with the $750 million as the investment.
The takeover will add something like $100 million a year to CN's profits. CN Rail expects to improve on that, in part by eliminating one-third of the remaining jobs and increasing the business.
So conservatively, figure that CN spent $750 million and can expects to earn about $130 million a year. That's a 17-per-cent return on the company's investment, a great deal even given the risk of buying a business that is largely dependent on volatile resource industries.
Why did they get such a good deal? Under the conditions the Liberals set for the sale, CN was the only potential buyer. If the government wanted to sell -- and they made it desperately clear that they did -- then CN was in a position to drive a very hard bargain.
The competitive bidding process was merely an exercise. The railway is integrated with CN's existing lines; CN has the infrastructure in the West that allows it cut the most jobs; CN has the chance to take control of the market and make the most money out of running BC Rail. It was always going to be able to pay the highest price.
That wouldn't have been true if the government had decided to consider a range of factors in deciding on a successful buyer, like job protection or guarantees against line closures.
But those weren't a significant part of the decision. CN gains the right to run the railway as it sees fit, abandoning lines or starting new services or selling equipment. (Line closures are barred for five years.)
And on a straight cash basis, CN was always going to be able to pay the highest price. (That may explain CP Rail's complaints that the process was unfair.)
Partly, the price just reflects market forces.
But the government weakened its bargaining position dramatically by making it clear from the outset that BC Rail was going to be sold. From the time the Liberals said they were not prepared to allow BC Rail any capital to finance improvements -- even if the corporation could make the payments out of its profits -- the sale was certain.
And knowing the government was desperate to sell quickly, CN was in a very strong position to cut a good deal.
The benefits for northern communities -- some $156 million -- will be welcome and useful. There's a significant economic development fund, and spending on the Port of Prince Rupert and a Prince George airport expansion.
But northerners will rightly wonder why they had to wait for the sale of BC Rail to see this spending.
If investing in Prince Rupert's port makes sense, it should not require the sale of a Crown corporation before the money is available.
The bottom line? A broken promise, for sure.
And a deal that achieves the Liberals' goal of getting taxpayers out of the railway business.
Footnote: The NDP was denied their usual chance to examine the deal in Question Period hours after the premier's glitzy announcement. Speaker Claude Richmond, apparently miffed at heckling from Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan, refused to recognize MacPhail and instead allowed a string of softball questions from Liberal backbenchers.
James should hit the road to rebuild NDP
VICTORIA - New NDP leader Carole James is a mighty popular woman around the Capital Region. Even after a dozen difficult years on the school board, through cuts and labour disputes, she emerged with what looks like a huge pool of goodwill.
Not a bad start for a new leader. Earned respect is a valuable currency.
Overall, James looks like a sensible choice for the party. She falls -- apparently -- into the middle of the NDP policy spectrum. Ex-MLA Leonard Krog was seen as more loyal to the party's traditional positions (too hard, in the language of Goldilocks); newcomer Nils Jensen as more eager to move the party to the middle (too soft); and James fell somewhere in between.
One of the big questions is just what that means. The James' campaign was long on good intentions and short on specifics. She's opposed to offshore oil development, a position that will cost the NDP votes in many coastal communities, but play well in Vancouver. She apparently believes in the need to balance budgets, while having a strong economy and healthy communities.
But it's all rather sketchy. I've yet to hear of a candidate from any party opposed to healthy communities.
The mushiness clearly wasn't a bad strategy for the leadership campaign, and will likely play well in the election campaign now barely a year away. No matter what the NDP says, they will be running in 2005 for the chance to form a larger opposition. That means voters will accept some policy vagueness.
But they will be looking for competence, credibility and the ability to reflect their interests and concerns. James' challenge is to demonstrate, in short order, that under her leadership the party can live up to those expectations.
She already has one big advantage.
She's not personally lugging the tawdry baggage of the last NDP government. The Liberals' favorite comeback to any attack on their record has been a ritualistic reference to the fast ferries.
It's a rebuke that has long grown tired; it will seem even more stale directed at James.
But the Liberals keep using the line because it still resonates.
As the polls show, it takes more than a couple of years for people to forget the bungling of a government as inept as the former NDP administration.
That's the challenge for James.
She has to explain how the NDP is now different than it was through the late-90s. How has the party's structure been changed? How has it become more broadly based, and less a party with a bias towards representing the interests of public sector unions? (James had strong support from both CUPE and the BC Government Employees' Union; the party's newly elected president is from the BCGEU.)
She has to explain how her policies differ from the past NDP regime.
And she has to show that she can bring competence and effectiveness to government.
James can do that more readily without a seat.
While the house is sitting, Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan can continue to question the government, with James just hitting the big issues.
That gives her the chance to travel the province and make the case for the party. (And it also avoids a highly public baptism by fire in the legislature.)
It also gives James a chance to start recruiting credible candidates, which may be the most important task in the time before the election. Even people who don't trust the NDP may be prepared to send the party's candidate to Victoria -- if they know and respect the local nominee.
That doesn't mean James will get a free policy ride, especially if the Liberals succeed in their attempts to pin her down. But it does mean voters will accept vagueness on specific issues, if they are satisfied that, overall, the party recognizes their concerns.
Footnote: James starts with a couple of other advantages. She's lived and worked mainly in Victoria, but has spent the last two years in Prince George. She's well positioned to tackle the Liberals' on their failure to make significant improvements for people living outside Victoria and Vancouver. She has inside knowledge of the children and families ministry, one of the Liberals' most mismanaged files.
CN Rail is buying the railway -- a 90-year deal counts as a sale. And public ownership of the rails and land under them doesn't change that reality. The Liberals promised not to sell or privatize the Crown corporation. They broke their word.
That out of the way, is it a good deal?
It is for CN Rail, for certain. CN is paying $1 billion. But $250 million of that is buying BC Rail's past losses; CN hopes to reduce its own taxes by at least that much. If Revenue Canada turns down the plan, then the government has to give the money back.
That leaves $750 million for a debt-free railway and all its equipment and buildings, valued at more than $250 million. CN will put some extra cash in for new cars to serve the forest industry and improved container service. It will make some quick cash by selling some locomotives and 1,300 of BC Rail's existing cars.
But work with the $750 million as the investment.
The takeover will add something like $100 million a year to CN's profits. CN Rail expects to improve on that, in part by eliminating one-third of the remaining jobs and increasing the business.
So conservatively, figure that CN spent $750 million and can expects to earn about $130 million a year. That's a 17-per-cent return on the company's investment, a great deal even given the risk of buying a business that is largely dependent on volatile resource industries.
Why did they get such a good deal? Under the conditions the Liberals set for the sale, CN was the only potential buyer. If the government wanted to sell -- and they made it desperately clear that they did -- then CN was in a position to drive a very hard bargain.
The competitive bidding process was merely an exercise. The railway is integrated with CN's existing lines; CN has the infrastructure in the West that allows it cut the most jobs; CN has the chance to take control of the market and make the most money out of running BC Rail. It was always going to be able to pay the highest price.
That wouldn't have been true if the government had decided to consider a range of factors in deciding on a successful buyer, like job protection or guarantees against line closures.
But those weren't a significant part of the decision. CN gains the right to run the railway as it sees fit, abandoning lines or starting new services or selling equipment. (Line closures are barred for five years.)
And on a straight cash basis, CN was always going to be able to pay the highest price. (That may explain CP Rail's complaints that the process was unfair.)
Partly, the price just reflects market forces.
But the government weakened its bargaining position dramatically by making it clear from the outset that BC Rail was going to be sold. From the time the Liberals said they were not prepared to allow BC Rail any capital to finance improvements -- even if the corporation could make the payments out of its profits -- the sale was certain.
And knowing the government was desperate to sell quickly, CN was in a very strong position to cut a good deal.
The benefits for northern communities -- some $156 million -- will be welcome and useful. There's a significant economic development fund, and spending on the Port of Prince Rupert and a Prince George airport expansion.
But northerners will rightly wonder why they had to wait for the sale of BC Rail to see this spending.
If investing in Prince Rupert's port makes sense, it should not require the sale of a Crown corporation before the money is available.
The bottom line? A broken promise, for sure.
And a deal that achieves the Liberals' goal of getting taxpayers out of the railway business.
Footnote: The NDP was denied their usual chance to examine the deal in Question Period hours after the premier's glitzy announcement. Speaker Claude Richmond, apparently miffed at heckling from Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan, refused to recognize MacPhail and instead allowed a string of softball questions from Liberal backbenchers.
James should hit the road to rebuild NDP
VICTORIA - New NDP leader Carole James is a mighty popular woman around the Capital Region. Even after a dozen difficult years on the school board, through cuts and labour disputes, she emerged with what looks like a huge pool of goodwill.
Not a bad start for a new leader. Earned respect is a valuable currency.
Overall, James looks like a sensible choice for the party. She falls -- apparently -- into the middle of the NDP policy spectrum. Ex-MLA Leonard Krog was seen as more loyal to the party's traditional positions (too hard, in the language of Goldilocks); newcomer Nils Jensen as more eager to move the party to the middle (too soft); and James fell somewhere in between.
One of the big questions is just what that means. The James' campaign was long on good intentions and short on specifics. She's opposed to offshore oil development, a position that will cost the NDP votes in many coastal communities, but play well in Vancouver. She apparently believes in the need to balance budgets, while having a strong economy and healthy communities.
But it's all rather sketchy. I've yet to hear of a candidate from any party opposed to healthy communities.
The mushiness clearly wasn't a bad strategy for the leadership campaign, and will likely play well in the election campaign now barely a year away. No matter what the NDP says, they will be running in 2005 for the chance to form a larger opposition. That means voters will accept some policy vagueness.
But they will be looking for competence, credibility and the ability to reflect their interests and concerns. James' challenge is to demonstrate, in short order, that under her leadership the party can live up to those expectations.
She already has one big advantage.
She's not personally lugging the tawdry baggage of the last NDP government. The Liberals' favorite comeback to any attack on their record has been a ritualistic reference to the fast ferries.
It's a rebuke that has long grown tired; it will seem even more stale directed at James.
But the Liberals keep using the line because it still resonates.
As the polls show, it takes more than a couple of years for people to forget the bungling of a government as inept as the former NDP administration.
That's the challenge for James.
She has to explain how the NDP is now different than it was through the late-90s. How has the party's structure been changed? How has it become more broadly based, and less a party with a bias towards representing the interests of public sector unions? (James had strong support from both CUPE and the BC Government Employees' Union; the party's newly elected president is from the BCGEU.)
She has to explain how her policies differ from the past NDP regime.
And she has to show that she can bring competence and effectiveness to government.
James can do that more readily without a seat.
While the house is sitting, Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan can continue to question the government, with James just hitting the big issues.
That gives her the chance to travel the province and make the case for the party. (And it also avoids a highly public baptism by fire in the legislature.)
It also gives James a chance to start recruiting credible candidates, which may be the most important task in the time before the election. Even people who don't trust the NDP may be prepared to send the party's candidate to Victoria -- if they know and respect the local nominee.
That doesn't mean James will get a free policy ride, especially if the Liberals succeed in their attempts to pin her down. But it does mean voters will accept vagueness on specific issues, if they are satisfied that, overall, the party recognizes their concerns.
Footnote: James starts with a couple of other advantages. She's lived and worked mainly in Victoria, but has spent the last two years in Prince George. She's well positioned to tackle the Liberals' on their failure to make significant improvements for people living outside Victoria and Vancouver. She has inside knowledge of the children and families ministry, one of the Liberals' most mismanaged files.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Why you should care about the NDP leadership vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, it's time to start paying a little attention to the NDP leadership race.
The battered party picks a new leader Sunday morning, after a contest that hasn't exactly dominated media headlines.
That's not a bad thing. After all, the last NDP leadership race earned headlines mainly for controversy over mass sign-ups of new members and allegations of dubious practices. (Who can forget Moe Sihota's claim that he had boxes of signed membership forms in his basement, but hadn't decided whether he'd actually send them to the party?)
But it's worth tuning in now, in part because the convention should be entertaining - at least there's a real race - and in part because the NDP may be sick now, but it will likely be a political force again.
The generally acknowledged front-runner is Carole James, who has the support of Jenny Kwan, Svend Robinson and the province's biggest public sector unions. She live in Prince George now, where she has been working with a First Nation. But she did live in Victoria, worked for the government and was the long-time chair of the Victoria school board and the BC School Trustees Association. James came within a few dozen votes of winning a Victoria seat in the 2001 election.
She's got a good reputation down here, and has built a broad base of support. Her campaign has been a bit mushy, long on generalities and weak on specifics. But broadly, she's a centrist candidate in the NDP world.
Chasing her is Leonard Krog, a one-term MLA from Nanaimo who was part of the Harcourt government. Krog's a lawyer, and he's won backing from a number of party leading lights, including a former premier Dave Barrett, and ex-ministers Dale Lovick, Tim Stevenson and John Cashore.
Krog has pitched his skills and experience, and green credentials. Like James, he's towards the centre of the field in terms of traditional NDP values, although most observers would likely position him slightly farther left. (What does that mean? He's more likely to defend past NDP policies, and more likely to slide fiscal restraint backwards as a factor in decisions.)
Figure that those two will emerge as the first ballot leaders.
But close behind should be the most intriguing candidate, party newcomer Nils Jensen.
Jensen faced an uphill run. He joined the party days before entering the race, although he can note that as a Crown prosecutor he needed to keep his distance from politics. But he donated money to Liberal Sheila Orr's campaign, a move that raised NDP eyebrows.
Jensen has run the strongest, most interesting campaign. He has positioned himself as the candidate to help the NDP start fresh by moving towards the centre and building a coalition of those dissatisfied with the Liberals. (When candidates were asked about free university tuition at a leadership forum, only Jensen said that it was a bad idea because the province can't afford it.)
He's lined up some impressive support, with Corky Evans agreeing to head up a panel on resource communities and former premier Dan Miller backing his bid.
And Jensen, as the chair of Greater Victoria's water district board, has been irritatingly green, a move that should allow many environmentalists to return to the NDP.
There's three other candidates, including former MLA Steve Orcherton who is the staunchest defender of the party's old path. But their significance likely rests more on where their support will go on the second ballot.
The race is too close to call. And whoever wins faces the prospect of at least five years in opposition.
But the NDP has managed to find several candidates who could move the party on the road back to credibility with voters.
The fastest progress - and maybe the riskiest, given the number of unknowns - would likely be under Jensen.
Footnote: One striking element of the race is the lack of candidates from the Interior and North, where at the NDP currently has the strongest support. Krog's from Nanaimo; James has been in Prince George for more than a year. But the candidates really represent urban B.C. Jensen's link with Evans is a useful one for developing rural support.
Don't blame trustees for school fund shortage
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - School trustees should be mighty steamed at Education Minister Christy Clark.
Clark has just made the baffling claim that the reason parents aren't happier with their school system is that - wait for it - that school trustees have been socking money away in the bank, instead of spending it on kids.
Now even without looking at the facts, that seems a little odd. It's hard to see why all across the province, people ran for trustee - a job that pays poorly, takes a huge amount of time and involves a great deal of pressure - for the purpose of hoarding cash.
Look at the facts, and you see Clark's claim is empty.
The criticism comes because audits show the school districts finished up last year with a surplus of $145 million last year. Too much, Clark says. The districts are hoarding money instead of spending it on children.
"We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," she says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
She should know better.
First, more than one-third of the surplus was created because the education ministry came up with a last-minute $50 million for school districts weeks before the fiscal year ended. That was welcome. But it would be irresponsible - and ineffective - for school districts to rush out and spend the money before the year-end. In fact, they generally set aside the money to reduce the cuts needed this year.
That leaves about $95 million. Not small change, but only a little over two per cent of district spending. Districts are supposed to be balancing their budgets; that seems pretty close.
But in fact, trustees say, almost all the money was actually committed at year-end. I live in Saanich, where Clark's tally would claim the school district had a $2.9 million surplus at year-end, money that should have been spent.
But about $1.2 million was money allocated too late in the year to be spent effectively. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment like photocopiers or shop tools. Still more money had been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
It all sounds sensible. And the money has hardly vanished. In fact it's already been spent on education.
So why are parents complaining to the minister?
The best guess is because the Liberals have decided to squeeze education funding. The announcements make much of funding increases for schools. But the extra money the government has found is barely one per cent a year. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
That isn't enough money to keep on providing the same services. (Remember, the province gave teachers a 7.5-per-cent pay increase, but only provided the money to cover one-third of it.)
So trustees did what they could to reduce costs, and some of those changes hurt the quality of education. Districts did not move to a four-day school week so children would learn better; they did it because they couldn't afford to offer a five-day program.
The government has decided that education costs have been increasing too quickly, B.C. is bucking a trend. Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it was a damaging mistake.
And Alberta's Ralph Klein has promised to act on a government report that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to reduce class sizes, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years.
The government would do better to defend its decisions, instead of trying to dump the blame off on school trustees.
Footnote: More headaches ahead. The teachers' contract expires next June. They want a raise; the government has rejected any public sector pay increases. And a just released report recommends a total overhaul of the hopeless bargaining process. The government is going to want to put talks off until after the new process is in place - and the next election.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, it's time to start paying a little attention to the NDP leadership race.
The battered party picks a new leader Sunday morning, after a contest that hasn't exactly dominated media headlines.
That's not a bad thing. After all, the last NDP leadership race earned headlines mainly for controversy over mass sign-ups of new members and allegations of dubious practices. (Who can forget Moe Sihota's claim that he had boxes of signed membership forms in his basement, but hadn't decided whether he'd actually send them to the party?)
But it's worth tuning in now, in part because the convention should be entertaining - at least there's a real race - and in part because the NDP may be sick now, but it will likely be a political force again.
The generally acknowledged front-runner is Carole James, who has the support of Jenny Kwan, Svend Robinson and the province's biggest public sector unions. She live in Prince George now, where she has been working with a First Nation. But she did live in Victoria, worked for the government and was the long-time chair of the Victoria school board and the BC School Trustees Association. James came within a few dozen votes of winning a Victoria seat in the 2001 election.
She's got a good reputation down here, and has built a broad base of support. Her campaign has been a bit mushy, long on generalities and weak on specifics. But broadly, she's a centrist candidate in the NDP world.
Chasing her is Leonard Krog, a one-term MLA from Nanaimo who was part of the Harcourt government. Krog's a lawyer, and he's won backing from a number of party leading lights, including a former premier Dave Barrett, and ex-ministers Dale Lovick, Tim Stevenson and John Cashore.
Krog has pitched his skills and experience, and green credentials. Like James, he's towards the centre of the field in terms of traditional NDP values, although most observers would likely position him slightly farther left. (What does that mean? He's more likely to defend past NDP policies, and more likely to slide fiscal restraint backwards as a factor in decisions.)
Figure that those two will emerge as the first ballot leaders.
But close behind should be the most intriguing candidate, party newcomer Nils Jensen.
Jensen faced an uphill run. He joined the party days before entering the race, although he can note that as a Crown prosecutor he needed to keep his distance from politics. But he donated money to Liberal Sheila Orr's campaign, a move that raised NDP eyebrows.
Jensen has run the strongest, most interesting campaign. He has positioned himself as the candidate to help the NDP start fresh by moving towards the centre and building a coalition of those dissatisfied with the Liberals. (When candidates were asked about free university tuition at a leadership forum, only Jensen said that it was a bad idea because the province can't afford it.)
He's lined up some impressive support, with Corky Evans agreeing to head up a panel on resource communities and former premier Dan Miller backing his bid.
And Jensen, as the chair of Greater Victoria's water district board, has been irritatingly green, a move that should allow many environmentalists to return to the NDP.
There's three other candidates, including former MLA Steve Orcherton who is the staunchest defender of the party's old path. But their significance likely rests more on where their support will go on the second ballot.
The race is too close to call. And whoever wins faces the prospect of at least five years in opposition.
But the NDP has managed to find several candidates who could move the party on the road back to credibility with voters.
The fastest progress - and maybe the riskiest, given the number of unknowns - would likely be under Jensen.
Footnote: One striking element of the race is the lack of candidates from the Interior and North, where at the NDP currently has the strongest support. Krog's from Nanaimo; James has been in Prince George for more than a year. But the candidates really represent urban B.C. Jensen's link with Evans is a useful one for developing rural support.
Don't blame trustees for school fund shortage
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - School trustees should be mighty steamed at Education Minister Christy Clark.
Clark has just made the baffling claim that the reason parents aren't happier with their school system is that - wait for it - that school trustees have been socking money away in the bank, instead of spending it on kids.
Now even without looking at the facts, that seems a little odd. It's hard to see why all across the province, people ran for trustee - a job that pays poorly, takes a huge amount of time and involves a great deal of pressure - for the purpose of hoarding cash.
Look at the facts, and you see Clark's claim is empty.
The criticism comes because audits show the school districts finished up last year with a surplus of $145 million last year. Too much, Clark says. The districts are hoarding money instead of spending it on children.
"We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," she says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
She should know better.
First, more than one-third of the surplus was created because the education ministry came up with a last-minute $50 million for school districts weeks before the fiscal year ended. That was welcome. But it would be irresponsible - and ineffective - for school districts to rush out and spend the money before the year-end. In fact, they generally set aside the money to reduce the cuts needed this year.
That leaves about $95 million. Not small change, but only a little over two per cent of district spending. Districts are supposed to be balancing their budgets; that seems pretty close.
But in fact, trustees say, almost all the money was actually committed at year-end. I live in Saanich, where Clark's tally would claim the school district had a $2.9 million surplus at year-end, money that should have been spent.
But about $1.2 million was money allocated too late in the year to be spent effectively. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment like photocopiers or shop tools. Still more money had been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
It all sounds sensible. And the money has hardly vanished. In fact it's already been spent on education.
So why are parents complaining to the minister?
The best guess is because the Liberals have decided to squeeze education funding. The announcements make much of funding increases for schools. But the extra money the government has found is barely one per cent a year. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
That isn't enough money to keep on providing the same services. (Remember, the province gave teachers a 7.5-per-cent pay increase, but only provided the money to cover one-third of it.)
So trustees did what they could to reduce costs, and some of those changes hurt the quality of education. Districts did not move to a four-day school week so children would learn better; they did it because they couldn't afford to offer a five-day program.
The government has decided that education costs have been increasing too quickly, B.C. is bucking a trend. Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it was a damaging mistake.
And Alberta's Ralph Klein has promised to act on a government report that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to reduce class sizes, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years.
The government would do better to defend its decisions, instead of trying to dump the blame off on school trustees.
Footnote: More headaches ahead. The teachers' contract expires next June. They want a raise; the government has rejected any public sector pay increases. And a just released report recommends a total overhaul of the hopeless bargaining process. The government is going to want to put talks off until after the new process is in place - and the next election.
Friday, November 14, 2003
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Christy Clark either lacks financial skills, or has chosen to pick a pointless fight with school trustees.
The education minister criticized school boards because financial statements show they finished last year with a collective $145-million surplus.
Parents aren't happier with the school system, she concludes, because school trustees are hoarding money instead of spending it on children. "We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," Ms. Clark says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
I hope she's not serious. Even a cursory look at the facts shows the claim makes little sense.
More than one-third of the surplus is Ms. Clark's doing. With only weeks left in the last fiscal year the province came up with an unexpected extra $50 million for schools. That's great, but to criticize school districts because they didn't rush out to blow the money is ridiculous.
That leaves less than $100 million as the year-end surplus, barely two per cent of spending and hardly a fat cushion for districts trying to avoid deficits.
Ms. Clark should also know that almost all the supposedly surplus money was already committed at year-end. My local school district had, by Ms. Clark's reckoning, a wasteful $2.9-million surplus.
But about $1.2 million was money received too late to be spent effectively within the fiscal year. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment. Other money has been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
Other school districts have similar logical, prudent explanations.
So how to explain Ms. Clark's puzzlement about why additions to school funding haven't produced any greater parent satisfaction?
The answer is simple. The increases - barely one per cent a year - aren't enough to cover increasing costs, and don't allow districts to maintain existing services to students. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
In that time teachers' wages - under a government-imposed contract - were raised 7.5 per cent. The government only funded one-third of the increase. Other costs have also outstripped funding increases. So trustees have had to cut programs, close schools and shift to four-day school weeks.
Cost increases - not for new services, but to maintain the existing ones - were greater than the districts' revenue. They made spending cuts. And that's why Ms. Clark is hearing concern from parents.
It's hard to see why Ms. Clark would start this public spat. Trustees, for the most part, have grumbled about inadequate funding, but then tried their best to make them work.
And while effective spending is still seen as important, the political tide appears to be turning toward more funding for schools.
Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it resulted in school boards cutting services to students each year. The government pledged to restore the needed money - about $600 million a year - but voters still turfed them out.
In Alberta, Ralph Klein has promised to act on a report from a government commission that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to hire more teachers, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years (The proposed Alberta standards would call for much smaller classes than in B.C.)
Even in B.C., a legislative committee dominated by Liberal MLAs sounded a warning as this year's budget was being prepared. "The shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas," said their report on budget priorities.
If parents are complaining to the minister, she should listen.
And she should acknowledge that it's the government's funding decisions, not some year-end
VICTORIA - Christy Clark either lacks financial skills, or has chosen to pick a pointless fight with school trustees.
The education minister criticized school boards because financial statements show they finished last year with a collective $145-million surplus.
Parents aren't happier with the school system, she concludes, because school trustees are hoarding money instead of spending it on children. "We allocated an extra $92 million in the last two years to school districts and still parents are telling me they don't see that in improved services in classrooms," Ms. Clark says. "Now we know why. There's $145 million that's been socked away."
I hope she's not serious. Even a cursory look at the facts shows the claim makes little sense.
More than one-third of the surplus is Ms. Clark's doing. With only weeks left in the last fiscal year the province came up with an unexpected extra $50 million for schools. That's great, but to criticize school districts because they didn't rush out to blow the money is ridiculous.
That leaves less than $100 million as the year-end surplus, barely two per cent of spending and hardly a fat cushion for districts trying to avoid deficits.
Ms. Clark should also know that almost all the supposedly surplus money was already committed at year-end. My local school district had, by Ms. Clark's reckoning, a wasteful $2.9-million surplus.
But about $1.2 million was money received too late to be spent effectively within the fiscal year. Another $1.2 million had been saved by schools, through cost-cutting measures, and set aside for needed equipment. Other money has been reserved for purchases that had already been made, even though the invoice haven't been received.
Other school districts have similar logical, prudent explanations.
So how to explain Ms. Clark's puzzlement about why additions to school funding haven't produced any greater parent satisfaction?
The answer is simple. The increases - barely one per cent a year - aren't enough to cover increasing costs, and don't allow districts to maintain existing services to students. The education ministry budget was $4.8 billion in the Liberals' first year in office. It's $4.8 billion today.
In that time teachers' wages - under a government-imposed contract - were raised 7.5 per cent. The government only funded one-third of the increase. Other costs have also outstripped funding increases. So trustees have had to cut programs, close schools and shift to four-day school weeks.
Cost increases - not for new services, but to maintain the existing ones - were greater than the districts' revenue. They made spending cuts. And that's why Ms. Clark is hearing concern from parents.
It's hard to see why Ms. Clark would start this public spat. Trustees, for the most part, have grumbled about inadequate funding, but then tried their best to make them work.
And while effective spending is still seen as important, the political tide appears to be turning toward more funding for schools.
Ontario's former Conservative government reviewed its three-year education funding freeze before the recent election, and found that it resulted in school boards cutting services to students each year. The government pledged to restore the needed money - about $600 million a year - but voters still turfed them out.
In Alberta, Ralph Klein has promised to act on a report from a government commission that called for an immediate $137-million funding increase to hire more teachers, and a $500-million annual spending increase over the next five years (The proposed Alberta standards would call for much smaller classes than in B.C.)
Even in B.C., a legislative committee dominated by Liberal MLAs sounded a warning as this year's budget was being prepared. "The shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools and schools-based programs in urban areas," said their report on budget priorities.
If parents are complaining to the minister, she should listen.
And she should acknowledge that it's the government's funding decisions, not some year-end
Step 1: MLAs stand up to enviros. . .
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Some people are getting excited because Liberal MLAs have been pushing back a bit at protesters by standing up for salmon farming and logging.
Bill Belsey and Rod Visser got the ball rolling, showing up last week at an anti-fish farm protest at a Safeway in a posh Victoria riding. The Forest Action Network wanted the store to quit selling farmed salmon.
Belsey, from Prince Rupert, and Visser, from north Vancouver Island, made their way past the protesters, bought some farmed salmon and came out to defend the industry.
Next Chilliwack MLA Barry Penner showed up at a press conference where the Forest Action Network, the David Suzuki Foundation and three other groups announced they were urging Chinese buyers to boycott B.C. lumber. The groups took a half-page ad in The China Daily and sent emails to 8,000 lumber buyers in China. They say too much clear-cutting continues, old growth is being logged and habitat threatened.
Liar, said Penner, taking the most offence at a claim that logging threatened spotted owls in Penner's own riding.
There's nothing wrong with the MLAs speaking up for their constituents, politely and reasonably. It's ironic, maybe, that Penner showed up uninvited at the environmentalists' announcement. The Liberals keep security tight for their own events to prevent such a happening.
But speaking for their constituents - especially when their jobs are at stake - is part of what effective politicians do.
And unfair campaigns - like the effort to get China to boycott B.C. wood - do cost people jobs.
The boycott call came as Premier Gordon Campbell was in China trying to convince people that wood-frame housing makes sense, and that B.C. is the best supplier.
China's not a big market for B.C. It's the world's second largest wood importer, but uses little of the kinds of lumber we produce. But that's expected to change, and New Zealand and other exporting countries are competing with B.C. to get into the Chinese market.
There's lots of room for debate on B.C. forest practices, and it's legitimate for groups on either side to pressure government.
But their tactics need to show balance and judgment. And nothing in today's B.C. logging practices justifies sacrificing workers, families and communities to an environmental pressure campaign. A boycott call, when resource communities are already struggling, should be a desperate last measure. Instead it looks like a cheap and callous publicity stunt.
Likewise, there is room for debate on salmon farming. The industry has behaved irresponsibly, and government oversight - under the NDP and the Liberals - has been weak.
But the best science indicates that, properly managed and regulated, the industry can produce food safely and efficiently. It provides jobs where there are few other options. Pushing Safeway to stop selling farmed fish puts those jobs at risk; it's not surprising that Belsey and Visser would push back.
Is it part of a co-ordinated strategy? Probably, since MLAs don't do much without checking with their masters. It would be helpful for the Liberals to have MLAs seen publicly as defenders of their constituencies.
But only moderately helpful.
Many people are looking for signs that their MLAs are defenders of their communities within government, and they aren't seeing that. The MLAs, in fairness, often argue that they are raising the issues, behind closed doors.
But what communities see are health care cuts, and more closed stores on main street. They see the Coquihalla slated for sale, or the loss of hundreds of jobs due to the sale of BC Rail.
And while they don't expect MLAs to attack the government, they do expect their concerns to be raised. A Liberal MLA may not be free to oppose the idea of selling BC Rail, but he can argue publicly that the proceeds should all go into an economic development fund for the province's Northwest and Interior.
Here's hoping the trend to outspoken MLAs grows.
Footnote: Rural MLAs should be cheered by a new hire in the premier's office. A new deputy minister - at somewere between $130,000 and $200,000 - has been hired to try and get land use issues resolved more quickly. Jessica McDonald has been working as a consultant for five years in the same area. Her hiring responds to the continued complaints about stalled land use decisions.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Why a higher liquor tax makes sense, and other notes
VICTORIA -- Capital punishment, or random notes from the front:
It's tough to get too enthusiastic about Green leader Adriane Carr's pitch for a junk food tax. (Though it did get her some needed news coverage.) It's too complicated and a hassle for stores, even if it is right to make people pay for their sins.
But B.C. school trustees' call for a tax on alcohol to pay for support services needed by students with fetal alcohol syndrome makes good sense.
We already accept taxes on alcohol. And B.C. could be the first province to do a true needs-based fetal alcohol strategy, helping those already affected and making prevention an obsession. Say the whole deal would cost $50 million a year. A $20 bottle of gin would cost 50 cents more.
The benefits would be huge. Kids with fetal alcohol damage lead immensely difficult lives, often veering from disaster to disaster. Helping them, or making sure that no more children are born damaged, will save lives and save millions.
It's a stunningly simple, painless way to deal with a major social and criminal problem, and save thousands of people from suffering.
The legislature works. Prince George-Omineca Independent MLA Paul Nettleton asked about the recent U.S. ruling that B.C. Hydro's trading arm had done nothing wrong during the California energy crisis. What did the ruling mean, and was there still money owed that California didn't want to pay?
And Energy Minister Richard Neufeld answered, clearly and without spin. Yes, it was a big victory for Hydro. Yes, some $282 million is still owed and in dispute. It was the kind of response you'd give if someone asked you a question.
And for that, Neufeld deserves our collective thanks for showing how the legislature could actually function. (I know, you're wondering why a straight answer qualifies as a great moment. Tune in to Question Period at 2:15 each afternoon and see.)
Things went less well for another minister a few days later. NDP leader Joy MacPhail asked Transport Minister Judith Reid why the government wants to sell B.C. Rail when it's profitable. The good times won't last, Reid said. Forest companies have just been rushing wood out because of the softwood dispute.
"That is creating an unusual situation in the marketplace that is leading to increased traffic on B.C. Rail," she said. "That is not sustainable." It was an easy set-up for MacPhail, who leapt on the prediction of even worse times ahead for the forest industry.
Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a calculated risk in the B.C. Ferries contract talks. Campbell stepped in to say he might not accept an LRB ruling on essential ferry services during a strike. Campbell was sending a message to ferry workers -- be careful about striking, because I can legislate you back anytime, and I'm ready to do it.
The immediate risk is that anytime the premier starts talking about ferry strikes, businesses in ferry-dependent communities suffer. Rumours of a strike are enough to persuade people that a weekend on Saltspring might be risky.
The premier's comments also acknowledge reality. Despite all the effort put into spinning off B.C. Ferries as an independent authority, the public will hold the government accountable when things go wrong.
The crime issue is turning out to be a rough one for the Liberals. The NDP has been pressing the government on when it will keep a campaign promise to transfer 75 per cent of traffic fine revenue to municipalities for increased policing. The Liberals say - rightly - that they only promised to provide the revenue sometime in their first four-year term, and they will. But it's tough to talk about the need to get tough on crime now while putting off a pledge to give communities money they need for policing.
And, finally, the premier's attendance record for Question Periods this session. To date, the legislature has sat for 16 days. Campbell has made it to five, thanks to a busy schedule of trade missions. For more than a century premiers have made it a point to be around while the legislature is sitting - it's only 71 days this year - to lead the government and answer questions from MLAs and people like me. Times have changed.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Some people are getting excited because Liberal MLAs have been pushing back a bit at protesters by standing up for salmon farming and logging.
Bill Belsey and Rod Visser got the ball rolling, showing up last week at an anti-fish farm protest at a Safeway in a posh Victoria riding. The Forest Action Network wanted the store to quit selling farmed salmon.
Belsey, from Prince Rupert, and Visser, from north Vancouver Island, made their way past the protesters, bought some farmed salmon and came out to defend the industry.
Next Chilliwack MLA Barry Penner showed up at a press conference where the Forest Action Network, the David Suzuki Foundation and three other groups announced they were urging Chinese buyers to boycott B.C. lumber. The groups took a half-page ad in The China Daily and sent emails to 8,000 lumber buyers in China. They say too much clear-cutting continues, old growth is being logged and habitat threatened.
Liar, said Penner, taking the most offence at a claim that logging threatened spotted owls in Penner's own riding.
There's nothing wrong with the MLAs speaking up for their constituents, politely and reasonably. It's ironic, maybe, that Penner showed up uninvited at the environmentalists' announcement. The Liberals keep security tight for their own events to prevent such a happening.
But speaking for their constituents - especially when their jobs are at stake - is part of what effective politicians do.
And unfair campaigns - like the effort to get China to boycott B.C. wood - do cost people jobs.
The boycott call came as Premier Gordon Campbell was in China trying to convince people that wood-frame housing makes sense, and that B.C. is the best supplier.
China's not a big market for B.C. It's the world's second largest wood importer, but uses little of the kinds of lumber we produce. But that's expected to change, and New Zealand and other exporting countries are competing with B.C. to get into the Chinese market.
There's lots of room for debate on B.C. forest practices, and it's legitimate for groups on either side to pressure government.
But their tactics need to show balance and judgment. And nothing in today's B.C. logging practices justifies sacrificing workers, families and communities to an environmental pressure campaign. A boycott call, when resource communities are already struggling, should be a desperate last measure. Instead it looks like a cheap and callous publicity stunt.
Likewise, there is room for debate on salmon farming. The industry has behaved irresponsibly, and government oversight - under the NDP and the Liberals - has been weak.
But the best science indicates that, properly managed and regulated, the industry can produce food safely and efficiently. It provides jobs where there are few other options. Pushing Safeway to stop selling farmed fish puts those jobs at risk; it's not surprising that Belsey and Visser would push back.
Is it part of a co-ordinated strategy? Probably, since MLAs don't do much without checking with their masters. It would be helpful for the Liberals to have MLAs seen publicly as defenders of their constituencies.
But only moderately helpful.
Many people are looking for signs that their MLAs are defenders of their communities within government, and they aren't seeing that. The MLAs, in fairness, often argue that they are raising the issues, behind closed doors.
But what communities see are health care cuts, and more closed stores on main street. They see the Coquihalla slated for sale, or the loss of hundreds of jobs due to the sale of BC Rail.
And while they don't expect MLAs to attack the government, they do expect their concerns to be raised. A Liberal MLA may not be free to oppose the idea of selling BC Rail, but he can argue publicly that the proceeds should all go into an economic development fund for the province's Northwest and Interior.
Here's hoping the trend to outspoken MLAs grows.
Footnote: Rural MLAs should be cheered by a new hire in the premier's office. A new deputy minister - at somewere between $130,000 and $200,000 - has been hired to try and get land use issues resolved more quickly. Jessica McDonald has been working as a consultant for five years in the same area. Her hiring responds to the continued complaints about stalled land use decisions.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Why a higher liquor tax makes sense, and other notes
VICTORIA -- Capital punishment, or random notes from the front:
It's tough to get too enthusiastic about Green leader Adriane Carr's pitch for a junk food tax. (Though it did get her some needed news coverage.) It's too complicated and a hassle for stores, even if it is right to make people pay for their sins.
But B.C. school trustees' call for a tax on alcohol to pay for support services needed by students with fetal alcohol syndrome makes good sense.
We already accept taxes on alcohol. And B.C. could be the first province to do a true needs-based fetal alcohol strategy, helping those already affected and making prevention an obsession. Say the whole deal would cost $50 million a year. A $20 bottle of gin would cost 50 cents more.
The benefits would be huge. Kids with fetal alcohol damage lead immensely difficult lives, often veering from disaster to disaster. Helping them, or making sure that no more children are born damaged, will save lives and save millions.
It's a stunningly simple, painless way to deal with a major social and criminal problem, and save thousands of people from suffering.
The legislature works. Prince George-Omineca Independent MLA Paul Nettleton asked about the recent U.S. ruling that B.C. Hydro's trading arm had done nothing wrong during the California energy crisis. What did the ruling mean, and was there still money owed that California didn't want to pay?
And Energy Minister Richard Neufeld answered, clearly and without spin. Yes, it was a big victory for Hydro. Yes, some $282 million is still owed and in dispute. It was the kind of response you'd give if someone asked you a question.
And for that, Neufeld deserves our collective thanks for showing how the legislature could actually function. (I know, you're wondering why a straight answer qualifies as a great moment. Tune in to Question Period at 2:15 each afternoon and see.)
Things went less well for another minister a few days later. NDP leader Joy MacPhail asked Transport Minister Judith Reid why the government wants to sell B.C. Rail when it's profitable. The good times won't last, Reid said. Forest companies have just been rushing wood out because of the softwood dispute.
"That is creating an unusual situation in the marketplace that is leading to increased traffic on B.C. Rail," she said. "That is not sustainable." It was an easy set-up for MacPhail, who leapt on the prediction of even worse times ahead for the forest industry.
Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a calculated risk in the B.C. Ferries contract talks. Campbell stepped in to say he might not accept an LRB ruling on essential ferry services during a strike. Campbell was sending a message to ferry workers -- be careful about striking, because I can legislate you back anytime, and I'm ready to do it.
The immediate risk is that anytime the premier starts talking about ferry strikes, businesses in ferry-dependent communities suffer. Rumours of a strike are enough to persuade people that a weekend on Saltspring might be risky.
The premier's comments also acknowledge reality. Despite all the effort put into spinning off B.C. Ferries as an independent authority, the public will hold the government accountable when things go wrong.
The crime issue is turning out to be a rough one for the Liberals. The NDP has been pressing the government on when it will keep a campaign promise to transfer 75 per cent of traffic fine revenue to municipalities for increased policing. The Liberals say - rightly - that they only promised to provide the revenue sometime in their first four-year term, and they will. But it's tough to talk about the need to get tough on crime now while putting off a pledge to give communities money they need for policing.
And, finally, the premier's attendance record for Question Periods this session. To date, the legislature has sat for 16 days. Campbell has made it to five, thanks to a busy schedule of trade missions. For more than a century premiers have made it a point to be around while the legislature is sitting - it's only 71 days this year - to lead the government and answer questions from MLAs and people like me. Times have changed.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Liberals take on princely powers to push development
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' latest economic development bill looks remarkably like something Glen Clark might have written.
It's called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. But it could as easily be called the 'Making the Premier King Act.'
The idea is that it's too hard to get approvals to build things or open mines in B.C., despite the Liberals' pledge to get rid of regulations and make government work better. Approvals take too long, municipalities ask too many questions and things don't get done quickly enough to keep the developers happy.
And the Liberal solution is to give cabinet - which means the premier - the power to designate any project as "significant." Once that's done, cabinet can rewrite the rules, or eliminate them, and make sure the project gets approved in short order. The people behind the project only have to persuade the cabinet that it's a good thing, and with a wave of the pen almost all obstacles can be made to disappear.
It will be convenient. Anyone who has tried to add on to a house or build a new deck would recognize the benefits of being able to skip all those building inspections and plan approvals.
And it's a useful part of the sales pitch for the premier when he courts new industries. What about regulations and approvals, the proponents can ask? No problem, says the premier. We'll designate this a significant project, and the only approvals you need are from me.
If you were a developer, you would love it. And if you were premier, you would really love it. You could get a lot done, quickly, if you didn't have to worry about public consultations or municipal bylaws or planning and zoning restrictions. Attractive idea, public benefit, pressing need - clear the track.
But taxpayers shouldn't be quite so welcoming. This is the kind of approach, after all, that brought us the fast ferries. It could be that we need a stringent approval process most when cabinet or a premier has fallen in love with a project.
Here's how it would work in real life. You would convince a cabinet minister or the premier that the your plan for a new racetrack would be great for the province, And you would warn that it has to be built quickly, or the project couldn't go ahead.
Once the cabinet designates the racetrack a significant project - and their power to pick a public or private partnership is unlimited under the proposed act - things start happening.
If you've got a problem with approvals or zoning, or neighbours are demanding to be consulted, or municipalities are worried about traffic congestion when 200,000 spectators head to the race, you can go to the premier or a cabinet minister. He can order a facilitator to try and resolve the problem. And if that doesn't work, cabinet can just give you a green light to go ahead without the required approvals, on the terms he choses.
There are few limits. The laws says cabinet can't ignore or over-ride provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. But every other act, or any municipal provisions, can be ignored to get a project built more quickly.
Some municipalities are onside, keen to see development come more quickly. And the province does need the jobs.
But taxpayers should be worried. The temptation to take shortcuts - for Olympic projects, the hugely expensive RAV line, new public-private partnerships, a power plant, mine or resort - will be huge. And decision-making will move from the public arena to behind the tightly closed doors of cabinet and the premier's officer.
It's the kind of extraordinary power that should include safeguards and protection for the public interest, or be restricted to clearly defined project types.
But that's not what the bill does. Instead, it confers near absolute power on cabinet.
And that, no matter how good the intentions, should be worrying.
Footnote: The bill is a confirmation of just how much trouble the Liberals have had delivering a streamlined, clear approval process. After more than two years, Industry and developers are still complaining of regulatory overlap and unreasonable delays. Municipalities, and front-line provincial staff, come in for much of the criticism.
Tough talk on youth crime mostly - and wisely - empty
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's much less than meets the eye to the Liberals' youth crime bill.
That doesn't mean the new law isn't useful. While politicians love bold initiatives - because we do - small, smart changes often make more sense.
The spin - dutifully reported - was that the new law would see more youths go to jail for doing bad things like trespassing on school grounds to recruit gang members or coerce kids into the sex trade.
The maximum penalty for those offences has been a fine or probation. Now the courts will be able to jail offenders for 30 days.
The government's news release, Solicitor General Rich Coleman and even Premier Gordon Campbell talked about getting tough with young offenders. Earnest reporters trotted off to make sure there would be enough jail space.
But the reality is that almost nothing has changed. Only a few more kids will likely go to jail - which is a good thing.
There's nothing wrong with the changes. They send a signal that certain offences are viewed seriously. There's a remote chance that they'll make some kids think twice, although that's not likely. The average 15-year-old offender is not great at considering consequences. If he was, he wouldn't be doing dangerous things.
And the changes give principals another weapon. If a problem youth won't stay away from the school - whether he's trespassing to get in a fight, sell drugs or just hang out - then school act charges could, in an extraordinary case, result in a few days in custody.
But it's going to be a mighty rare occurrence. All across B.C. only 51 trespassing charges were laid last year under the school act. (There are more than 1,800 schools.)
A few more charges may be laid. And a few youths may spend a couple of days in jail, when they're a real nuisance around a school and police can't figure out a way to make more serious charges stick. But charges will be scarce, and probation the norm.
That's good. Some youths need to be locked up because they're a danger to others. Some kids benefit from a few days in custody so people have a chance to try and help them.
But mostly kids who are locked up learn to be better criminals. That's why the number of youth in custody has fallen by 40 per cent in the last three years.
So if the bill's measures really represent only an almost insignificant, though useful change, why all the tough talk from the Liberals?
They've decided it's a good idea to be seen as tough on crime. That's why Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who does a good tough bit, did the talking about what was really Attorney General Geoff Plant's bill. That's why the news release talked about tougher penalties for kids who trespass on school property for gang activities or sexual exploitation, when really the penalties apply to all school trespass. Usually, it's drug dealing or picking fights that results in charges, not pimping.
It's a risky tactic. Practically, the public loses if our approach to crime is simplistic. It will take much more than tougher penalties to make communities safer. Most criminals don't think about the penalties first.
And politically, the Liberals are on thin ice. People are already worried about the effects of the government's policies on crime rates. And next year Coleman's ministry plans to cut $19 million - about eight per cent - from spending on policing and community safety. Probation officers will have larger caseloads, and supervision of people on house arrest will continue to be lax.
It was a good bill. The changes, although small, are useful.
But the Liberal spin was worrying. We don't need slogans about crime - from either the 'lock-em-up camp' or the 'it's-all-someone-else's-problem camp.'
It's going to take smart, complex - and in the short-term costly - programs to deal with our crime problem.
Footnote: The media - that's me - needs to take a look at our work on this one. Our crime reporting is consistently misleading, giving an overblown sense of the risk. Look around at your family; in B.C., they are 10 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in some crime.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - The Liberals' latest economic development bill looks remarkably like something Glen Clark might have written.
It's called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. But it could as easily be called the 'Making the Premier King Act.'
The idea is that it's too hard to get approvals to build things or open mines in B.C., despite the Liberals' pledge to get rid of regulations and make government work better. Approvals take too long, municipalities ask too many questions and things don't get done quickly enough to keep the developers happy.
And the Liberal solution is to give cabinet - which means the premier - the power to designate any project as "significant." Once that's done, cabinet can rewrite the rules, or eliminate them, and make sure the project gets approved in short order. The people behind the project only have to persuade the cabinet that it's a good thing, and with a wave of the pen almost all obstacles can be made to disappear.
It will be convenient. Anyone who has tried to add on to a house or build a new deck would recognize the benefits of being able to skip all those building inspections and plan approvals.
And it's a useful part of the sales pitch for the premier when he courts new industries. What about regulations and approvals, the proponents can ask? No problem, says the premier. We'll designate this a significant project, and the only approvals you need are from me.
If you were a developer, you would love it. And if you were premier, you would really love it. You could get a lot done, quickly, if you didn't have to worry about public consultations or municipal bylaws or planning and zoning restrictions. Attractive idea, public benefit, pressing need - clear the track.
But taxpayers shouldn't be quite so welcoming. This is the kind of approach, after all, that brought us the fast ferries. It could be that we need a stringent approval process most when cabinet or a premier has fallen in love with a project.
Here's how it would work in real life. You would convince a cabinet minister or the premier that the your plan for a new racetrack would be great for the province, And you would warn that it has to be built quickly, or the project couldn't go ahead.
Once the cabinet designates the racetrack a significant project - and their power to pick a public or private partnership is unlimited under the proposed act - things start happening.
If you've got a problem with approvals or zoning, or neighbours are demanding to be consulted, or municipalities are worried about traffic congestion when 200,000 spectators head to the race, you can go to the premier or a cabinet minister. He can order a facilitator to try and resolve the problem. And if that doesn't work, cabinet can just give you a green light to go ahead without the required approvals, on the terms he choses.
There are few limits. The laws says cabinet can't ignore or over-ride provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. But every other act, or any municipal provisions, can be ignored to get a project built more quickly.
Some municipalities are onside, keen to see development come more quickly. And the province does need the jobs.
But taxpayers should be worried. The temptation to take shortcuts - for Olympic projects, the hugely expensive RAV line, new public-private partnerships, a power plant, mine or resort - will be huge. And decision-making will move from the public arena to behind the tightly closed doors of cabinet and the premier's officer.
It's the kind of extraordinary power that should include safeguards and protection for the public interest, or be restricted to clearly defined project types.
But that's not what the bill does. Instead, it confers near absolute power on cabinet.
And that, no matter how good the intentions, should be worrying.
Footnote: The bill is a confirmation of just how much trouble the Liberals have had delivering a streamlined, clear approval process. After more than two years, Industry and developers are still complaining of regulatory overlap and unreasonable delays. Municipalities, and front-line provincial staff, come in for much of the criticism.
Tough talk on youth crime mostly - and wisely - empty
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - There's much less than meets the eye to the Liberals' youth crime bill.
That doesn't mean the new law isn't useful. While politicians love bold initiatives - because we do - small, smart changes often make more sense.
The spin - dutifully reported - was that the new law would see more youths go to jail for doing bad things like trespassing on school grounds to recruit gang members or coerce kids into the sex trade.
The maximum penalty for those offences has been a fine or probation. Now the courts will be able to jail offenders for 30 days.
The government's news release, Solicitor General Rich Coleman and even Premier Gordon Campbell talked about getting tough with young offenders. Earnest reporters trotted off to make sure there would be enough jail space.
But the reality is that almost nothing has changed. Only a few more kids will likely go to jail - which is a good thing.
There's nothing wrong with the changes. They send a signal that certain offences are viewed seriously. There's a remote chance that they'll make some kids think twice, although that's not likely. The average 15-year-old offender is not great at considering consequences. If he was, he wouldn't be doing dangerous things.
And the changes give principals another weapon. If a problem youth won't stay away from the school - whether he's trespassing to get in a fight, sell drugs or just hang out - then school act charges could, in an extraordinary case, result in a few days in custody.
But it's going to be a mighty rare occurrence. All across B.C. only 51 trespassing charges were laid last year under the school act. (There are more than 1,800 schools.)
A few more charges may be laid. And a few youths may spend a couple of days in jail, when they're a real nuisance around a school and police can't figure out a way to make more serious charges stick. But charges will be scarce, and probation the norm.
That's good. Some youths need to be locked up because they're a danger to others. Some kids benefit from a few days in custody so people have a chance to try and help them.
But mostly kids who are locked up learn to be better criminals. That's why the number of youth in custody has fallen by 40 per cent in the last three years.
So if the bill's measures really represent only an almost insignificant, though useful change, why all the tough talk from the Liberals?
They've decided it's a good idea to be seen as tough on crime. That's why Solicitor General Rich Coleman, who does a good tough bit, did the talking about what was really Attorney General Geoff Plant's bill. That's why the news release talked about tougher penalties for kids who trespass on school property for gang activities or sexual exploitation, when really the penalties apply to all school trespass. Usually, it's drug dealing or picking fights that results in charges, not pimping.
It's a risky tactic. Practically, the public loses if our approach to crime is simplistic. It will take much more than tougher penalties to make communities safer. Most criminals don't think about the penalties first.
And politically, the Liberals are on thin ice. People are already worried about the effects of the government's policies on crime rates. And next year Coleman's ministry plans to cut $19 million - about eight per cent - from spending on policing and community safety. Probation officers will have larger caseloads, and supervision of people on house arrest will continue to be lax.
It was a good bill. The changes, although small, are useful.
But the Liberal spin was worrying. We don't need slogans about crime - from either the 'lock-em-up camp' or the 'it's-all-someone-else's-problem camp.'
It's going to take smart, complex - and in the short-term costly - programs to deal with our crime problem.
Footnote: The media - that's me - needs to take a look at our work on this one. Our crime reporting is consistently misleading, giving an overblown sense of the risk. Look around at your family; in B.C., they are 10 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in some crime.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Liberals should come clean on welfare time limits
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If the Liberals' radical plan to chop people off welfare makes sense, why are they afraid of telling the truth about it?
B.C. is set to become the first province with mandatory time limits on welfare. If the government deems you employable, you will only be allowed to collect welfare for two years in any five-year period. The first people will hit the deadline April 1.
What will that mean? How many people will lose benefits, and what will become of them?
Human Resources Minister Murray Coell won't say.
He has the information. The ministry has built its budget on reducing the number of people on welfare, and plans to cut spending by $200 million next year. It has calculated how many people will hit the time limits.
But it's a secret. On documents obtained under the freedom of information act, the numbers are blanked out.
Coell won't provide the information. Instead he started a recent newspaper column by trashing people who had concerns about the plan. "People who are opposed to this government's time limits policy are really saying that they are in favour of 'welfare forever' for individuals who can work," the minister wrote.
It was bad enough when Coell talked such rubbish as he avoided questions in the legislature. We're used to such foolishness here. But it's insulting to be told that if you don't unquestioningly follow the Liberal line you're some sort of crazed spendthrift who wants to see people on welfare.
In fact there are important, legitimate questions about the Liberals' radical policy. Some leaked documents suggest 29,000 people will lose benefits, about half the welfare recipients deemed employable.
The government should provide its estimates. It should say how many people it expects to find work, and how many will leave the province. It should reveal how many will be be forced into homelessness.
And it should explain what will happen to a single parent who has received welfare for two years, is hired and then thrown out of work when the business closes. With no welfare or employment insurance, and no savings, what will become of her family while she seeks a new job?
Provinces, including B.C. under the NDP, have made welfare tougher to get. They have used a combination of incentives, job training and punitive measures to push people into the workforce.
That's a good thing. Welfare is a terrible and destructive way to live. Escaping - even for children growing up as welfare's next generation - is hugely difficult. Coell can take pride in successfully reducing the number of people on welfare since the election.
But the public needs straight answers about the coming time limits. Across Canada, if you can't find work and have no money, then you are helped. But now in B.C., if you use up your two years, then you fend for yourself. (Many recipients are exempted, including those with disabilities or multiple barriers to employment. If you have very young children, you won't be cut off, but benefits will be reduced.)
Coell says people who want jobs will be able to get them. The government is spending $75 million a year on job placement and training, he says, and contract agencies have 10,000 jobs waiting for welfare recipients.
Critics say the move will result in serious hardship. With a weak economy, unemployment over nine per cent and some 200,000 people already looking for work, job prospects are bleak for unskilled welfare recipients.
If the Liberals have a sound plan, based on realistic projections and an accurate assessment of the job market, they should come clean. Coell should explain where the needed jobs will come from, and who will be affected and how.
The fact that he is hiding the truth from the public raises serious doubts about whether the Liberal plan makes sense.
Footnote: About 20,000 people have moved from work to welfare in the first 28 months of the Liberal tenure, Coell says. That raises new questions about the likelihood that a greater number can find work in the coming 12 months. Communities and social agencies need to know how big the impact will be when the new rules kick in.
Join the campaign for bring-your-own wine
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, enough with the life-and-death matters of government, of tax cuts and health care and welfare.
Why can't we take our own bottle of wine to a local restaurant for dinner?
Albertans can, as of this week. The government looked at its liquor regulations and realized it was none of the state's business whether people could bring a bottle of wine into a restaurant.
The decision should be up to the restaurant owner, and the diner. There's no need for government red tape to set the rules, Alberta's Conservative government decided this month.
So tonight in Red Deer someone is going to stroll into their neighbourhood restaurant with a $9 bottle of B.C. red tucked under her arm, order a steak sandwich, and enjoy a dandy, low-cost meal. Here, that same bottle of wine will cost $20 or more.
Why not free choice for restaurant owner and diner here, in the land of deregulation, where red tape is to be pruned like so much ugly, tangled growth choking the life out of us?
That's your fault.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman is the man in charge of liquor regulations in the province. There doesn't seem to be any big public policy question involved, he says. Nobody has raised the BYOW issue, he says, so he hasn't given any thought to the idea of allowing British Columbians the freedom to bring their favourite wine to dinner out.
So let's raise it.
There's not a single legitimate argument to justify a role for government in dictating that outside wine is some toxic substance in restaurants, while a bottle plucked from a fat wine list is OK.
Many restaurants won't be keen on the change. Wine is an important profit centre, bringing in up to 20 per cent of revenue for full-service restaurants. Restaurants generally sell it for twice as much as the liquor store cost. Since there's no preparation, that's a tidy profit. Take that away, and food prices may rise, restaurants warn.
Maybe. But perhaps restaurants would find themselves just a little busier if dinner for two cost $25, not $50, because people would eat out more. Maybe those empty tables would be full, and the extra business would more than cover the lost wine revenue.
Or maybe not. But surely that's not government's problem. If I want to take a bottle of wine to dinner, and the people around the corner at Wonder Wok think that's OK, there's no reason the government should be bossing us around.
It's important to remember that the changes in Alberta don't force restaurants to let people bring in wine. The owner gets to decide. If owners value the mark-up, or think it important that the servers pair the right wines with different foods, they can just say no to outside wine.
But if they don't want to stock a wine cellar, or think more people would come if they could BYOW, then they can say yes. So far, many Alberta restaurants have made that decision. (Restaurants can charge a corkage fee for opening the bottle and providing the glasses.)
Alberta's not breaking new ground. Quebec restaurants have the option of having a wine list or letting customers bring their own. A whole segment of moderately priced, casual bring-your-own restaurants has sprung up.
But Alberta is going further, allowing restaurants to choose to serve their own wine while welcoming customers who bring their own. (Most U.S. states and many countries take the same approach.)
Restaurants and their customers get freedom of choice, wine stores pick up some more business, and red tape gets shredded. No wonder the Alberta government embraced the policy.
And surely the B.C. government would too, being just as ardent exponents of choice and free markets.
That leaves it up to you. Want the right to bring that special bottle to your anniversary dinner at the Club Cafe?
Tell Rich Coleman, and your MLA.
Footnote: Giving restaurants and diners freedom of choice would also be a nice gesture to the people who spent money planning and building private liquor stores believing the government was serious about getting out of the business. Now that the Liberals have abandoned that plan, the owners could use the chance to sell a few extra bottles of wine.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - If the Liberals' radical plan to chop people off welfare makes sense, why are they afraid of telling the truth about it?
B.C. is set to become the first province with mandatory time limits on welfare. If the government deems you employable, you will only be allowed to collect welfare for two years in any five-year period. The first people will hit the deadline April 1.
What will that mean? How many people will lose benefits, and what will become of them?
Human Resources Minister Murray Coell won't say.
He has the information. The ministry has built its budget on reducing the number of people on welfare, and plans to cut spending by $200 million next year. It has calculated how many people will hit the time limits.
But it's a secret. On documents obtained under the freedom of information act, the numbers are blanked out.
Coell won't provide the information. Instead he started a recent newspaper column by trashing people who had concerns about the plan. "People who are opposed to this government's time limits policy are really saying that they are in favour of 'welfare forever' for individuals who can work," the minister wrote.
It was bad enough when Coell talked such rubbish as he avoided questions in the legislature. We're used to such foolishness here. But it's insulting to be told that if you don't unquestioningly follow the Liberal line you're some sort of crazed spendthrift who wants to see people on welfare.
In fact there are important, legitimate questions about the Liberals' radical policy. Some leaked documents suggest 29,000 people will lose benefits, about half the welfare recipients deemed employable.
The government should provide its estimates. It should say how many people it expects to find work, and how many will leave the province. It should reveal how many will be be forced into homelessness.
And it should explain what will happen to a single parent who has received welfare for two years, is hired and then thrown out of work when the business closes. With no welfare or employment insurance, and no savings, what will become of her family while she seeks a new job?
Provinces, including B.C. under the NDP, have made welfare tougher to get. They have used a combination of incentives, job training and punitive measures to push people into the workforce.
That's a good thing. Welfare is a terrible and destructive way to live. Escaping - even for children growing up as welfare's next generation - is hugely difficult. Coell can take pride in successfully reducing the number of people on welfare since the election.
But the public needs straight answers about the coming time limits. Across Canada, if you can't find work and have no money, then you are helped. But now in B.C., if you use up your two years, then you fend for yourself. (Many recipients are exempted, including those with disabilities or multiple barriers to employment. If you have very young children, you won't be cut off, but benefits will be reduced.)
Coell says people who want jobs will be able to get them. The government is spending $75 million a year on job placement and training, he says, and contract agencies have 10,000 jobs waiting for welfare recipients.
Critics say the move will result in serious hardship. With a weak economy, unemployment over nine per cent and some 200,000 people already looking for work, job prospects are bleak for unskilled welfare recipients.
If the Liberals have a sound plan, based on realistic projections and an accurate assessment of the job market, they should come clean. Coell should explain where the needed jobs will come from, and who will be affected and how.
The fact that he is hiding the truth from the public raises serious doubts about whether the Liberal plan makes sense.
Footnote: About 20,000 people have moved from work to welfare in the first 28 months of the Liberal tenure, Coell says. That raises new questions about the likelihood that a greater number can find work in the coming 12 months. Communities and social agencies need to know how big the impact will be when the new rules kick in.
Join the campaign for bring-your-own wine
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, enough with the life-and-death matters of government, of tax cuts and health care and welfare.
Why can't we take our own bottle of wine to a local restaurant for dinner?
Albertans can, as of this week. The government looked at its liquor regulations and realized it was none of the state's business whether people could bring a bottle of wine into a restaurant.
The decision should be up to the restaurant owner, and the diner. There's no need for government red tape to set the rules, Alberta's Conservative government decided this month.
So tonight in Red Deer someone is going to stroll into their neighbourhood restaurant with a $9 bottle of B.C. red tucked under her arm, order a steak sandwich, and enjoy a dandy, low-cost meal. Here, that same bottle of wine will cost $20 or more.
Why not free choice for restaurant owner and diner here, in the land of deregulation, where red tape is to be pruned like so much ugly, tangled growth choking the life out of us?
That's your fault.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman is the man in charge of liquor regulations in the province. There doesn't seem to be any big public policy question involved, he says. Nobody has raised the BYOW issue, he says, so he hasn't given any thought to the idea of allowing British Columbians the freedom to bring their favourite wine to dinner out.
So let's raise it.
There's not a single legitimate argument to justify a role for government in dictating that outside wine is some toxic substance in restaurants, while a bottle plucked from a fat wine list is OK.
Many restaurants won't be keen on the change. Wine is an important profit centre, bringing in up to 20 per cent of revenue for full-service restaurants. Restaurants generally sell it for twice as much as the liquor store cost. Since there's no preparation, that's a tidy profit. Take that away, and food prices may rise, restaurants warn.
Maybe. But perhaps restaurants would find themselves just a little busier if dinner for two cost $25, not $50, because people would eat out more. Maybe those empty tables would be full, and the extra business would more than cover the lost wine revenue.
Or maybe not. But surely that's not government's problem. If I want to take a bottle of wine to dinner, and the people around the corner at Wonder Wok think that's OK, there's no reason the government should be bossing us around.
It's important to remember that the changes in Alberta don't force restaurants to let people bring in wine. The owner gets to decide. If owners value the mark-up, or think it important that the servers pair the right wines with different foods, they can just say no to outside wine.
But if they don't want to stock a wine cellar, or think more people would come if they could BYOW, then they can say yes. So far, many Alberta restaurants have made that decision. (Restaurants can charge a corkage fee for opening the bottle and providing the glasses.)
Alberta's not breaking new ground. Quebec restaurants have the option of having a wine list or letting customers bring their own. A whole segment of moderately priced, casual bring-your-own restaurants has sprung up.
But Alberta is going further, allowing restaurants to choose to serve their own wine while welcoming customers who bring their own. (Most U.S. states and many countries take the same approach.)
Restaurants and their customers get freedom of choice, wine stores pick up some more business, and red tape gets shredded. No wonder the Alberta government embraced the policy.
And surely the B.C. government would too, being just as ardent exponents of choice and free markets.
That leaves it up to you. Want the right to bring that special bottle to your anniversary dinner at the Club Cafe?
Tell Rich Coleman, and your MLA.
Footnote: Giving restaurants and diners freedom of choice would also be a nice gesture to the people who spent money planning and building private liquor stores believing the government was serious about getting out of the business. Now that the Liberals have abandoned that plan, the owners could use the chance to sell a few extra bottles of wine.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
The old Campbell would have seen a conflict question
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - First day back in the legislature, and NDP leader Joy MacPhail raised what seemed to be a pretty good question.
As the Liberals were hard at work on their energy plan last year, they decided to hire some expert outside help to present it to the public. They turned - as the NDP had in the past - to National Public Relations' Vancouver office, and signed a $22,000 contract with Marcia Smith.
No harm there. In a perfect world governments would be able to handle these kind of things with the large gang of people on staff who charged with communicating with us. But in a perfect world I'd be smarter, too.
However only days before Energy Minister Richard Neufeld's department hired Smith, she had registered as a provincial lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Energy.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? There's not many people about to organize a counter group, the citizens for irresponsible energy.
But the coalition would be more accurately labelled the Canadian coalition of businesses worried about getting hurt by the Kyoto Accord, especially the oil and gas and coal industries. (There is no shame in being in that group; many good questions remain about the accord's approach to reducing greenhouse gases.)
Now those two jobs would strike many people as a problem. Smith was working for a special interest group to make sure it's anti-Kyoto Accord message was heard by the Liberal government. And then she's hired - at the same time - by the same government to develop a plan to explain their new energy policy to the public and stakeholders.
If it's me, and I'm sitting in my office on a grey Sunday morning putting the finishing touches on the communications plan, I'm going to wonder - did I add this sentence because it's the best for the government, or best for the companies that I'm lobbying for?
And even if I'm sure I've kept the roles separate, I'm going to wonder how this would look.
Neufeld ignored the questions, just filled in the time with a lot of blather about how great the Liberals are and how bad the New Democrats were. If you asked your kid a simple question and they answered with a lot of self-serving irrelevancies and ignored the real issue entirely, you'd wonder where you'd gone wrong. In Question Period, it's par for the course.
But an hour later Premier Gordon Campbell did a rare session with reporters in the waiting room outside his office and faced the issue.
He didn't see a problem, the premier said.
But couldn't the public wonder at the impartiality of a consultant drafting a plan to emphasize some parts of the energy policy and downplay others, who was also being paid to influence government energy policy? Couldn't it make people nervous to know that a person registered to lobby for an industry group was getting an advance look at the policy?
No, said the premier, and anyway the lobbying was about the Kyoto Accord, not energy.
But surely the province couldn't have developed an energy policy without considering the Kyoto Accord?
"Absolutely," said Campbell. Kyoto didn't even figure in the energy policy.
Anyway, he added, it's not the government's problem. The contract says it's up to the consultant to tell the government of any potential conflicts. The government is clean.
Here's how to figure out who's right, Campbell or MacPhail.
Cast your mind back a few years, and imagine it came to light that the NDP government had hired a consultant to help launch a new labour law policy. And imagine that it turned out the same consultant was being paid to lobby on behalf of the a group of big unions on the same issue.
I'm guessing Gordon Campbell would have found something wrong about that.
Footnote: Give the Liberals full credit in one area. The issue arose because they passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and disclose who they're working for, on what issues and who they're contacting in government. The lobbyist registry was an important step forward in accountability and openness, and the government deserves full marks for putting it in place.
Who sent a Canadian citizen to a Syrian jail?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A Canadian citizen is snatched by U.S. police while changing planes in New York. The Americans send him to Jordan, then Syria, against his will. He spends a year in jail without being charged, facing a secret trial. Then he's returned to Canada without explanation.
And our government, the people who are supposed to be protecting Canadians from abuse, wants to keep the circumstances -- including its role -- a deep, dark secret.
Maher Arar was on his way back to his Ottawa home from a Tunisian holiday when he was arrested in New York and sent to the Mideast. American police or the CIA apparently considered him a suspected terrorist.
But what's supposed to happen in such cases that the Americans can either hold a suspect, if they have charges, or deport him to Canada.
So why was Arar, a software engineer, sent to Syria, locked up for a year and separated from his wife and two young children without any charge? What role did the Canadian government and the RCMP play in the affair? And now that he's released -- having missed a year of his childrens' lives while languishing in a Syrian jail -- what justification was there for the snatching of a Canadian citizen by three foreign governments?
None of your business, says the federal government. He's back in one piece, so just drop it. (I'm paraphrasing.)
It's not just Arar who wants answers. MPs from all parties have been trying to find out how and why this happened, and what role the Canadian government played.
They especially want to know whether the RCMP set Arar up, sharing intelligence with the U.S. that led to his imprisonment. (But not to any supportable charges.)
That seems a reasonable question.
But Solicitor General Wayne Easter won't answer the MPs' questions. "Aren't you as mad as a wet hen that [United States officials] took a Canadian citizen and sent him to a Syrian gulag?" Liberal MP John Harvard demanded at a foreign affairs committee meeting this week.
Easter isn't mad. He stonewalled the committee. Discussing RCMP operational matters could compromise continuing investigations, he said. That's the same non-answer RCMP assistant commissioner Richard Proulx tried when he appeared before the committee.
MPs -- again, including Liberal MPs -- wanted to know what role the RCMP played in the arrest and whether they had told the Americans to grab Arar and send him to a Mideast jail. Proulx wouldn't answer. I'm the police, you're just MPs. Beat it. (I'm paraphrasing again.)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien said pretty much the same thing. "Every time that we have a problem in government we cannot have an inquiry on everything," he said.
A problem in government? A Canadian citizen is snatched and transported to Syria against his will, with no charges and no hearing, no access to a lawyer. He's questioned by the CIA, and his own government is denied access to him.
The rule of international law, and basic principles of human rights, were tossed aside.
Canadians deserve answers. Did the RCMP play a role in Arar's detention by the U.S.? They won't say, but the Americans say they grabbed Arar because of information provided by Canadian police.
Did the Canadian government play a role in having Arar sent to Syria -- the country he left 17 years ago as a teen? Was there an attempt to get around Canadian law, where some evidence is required before a person is arrested, by conspiring with the U.S. and Syria?
MPs from all parties haven't been able to get the answers to those questions, stonewalled by police and federal ministers.
The only solution left is a full, independent inquiry.
Our laws hold us all responsible for our actions. They are also intended to protect us from abuse by our governments.
Canadians need to know whether the government decided a citizen's rights didn't matter in this case.
Footnote: The Arar case also highlights the drift in Ottawa, where Chretien and Paul Martin are both acting like prime ministers, with the result that neither is really accountable for the decisions now being made. Chretien's desire to stay in power until February looks increasingly destructive.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - First day back in the legislature, and NDP leader Joy MacPhail raised what seemed to be a pretty good question.
As the Liberals were hard at work on their energy plan last year, they decided to hire some expert outside help to present it to the public. They turned - as the NDP had in the past - to National Public Relations' Vancouver office, and signed a $22,000 contract with Marcia Smith.
No harm there. In a perfect world governments would be able to handle these kind of things with the large gang of people on staff who charged with communicating with us. But in a perfect world I'd be smarter, too.
However only days before Energy Minister Richard Neufeld's department hired Smith, she had registered as a provincial lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Energy.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? There's not many people about to organize a counter group, the citizens for irresponsible energy.
But the coalition would be more accurately labelled the Canadian coalition of businesses worried about getting hurt by the Kyoto Accord, especially the oil and gas and coal industries. (There is no shame in being in that group; many good questions remain about the accord's approach to reducing greenhouse gases.)
Now those two jobs would strike many people as a problem. Smith was working for a special interest group to make sure it's anti-Kyoto Accord message was heard by the Liberal government. And then she's hired - at the same time - by the same government to develop a plan to explain their new energy policy to the public and stakeholders.
If it's me, and I'm sitting in my office on a grey Sunday morning putting the finishing touches on the communications plan, I'm going to wonder - did I add this sentence because it's the best for the government, or best for the companies that I'm lobbying for?
And even if I'm sure I've kept the roles separate, I'm going to wonder how this would look.
Neufeld ignored the questions, just filled in the time with a lot of blather about how great the Liberals are and how bad the New Democrats were. If you asked your kid a simple question and they answered with a lot of self-serving irrelevancies and ignored the real issue entirely, you'd wonder where you'd gone wrong. In Question Period, it's par for the course.
But an hour later Premier Gordon Campbell did a rare session with reporters in the waiting room outside his office and faced the issue.
He didn't see a problem, the premier said.
But couldn't the public wonder at the impartiality of a consultant drafting a plan to emphasize some parts of the energy policy and downplay others, who was also being paid to influence government energy policy? Couldn't it make people nervous to know that a person registered to lobby for an industry group was getting an advance look at the policy?
No, said the premier, and anyway the lobbying was about the Kyoto Accord, not energy.
But surely the province couldn't have developed an energy policy without considering the Kyoto Accord?
"Absolutely," said Campbell. Kyoto didn't even figure in the energy policy.
Anyway, he added, it's not the government's problem. The contract says it's up to the consultant to tell the government of any potential conflicts. The government is clean.
Here's how to figure out who's right, Campbell or MacPhail.
Cast your mind back a few years, and imagine it came to light that the NDP government had hired a consultant to help launch a new labour law policy. And imagine that it turned out the same consultant was being paid to lobby on behalf of the a group of big unions on the same issue.
I'm guessing Gordon Campbell would have found something wrong about that.
Footnote: Give the Liberals full credit in one area. The issue arose because they passed a law requiring lobbyists to register and disclose who they're working for, on what issues and who they're contacting in government. The lobbyist registry was an important step forward in accountability and openness, and the government deserves full marks for putting it in place.
Who sent a Canadian citizen to a Syrian jail?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - A Canadian citizen is snatched by U.S. police while changing planes in New York. The Americans send him to Jordan, then Syria, against his will. He spends a year in jail without being charged, facing a secret trial. Then he's returned to Canada without explanation.
And our government, the people who are supposed to be protecting Canadians from abuse, wants to keep the circumstances -- including its role -- a deep, dark secret.
Maher Arar was on his way back to his Ottawa home from a Tunisian holiday when he was arrested in New York and sent to the Mideast. American police or the CIA apparently considered him a suspected terrorist.
But what's supposed to happen in such cases that the Americans can either hold a suspect, if they have charges, or deport him to Canada.
So why was Arar, a software engineer, sent to Syria, locked up for a year and separated from his wife and two young children without any charge? What role did the Canadian government and the RCMP play in the affair? And now that he's released -- having missed a year of his childrens' lives while languishing in a Syrian jail -- what justification was there for the snatching of a Canadian citizen by three foreign governments?
None of your business, says the federal government. He's back in one piece, so just drop it. (I'm paraphrasing.)
It's not just Arar who wants answers. MPs from all parties have been trying to find out how and why this happened, and what role the Canadian government played.
They especially want to know whether the RCMP set Arar up, sharing intelligence with the U.S. that led to his imprisonment. (But not to any supportable charges.)
That seems a reasonable question.
But Solicitor General Wayne Easter won't answer the MPs' questions. "Aren't you as mad as a wet hen that [United States officials] took a Canadian citizen and sent him to a Syrian gulag?" Liberal MP John Harvard demanded at a foreign affairs committee meeting this week.
Easter isn't mad. He stonewalled the committee. Discussing RCMP operational matters could compromise continuing investigations, he said. That's the same non-answer RCMP assistant commissioner Richard Proulx tried when he appeared before the committee.
MPs -- again, including Liberal MPs -- wanted to know what role the RCMP played in the arrest and whether they had told the Americans to grab Arar and send him to a Mideast jail. Proulx wouldn't answer. I'm the police, you're just MPs. Beat it. (I'm paraphrasing again.)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien said pretty much the same thing. "Every time that we have a problem in government we cannot have an inquiry on everything," he said.
A problem in government? A Canadian citizen is snatched and transported to Syria against his will, with no charges and no hearing, no access to a lawyer. He's questioned by the CIA, and his own government is denied access to him.
The rule of international law, and basic principles of human rights, were tossed aside.
Canadians deserve answers. Did the RCMP play a role in Arar's detention by the U.S.? They won't say, but the Americans say they grabbed Arar because of information provided by Canadian police.
Did the Canadian government play a role in having Arar sent to Syria -- the country he left 17 years ago as a teen? Was there an attempt to get around Canadian law, where some evidence is required before a person is arrested, by conspiring with the U.S. and Syria?
MPs from all parties haven't been able to get the answers to those questions, stonewalled by police and federal ministers.
The only solution left is a full, independent inquiry.
Our laws hold us all responsible for our actions. They are also intended to protect us from abuse by our governments.
Canadians need to know whether the government decided a citizen's rights didn't matter in this case.
Footnote: The Arar case also highlights the drift in Ottawa, where Chretien and Paul Martin are both acting like prime ministers, with the result that neither is really accountable for the decisions now being made. Chretien's desire to stay in power until February looks increasingly destructive.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
BC Liberals, NDP get warning from Ontario vote
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Both the NDP and the Liberals in B.C. could take a lesson from the Ontario election.
Voters turfed out the Conservative party, choosing to place spending on health, education and infrastructure ahead of tax cuts.
The Ontario Conservatives have been frequently cited as an example of how things should be done by the Campbell Liberals. Mike Harris took power promising a "common sense revolution," which would include big tax cuts and spending reductions.
Eight years later, his party is gone.
There's lots of factors - this is, after all, Canadian politics. Harris was succeeded by Ernie Eves, who was unable to convince voters he was equipped to lead. The Conservatives bungled some critical issues, like power deregulation and privatization.
But the debate over tax cuts, and the kind of society people wanted, was central to the campaign. The Conservatives went to the voters promising more tax cuts - a reduction of corporate tax worth about $550 million, savings for seniors and homeowners and people who send their kids to private schools.
It was a similar message to their promises in the last two elections, based on the same premise - that tax cuts will boost the economy, and that voters' priority is on keeping money in their own wallets.
It didn't work.
That doesn't mean that voters don't like saving money. But the Liberals successfully argued that public spending isn't bad, if it is used to deliver needed services in an effective way.
And they found a receptive audience. For the past couple of years there has been a growing sense in Ontario that the things that residents were once proud of - quality health care, good public schools, parks, clean cities, opportunities for children - were deteriorating. Talk to Ontario residents, or read their papers, and you heard of mounting concern about health care waiting lists. People noted that schools - once well-maintained and a centre of community pride - were now dirty, with scruffy yards and unpainted buildings, because there wasn't enough money.
They simply decided that they were willing to pay taxes to see those services maintained. And they didn't buy the argument that further tax cuts would generate any economic benefits. The Conservatives dropped from 59 seats to 24; the Liberals went from 35 to 72.
It's an important lesson for the BC Liberals.
The Campbell government's focus is firmly on cutting spending. The government needs to cut more than $850 million from this year's programs to meet the goal of a balanced budget by next year. And they are in a tight enough bind that the quality and value of services matters much less than the arbitrary budget deadline.
And that is the kind of government that Ontario voters rejected.
But the BC NDP, as they head toward a leadership convention next month, can also learn from Ontario.
Voters didn't take the NDP seriously or believe that the party had a credible plan for governing. The Ontario New Democrats focused on public ownership of power generation as a key issue. It wasn't enough for voters, who elected only seven MLAs - not enough for official party status in the larger legislature. (Barely a decade ago Ontario had an NDP government. The party's descent to fringe status is quite remarkable.)
The bottom line lesson is that the voters wanted a balanced government. They rejected the tax cuts before people policies of the Conservatives. And they rejected the NDP's record of bad management.
Instead they elected a government that pledged to improve schools and health care and strengthen communities, and promised to do that without major tax increases or deficits. Voters rejected the notion that tax cuts are more important than the quality of services.
The situation is different here. There is no centrist party at this point, just two choices occupying their own far sides of the spectrum.
But parties have a way of emerging, when there's a political vacuum to fill.
Footnote: The Ontario Liberals - like the Campbell government - are committed to a referendum on electoral reform. They received fewer than half the votes, but ended up with 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives captured a third of the vote, but elected fewer than one-quarter of the MLAs.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Both the NDP and the Liberals in B.C. could take a lesson from the Ontario election.
Voters turfed out the Conservative party, choosing to place spending on health, education and infrastructure ahead of tax cuts.
The Ontario Conservatives have been frequently cited as an example of how things should be done by the Campbell Liberals. Mike Harris took power promising a "common sense revolution," which would include big tax cuts and spending reductions.
Eight years later, his party is gone.
There's lots of factors - this is, after all, Canadian politics. Harris was succeeded by Ernie Eves, who was unable to convince voters he was equipped to lead. The Conservatives bungled some critical issues, like power deregulation and privatization.
But the debate over tax cuts, and the kind of society people wanted, was central to the campaign. The Conservatives went to the voters promising more tax cuts - a reduction of corporate tax worth about $550 million, savings for seniors and homeowners and people who send their kids to private schools.
It was a similar message to their promises in the last two elections, based on the same premise - that tax cuts will boost the economy, and that voters' priority is on keeping money in their own wallets.
It didn't work.
That doesn't mean that voters don't like saving money. But the Liberals successfully argued that public spending isn't bad, if it is used to deliver needed services in an effective way.
And they found a receptive audience. For the past couple of years there has been a growing sense in Ontario that the things that residents were once proud of - quality health care, good public schools, parks, clean cities, opportunities for children - were deteriorating. Talk to Ontario residents, or read their papers, and you heard of mounting concern about health care waiting lists. People noted that schools - once well-maintained and a centre of community pride - were now dirty, with scruffy yards and unpainted buildings, because there wasn't enough money.
They simply decided that they were willing to pay taxes to see those services maintained. And they didn't buy the argument that further tax cuts would generate any economic benefits. The Conservatives dropped from 59 seats to 24; the Liberals went from 35 to 72.
It's an important lesson for the BC Liberals.
The Campbell government's focus is firmly on cutting spending. The government needs to cut more than $850 million from this year's programs to meet the goal of a balanced budget by next year. And they are in a tight enough bind that the quality and value of services matters much less than the arbitrary budget deadline.
And that is the kind of government that Ontario voters rejected.
But the BC NDP, as they head toward a leadership convention next month, can also learn from Ontario.
Voters didn't take the NDP seriously or believe that the party had a credible plan for governing. The Ontario New Democrats focused on public ownership of power generation as a key issue. It wasn't enough for voters, who elected only seven MLAs - not enough for official party status in the larger legislature. (Barely a decade ago Ontario had an NDP government. The party's descent to fringe status is quite remarkable.)
The bottom line lesson is that the voters wanted a balanced government. They rejected the tax cuts before people policies of the Conservatives. And they rejected the NDP's record of bad management.
Instead they elected a government that pledged to improve schools and health care and strengthen communities, and promised to do that without major tax increases or deficits. Voters rejected the notion that tax cuts are more important than the quality of services.
The situation is different here. There is no centrist party at this point, just two choices occupying their own far sides of the spectrum.
But parties have a way of emerging, when there's a political vacuum to fill.
Footnote: The Ontario Liberals - like the Campbell government - are committed to a referendum on electoral reform. They received fewer than half the votes, but ended up with 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives captured a third of the vote, but elected fewer than one-quarter of the MLAs.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Treaty optimism great hope for B.C. economy
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Newish treaty commissioner Mike Harcourt sounds pretty optimistic about the next couple of years.
But let's face it, he's a positive guy. You can't dispute the upbeat credentials of a man who falls down a cliff, almost drowns and then makes an amazing recovery from serious injuries. The former NDP premier is a walking example of the power of positive thinking.
He's right this time. The BC Treaty Commission presented its 10th annual report this week, the most upbeat I've covered. (That's not saying much, of course. The last few years have been gloomy.)
For one thing, there's some real progress this year. Harcourt noted that two agreements in principle have been ratified, and three others are almost there.
OK, it's not exactly a stunning success after 10 years and some $500 million spent on the process. Agreements in principle are a forward step, but they don't address many of the key issues, which have been left for talks on a final agreement.
But in the context of the treaty process, this is cause for celebration.
It's not just the agreements in principle. Harcourt says the parties - the federal government, provincial government and First Nations - are making progress on some of the bigger, tougher issues.
The Liberals' willingness to work towards interim agreements, on everything from revenue sharing to economic development to resource management, is allowing some measure of certainty and progress even when treaty talks are stalled.
And the Liberals - after a shakey start with their ill-advised referendum (ill-advised is column code for dumb) - have provided more resources to negotiators, and a more relaxed set of instructions about what they can do at the table.
We should be celebrating any progress. The lack of treaties is probably the greatest single barrier to economic development in much of the province. The courts have ruled that until they're are treaties, then government and private companies have a duty to engage, consult and accommodate First Nations before undertaking any activities in their traditional areas.
That's possible, of course, But it's all cumbersome and costly, and anyone contemplating a big investment, in a tourism resort or a mine or a mill, will likely look instead to a jurisdiction where the rules are clear and the zoning and regulations in place. Why spend money on planning and negotiations, with no guarantee of a successful outcome?
The treaty commission annual report quotes a 1999 study by Grant Thornton Management Consultants that found signing treaties will be worth something like $4 billion to $5 billion in economic activity, and would result in more than twice as much in new investment.
So it's good news that progress is finally being made.
But don't get too excited, too quickly. Harcourt also warned that a lot can go wrong.
Part of the reason for the recent progress is that the parties just decided to give up on including some of the toughest issues in preliminary agreements, leaving them to be resolved in the talks towards a final treaty. Agreements in principle are sorting out cash and land compensation, and some economic issues. But thorny problems like the extent of First Nations' political independence, compensation for resources taken in the past and certainty still remain.
Harcourt says they can all be dealt with, and some final treaties can be in place within 18 months - if the parties have the political will and determination.
That's a pretty big qualification. All three parties have shown themselves unable to get deals done in the past. First Nations negotiators have signed deals, only to have their communities turn them down.
And it's important to remember that most of the more than 40 negotiating tables are still far from reaching any sort of agreement.
Still, after years of disappointment, there is reason for hope on the treaty front.
And that's worth celebrating by all British Columbians.
Footnote: The commission was critical of provincial and federal governments on a couple of issues. B.C.'s unilateral offer to the Haida - long before treaty talks ahd reached that stage - have disrupted other talks, Harcourt said. And excluding First Nations from a federal-provincial task force on fisheries was a mistake that should be fixed, the commission said.
Desperate Kitimat forced to court over Alcan-Liberal pact
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It all looks rather embarrassing, the way a succession of B.C. governments have messed up their dealings with Alcan over the Kemano power project.
Unless you live in Kitimat, or Terrace. Then it's not embarrassing, it's infuriating.
I followed the Kitimat River into the aluminum town this month, a beautiful drive from Terrace. The town was laid out in the '50s, a planned community built from scratch for Alcan's work force, showcasing the best and worst in town planning of the era.
But Kitimat's got worries. About one in 10 residents have left the community in the last five years. That exodus - along with concern about the future of the town's industrial base - has driven down real estate prices and hurt small business. Tax assessments are down 40 per cent, a loss in real estate value that works out to about $20,000 a resident.
And Mayor Richard Wozney and council figure the province is letting a chance to ensure the town's future slip away.
Kitimat was born more than 50 years ago. Alcan wanted a smelter; B.C. wanted jobs in the northwest. So to get Alcan to build the smelter, the provincial government handed over the right to generate power by diverting the headwaters of the Nechako River. The company carved a tunnel through a mountain and sent the water racing to the Pacific, and had itself a dirt-cheap source of power.
The 1950 contract, and legislation authorizing the deal, were clear. The power was to be used to smelt aluminum, or for other industrial enterprises "in the vicinity of the works."
And that's the way it worked for decades.
Then in the 1990s, Alcan was allowed to sell power ' surplus to its needs.'
And in 2001, when the California crisis hit, the company was selling power - very profitably - while operating the smelter at 65 per cent capacity.
That's when people got nervous in Kitimat, and started lobbying the provincial government.
Town manager Trafford Hall says no one is mad at Alcan. The company's loyalty is to shareholders. If it can make more money by shifting aluminum production to Quebec and selling the B.C. power, then that's what it will try and do. The company is just interpreting the contract to its own benefit, pushing a little and setting precedents each time the province doesn't push back, he says.
Alcan sees it differently, arguing that it is not violating the agreements. The ability to sell surplus electricity helps protect the viability of the mill, it says.
And the Liberal government agrees. Attorney General Geoff Plant says government has reviewed all the agreements since 1950, and concluded that Alcan isn't breaking the rules.
Anyway, tangling with the company could be risky, he adds. Alcan filed a massive lawsuit when the NDP cancelled the Kemano Completion Project, which would have increased power production. The NDP and Alcan reached a settlement in 1997, but Alcan kept its option to sue. Pushing the power sale issue could lead to Alcan relaunching its lawsuit, Plant says.
But Plant hasn't provided any legal opinions or analysis to support his claim that the agreement isn't being broken. And it's tough for the community to hear that avoiding a lawsuit - due in part to a previous government's incompetence - means their interests get short shrift.
Lobbying hasn't worked. Now Kitimat is preparing to go to court to argue that the contracts are being broken, the province isn't acting, and a judge should review the entire case.
It shouldn't be necessary. But it's hard to see an alternative. The original agreement with Alcan gave up a valuable public resource in return for a major investment, with a clear requirement that electricity be used to benefit the region.
If some government has quietly changed the deal, the public is owed a clear explanation of when and why.
Footnote: Alcan released an economic study it paid for this month in response to the community's concerns. It warned of continued job losses at the town's big three employers, and said the community needed more entrepreneurs. And, the study added unsurprisingly, everyone should be nicer to Alcan to encourage investment.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Newish treaty commissioner Mike Harcourt sounds pretty optimistic about the next couple of years.
But let's face it, he's a positive guy. You can't dispute the upbeat credentials of a man who falls down a cliff, almost drowns and then makes an amazing recovery from serious injuries. The former NDP premier is a walking example of the power of positive thinking.
He's right this time. The BC Treaty Commission presented its 10th annual report this week, the most upbeat I've covered. (That's not saying much, of course. The last few years have been gloomy.)
For one thing, there's some real progress this year. Harcourt noted that two agreements in principle have been ratified, and three others are almost there.
OK, it's not exactly a stunning success after 10 years and some $500 million spent on the process. Agreements in principle are a forward step, but they don't address many of the key issues, which have been left for talks on a final agreement.
But in the context of the treaty process, this is cause for celebration.
It's not just the agreements in principle. Harcourt says the parties - the federal government, provincial government and First Nations - are making progress on some of the bigger, tougher issues.
The Liberals' willingness to work towards interim agreements, on everything from revenue sharing to economic development to resource management, is allowing some measure of certainty and progress even when treaty talks are stalled.
And the Liberals - after a shakey start with their ill-advised referendum (ill-advised is column code for dumb) - have provided more resources to negotiators, and a more relaxed set of instructions about what they can do at the table.
We should be celebrating any progress. The lack of treaties is probably the greatest single barrier to economic development in much of the province. The courts have ruled that until they're are treaties, then government and private companies have a duty to engage, consult and accommodate First Nations before undertaking any activities in their traditional areas.
That's possible, of course, But it's all cumbersome and costly, and anyone contemplating a big investment, in a tourism resort or a mine or a mill, will likely look instead to a jurisdiction where the rules are clear and the zoning and regulations in place. Why spend money on planning and negotiations, with no guarantee of a successful outcome?
The treaty commission annual report quotes a 1999 study by Grant Thornton Management Consultants that found signing treaties will be worth something like $4 billion to $5 billion in economic activity, and would result in more than twice as much in new investment.
So it's good news that progress is finally being made.
But don't get too excited, too quickly. Harcourt also warned that a lot can go wrong.
Part of the reason for the recent progress is that the parties just decided to give up on including some of the toughest issues in preliminary agreements, leaving them to be resolved in the talks towards a final treaty. Agreements in principle are sorting out cash and land compensation, and some economic issues. But thorny problems like the extent of First Nations' political independence, compensation for resources taken in the past and certainty still remain.
Harcourt says they can all be dealt with, and some final treaties can be in place within 18 months - if the parties have the political will and determination.
That's a pretty big qualification. All three parties have shown themselves unable to get deals done in the past. First Nations negotiators have signed deals, only to have their communities turn them down.
And it's important to remember that most of the more than 40 negotiating tables are still far from reaching any sort of agreement.
Still, after years of disappointment, there is reason for hope on the treaty front.
And that's worth celebrating by all British Columbians.
Footnote: The commission was critical of provincial and federal governments on a couple of issues. B.C.'s unilateral offer to the Haida - long before treaty talks ahd reached that stage - have disrupted other talks, Harcourt said. And excluding First Nations from a federal-provincial task force on fisheries was a mistake that should be fixed, the commission said.
Desperate Kitimat forced to court over Alcan-Liberal pact
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It all looks rather embarrassing, the way a succession of B.C. governments have messed up their dealings with Alcan over the Kemano power project.
Unless you live in Kitimat, or Terrace. Then it's not embarrassing, it's infuriating.
I followed the Kitimat River into the aluminum town this month, a beautiful drive from Terrace. The town was laid out in the '50s, a planned community built from scratch for Alcan's work force, showcasing the best and worst in town planning of the era.
But Kitimat's got worries. About one in 10 residents have left the community in the last five years. That exodus - along with concern about the future of the town's industrial base - has driven down real estate prices and hurt small business. Tax assessments are down 40 per cent, a loss in real estate value that works out to about $20,000 a resident.
And Mayor Richard Wozney and council figure the province is letting a chance to ensure the town's future slip away.
Kitimat was born more than 50 years ago. Alcan wanted a smelter; B.C. wanted jobs in the northwest. So to get Alcan to build the smelter, the provincial government handed over the right to generate power by diverting the headwaters of the Nechako River. The company carved a tunnel through a mountain and sent the water racing to the Pacific, and had itself a dirt-cheap source of power.
The 1950 contract, and legislation authorizing the deal, were clear. The power was to be used to smelt aluminum, or for other industrial enterprises "in the vicinity of the works."
And that's the way it worked for decades.
Then in the 1990s, Alcan was allowed to sell power ' surplus to its needs.'
And in 2001, when the California crisis hit, the company was selling power - very profitably - while operating the smelter at 65 per cent capacity.
That's when people got nervous in Kitimat, and started lobbying the provincial government.
Town manager Trafford Hall says no one is mad at Alcan. The company's loyalty is to shareholders. If it can make more money by shifting aluminum production to Quebec and selling the B.C. power, then that's what it will try and do. The company is just interpreting the contract to its own benefit, pushing a little and setting precedents each time the province doesn't push back, he says.
Alcan sees it differently, arguing that it is not violating the agreements. The ability to sell surplus electricity helps protect the viability of the mill, it says.
And the Liberal government agrees. Attorney General Geoff Plant says government has reviewed all the agreements since 1950, and concluded that Alcan isn't breaking the rules.
Anyway, tangling with the company could be risky, he adds. Alcan filed a massive lawsuit when the NDP cancelled the Kemano Completion Project, which would have increased power production. The NDP and Alcan reached a settlement in 1997, but Alcan kept its option to sue. Pushing the power sale issue could lead to Alcan relaunching its lawsuit, Plant says.
But Plant hasn't provided any legal opinions or analysis to support his claim that the agreement isn't being broken. And it's tough for the community to hear that avoiding a lawsuit - due in part to a previous government's incompetence - means their interests get short shrift.
Lobbying hasn't worked. Now Kitimat is preparing to go to court to argue that the contracts are being broken, the province isn't acting, and a judge should review the entire case.
It shouldn't be necessary. But it's hard to see an alternative. The original agreement with Alcan gave up a valuable public resource in return for a major investment, with a clear requirement that electricity be used to benefit the region.
If some government has quietly changed the deal, the public is owed a clear explanation of when and why.
Footnote: Alcan released an economic study it paid for this month in response to the community's concerns. It warned of continued job losses at the town's big three employers, and said the community needed more entrepreneurs. And, the study added unsurprisingly, everyone should be nicer to Alcan to encourage investment.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Two choices. Adrienne Clarkson and the odd attitude of the province's college of physicians and surgeons. Both 650 words, with footnote to take them to 710 or so.
Cheers
Paul
Clarkson's Great White North tour out of line
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Much that's wrong with this country can be found in Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's million-dollar junket to Russia, Finland and Iceland.
I almost didn't write about the 19-day trip with 59 "talented Canadians." Too easy, I thought. But then some of the usual Upper Canadian suspects started defending the Great White North tour as a modest and reasonable initiative by a charming and stylish governor general.
Modest? The price tag will be more than $1 million, or about $900 per person each day.
The justification for the trip is that Canadians share a bond with other people who live in cold countries, and some good will come of sending some of our smart people to talk to their smart people.
Or, as Clarkson says: "By bringing these talented Canadians to help us represent Canada we will engage Russians, Finns and Icelanders in a vigorous exchange of ideas and culture affirming and strengthening our shared northern identity."
I have no idea what that means. And I certainly don't know how sending failed Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae and his writer wife on a trip to Russia is a worthwhile way to spend your money.
In fact, how the heck can anyone justify a Northern identity junket in which only 10 of 60 people actually live in the North? Almost half the group comes from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal; fully one-quarter come from the remote Northern outpost of Toronto.
I'm sure they're fine folks. But why are you paying so Clarkson can take seven wine experts with her to Finland and Iceland? Why should you send soprano Measha Brueggergosman and architect Howard Sutcliffe off to some nice hotels and fine dinners, when you're probably trying to figure out how to pay for a weekend away?
You may wonder why the politicians are so silent on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're going along. Victoria MP David Anderson is heading a group of senators and MPs going along on the trip. Foreign junkets are a regular perk for MPs who further the cause of world democracy by heading off to some pleasant country for 10 days on your bill.
It's not wrong to send Canadians abroad - if there is a clear, useful purpose, and a justification for the guest list.
But this trip fails the sniff test. Clarkson is taking her spouse, John Ralston Saul. Eight other married couples are on the guest list, adding to the impression the jaunt is as much a holiday as a working trip on behalf of Canada.
It's not a lot of money, in the context of the federal government.
But symbols matter, especially in this case. The role of the Governor General is symbolic, a representative of the Queen who can graciously hand out awards, help communities celebrate milestones and generally make Canadians feel better about who we are.
This trip is also a symbol. Clarkson has picked 60 people much like her - affluent people, largely from the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, mainly from the arts and gentle left. (One Albertan is going along, a composer from Calgary; six British Columbians are on board.) They are heading off on a dream trip, with no clearly articulated purpose, at someone else's expense.
It's not what Canadians expect. And it sends a message that the people in charge in Ottawa don't really care much about what we do expect.
Under Clarkson's hand, the budget for the governor general has climbed from $11 million to almost $19 million. A Parliamentary committee had talked about examining the spending, but Liberal members are shying away.
That's too bad. We don't need witchhunts that seize on big expense accounts and kick the spender around.
But we do need to know that our money is being spent wisely and carefully. The fact that this trip doesn't meet that test justifies a closer look at the governor general's $19 million budget.
Who owes patients protection from bad doctors?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It doesn't feel me with confidence to hear the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons argue that it has no responsibility to protect individual patients from dangerous doctors.
The college agrees it has a role in protecting the public. But not in protecting people, the college argues. Not people like the 19 women who are suing over sexual abuse by a Campbell River doctor.
The 19 women are suing Dr. Mark Stewart, who was sentenced to four years in jail for sexual assaults on patients. They're also suing the college, prepared to argue that the college was recklessly negligent in dealing with past complaints, and that its failures led to the women being abused.
The evidence remains to be heard in court. But before that could happen, the college applied to be dropped from the suit. No professional regulating body had ever been sued in this way, its lawyer argued. Allowing such lawsuits would make it impossible for the college to do its job of regulating the medical profession, and anyway the college is charged with the protection of the public, but isn't responsible for protecting individuals. Even if the college was negligent in dealing with bad or abusive doctors, it's immune from legal action, they argued.
Madame Justice Lynn Smith didn't agree. Requiring the college to act in good faith in dealing with allegations of abuse by doctors doesn't compromise its ability to protect the public and the rights of doctors.
You could suggest, I suppose, that this is an other one of those cases of judicial activism that people like to grumble about. If it is, it's a case to be celebrated.
It doesn't seem too much to expect, that the college - which has all the authority for regulating doctors, and hearing complaints - would accept responsibility for the job it's doing.
The ruling - and the college's argument its role doesn't include protecting patients - brought to mind a report earlier this year by provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner.
Looking at 10 years of investigations into complaints about the college and other professional regulatory bodies, he said they often just don't get it.
"They still believe, perhaps because it is the members who elect the governors and pay for the colleges' operations, that the colleges are primarily there to protect the interests of the members."
That's an especially alarming because the Liberals have chopped the Ombudsman's budget. The office will no longer be able to investigate complaints about how the colleges do their jobs, Kushner reported.
And the case also brought to mind the government's readiness to blow up the College of Teachers, arguing that it had paid too much attention to the concerns of its members and not enough to the need to serve students. (A legitimate criticism, and one that required action - although not such extreme action as the government's radical overhaul.
The college is taking steps to improve its work in protecting patients. The college announced earlier this year that it will set up a web site to allow patients to see the doctor they are considering visiting has faced disciplinary action in the past, and what for. (The college sends out news releases of disciplinary decisions right now, but it remains difficult for most patients to get the information.)
It's a laudable idea, one that gives patients information they should have.
But it also comes six years after the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons provided the same service to patients in that province.
The court case should raise renewed concerns about the cuts to the Ombudsman's budget, and the college's view of its role.
When the college regulating doctors doesn't even see that it has a responsibility to individual patients, then the public needs a watchdog.
And at the same time, we owe a debt to the courts for insisting that the college face up to its responsibilities to patients.
Footnote: The plan to take over the college of teachers has run into a snag, as thousands of teachers threaten to withhold the membership fees that support the organization. If you're not a member, you can't legally teach in B.C., but school districts can hardly fire protesters if numbers are too great.
Cheers
Paul
Clarkson's Great White North tour out of line
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Much that's wrong with this country can be found in Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson's million-dollar junket to Russia, Finland and Iceland.
I almost didn't write about the 19-day trip with 59 "talented Canadians." Too easy, I thought. But then some of the usual Upper Canadian suspects started defending the Great White North tour as a modest and reasonable initiative by a charming and stylish governor general.
Modest? The price tag will be more than $1 million, or about $900 per person each day.
The justification for the trip is that Canadians share a bond with other people who live in cold countries, and some good will come of sending some of our smart people to talk to their smart people.
Or, as Clarkson says: "By bringing these talented Canadians to help us represent Canada we will engage Russians, Finns and Icelanders in a vigorous exchange of ideas and culture affirming and strengthening our shared northern identity."
I have no idea what that means. And I certainly don't know how sending failed Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae and his writer wife on a trip to Russia is a worthwhile way to spend your money.
In fact, how the heck can anyone justify a Northern identity junket in which only 10 of 60 people actually live in the North? Almost half the group comes from Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal; fully one-quarter come from the remote Northern outpost of Toronto.
I'm sure they're fine folks. But why are you paying so Clarkson can take seven wine experts with her to Finland and Iceland? Why should you send soprano Measha Brueggergosman and architect Howard Sutcliffe off to some nice hotels and fine dinners, when you're probably trying to figure out how to pay for a weekend away?
You may wonder why the politicians are so silent on this issue. Perhaps it's because they're going along. Victoria MP David Anderson is heading a group of senators and MPs going along on the trip. Foreign junkets are a regular perk for MPs who further the cause of world democracy by heading off to some pleasant country for 10 days on your bill.
It's not wrong to send Canadians abroad - if there is a clear, useful purpose, and a justification for the guest list.
But this trip fails the sniff test. Clarkson is taking her spouse, John Ralston Saul. Eight other married couples are on the guest list, adding to the impression the jaunt is as much a holiday as a working trip on behalf of Canada.
It's not a lot of money, in the context of the federal government.
But symbols matter, especially in this case. The role of the Governor General is symbolic, a representative of the Queen who can graciously hand out awards, help communities celebrate milestones and generally make Canadians feel better about who we are.
This trip is also a symbol. Clarkson has picked 60 people much like her - affluent people, largely from the Toronto-Ottawa corridor, mainly from the arts and gentle left. (One Albertan is going along, a composer from Calgary; six British Columbians are on board.) They are heading off on a dream trip, with no clearly articulated purpose, at someone else's expense.
It's not what Canadians expect. And it sends a message that the people in charge in Ottawa don't really care much about what we do expect.
Under Clarkson's hand, the budget for the governor general has climbed from $11 million to almost $19 million. A Parliamentary committee had talked about examining the spending, but Liberal members are shying away.
That's too bad. We don't need witchhunts that seize on big expense accounts and kick the spender around.
But we do need to know that our money is being spent wisely and carefully. The fact that this trip doesn't meet that test justifies a closer look at the governor general's $19 million budget.
Who owes patients protection from bad doctors?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - It doesn't feel me with confidence to hear the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons argue that it has no responsibility to protect individual patients from dangerous doctors.
The college agrees it has a role in protecting the public. But not in protecting people, the college argues. Not people like the 19 women who are suing over sexual abuse by a Campbell River doctor.
The 19 women are suing Dr. Mark Stewart, who was sentenced to four years in jail for sexual assaults on patients. They're also suing the college, prepared to argue that the college was recklessly negligent in dealing with past complaints, and that its failures led to the women being abused.
The evidence remains to be heard in court. But before that could happen, the college applied to be dropped from the suit. No professional regulating body had ever been sued in this way, its lawyer argued. Allowing such lawsuits would make it impossible for the college to do its job of regulating the medical profession, and anyway the college is charged with the protection of the public, but isn't responsible for protecting individuals. Even if the college was negligent in dealing with bad or abusive doctors, it's immune from legal action, they argued.
Madame Justice Lynn Smith didn't agree. Requiring the college to act in good faith in dealing with allegations of abuse by doctors doesn't compromise its ability to protect the public and the rights of doctors.
You could suggest, I suppose, that this is an other one of those cases of judicial activism that people like to grumble about. If it is, it's a case to be celebrated.
It doesn't seem too much to expect, that the college - which has all the authority for regulating doctors, and hearing complaints - would accept responsibility for the job it's doing.
The ruling - and the college's argument its role doesn't include protecting patients - brought to mind a report earlier this year by provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner.
Looking at 10 years of investigations into complaints about the college and other professional regulatory bodies, he said they often just don't get it.
"They still believe, perhaps because it is the members who elect the governors and pay for the colleges' operations, that the colleges are primarily there to protect the interests of the members."
That's an especially alarming because the Liberals have chopped the Ombudsman's budget. The office will no longer be able to investigate complaints about how the colleges do their jobs, Kushner reported.
And the case also brought to mind the government's readiness to blow up the College of Teachers, arguing that it had paid too much attention to the concerns of its members and not enough to the need to serve students. (A legitimate criticism, and one that required action - although not such extreme action as the government's radical overhaul.
The college is taking steps to improve its work in protecting patients. The college announced earlier this year that it will set up a web site to allow patients to see the doctor they are considering visiting has faced disciplinary action in the past, and what for. (The college sends out news releases of disciplinary decisions right now, but it remains difficult for most patients to get the information.)
It's a laudable idea, one that gives patients information they should have.
But it also comes six years after the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons provided the same service to patients in that province.
The court case should raise renewed concerns about the cuts to the Ombudsman's budget, and the college's view of its role.
When the college regulating doctors doesn't even see that it has a responsibility to individual patients, then the public needs a watchdog.
And at the same time, we owe a debt to the courts for insisting that the college face up to its responsibilities to patients.
Footnote: The plan to take over the college of teachers has run into a snag, as thousands of teachers threaten to withhold the membership fees that support the organization. If you're not a member, you can't legally teach in B.C., but school districts can hardly fire protesters if numbers are too great.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Collins' gloomy economic forecast should make you nervous
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - As the boss, you should be a little worried about Gary Collins' first quarter financial report.
After all, you write the cheques. When the finance minister shows up to report on the progress for the first three months of this budget year, it's your approval he needs.
In a past corporate life I used to go through this process, both as a presenter, putting the best face on often ugly news, and as an audience, waiting to see how much confidence I could have in the brave plans of managers.
I wouldn't be calling in the outplacement counsellors to help Collins pursue other interests yet. But it is time to get nervous.
Too many things have gone wrong. The Liberals knocked down their forecast for economic growth this year and next when they presented the latest update. The economy is now expected to grow 1.5 per cent this year, down from the 2.4 per cent the government predicted back in February. B.C. will have the worst performing economy in Canada.
There has been a ton of bad luck - SARS and mad cow scares, a soaring dollar, and of course the softwood dispute.
But the prolonged softwood shouldn't have been a shock. And other provinces have confronted many of the same issues, and done better than B.C.
And anyway, you don't hire managers to tell you that things have gone wrong - well, except for accountants - you hire them to fix things.
Here are three things that should concern you in Collins' report.
First, and most importantly, the government's economic measures are not producing results. The New Era of prosperity isn't here, and the government's own projections have B.C. limping along at the Canadian average through 2007. Politicians can cherry pick statistics and trot out all the upbeat anecdotes they like. The fact is that the B.C. is under-performing.
Second, the prospects for a quick recovery look slim. The first quarter reforecast knocked personal income tax revenues down from budget, because we aren't earning as much. And it says the shortfalls will be greater over the following two years. The same pattern is true for sales tax. We don't have the money to spend the Liberals expected.
And third, the Liberals' promise to bring in a balanced budget in six months is looking risky.
They'll make it. Give Collins credit - he has hit all his targets so far, and there's no reason to doubt him when he says he'll hit this one. But missing the target isn't the only risk.
The government's plan called for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. But that included a $500-million cushion, and before the forest fires a real deficit that was up to $1 billion lower was likely.
Not now. Moving from a $2.3-billion deficit to a balanced budget in one jump will require a big jump in revenues, or a sharp decline in expenses. The plan calls for revenue to jump by $1 billion next year, a steep but doable target.
The Liberals also want to cut spending by $850 million. Every ministry, outside health and education, must spend less than it did this year. Even the solicitor general's ministry, concerned with safety and emergency preparedness, faces a 20-per-cent cut.
Even hitting those targets leaves the government with a razor-thin surplus, and no cushion for emergencies like this year's $500 million forecast allowance.
It can be done. But the danger is that the poor economic performance - the Liberals' original plans predicted much higher growth and revenues - are going to force dangerous cuts, made not because they make sense but because an artificial political deadline looms.
You're the boss. It might be time to congratulate the finance minister on managing to the budget. But it also might be time to note the lack of real results.
After all, that's what managers get paid for.
Footnote: The Vancouver missing women's case has now cost you something like $40 million. The investigation - mostly at the Pickton farm - will cost $26 million this year, on top of more than $10 million last year. Trial costs are expected to reach another $4 million this year. How much would it have cost to keep them alive, instead of sifting through dirt to learn about their deaths?
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - As the boss, you should be a little worried about Gary Collins' first quarter financial report.
After all, you write the cheques. When the finance minister shows up to report on the progress for the first three months of this budget year, it's your approval he needs.
In a past corporate life I used to go through this process, both as a presenter, putting the best face on often ugly news, and as an audience, waiting to see how much confidence I could have in the brave plans of managers.
I wouldn't be calling in the outplacement counsellors to help Collins pursue other interests yet. But it is time to get nervous.
Too many things have gone wrong. The Liberals knocked down their forecast for economic growth this year and next when they presented the latest update. The economy is now expected to grow 1.5 per cent this year, down from the 2.4 per cent the government predicted back in February. B.C. will have the worst performing economy in Canada.
There has been a ton of bad luck - SARS and mad cow scares, a soaring dollar, and of course the softwood dispute.
But the prolonged softwood shouldn't have been a shock. And other provinces have confronted many of the same issues, and done better than B.C.
And anyway, you don't hire managers to tell you that things have gone wrong - well, except for accountants - you hire them to fix things.
Here are three things that should concern you in Collins' report.
First, and most importantly, the government's economic measures are not producing results. The New Era of prosperity isn't here, and the government's own projections have B.C. limping along at the Canadian average through 2007. Politicians can cherry pick statistics and trot out all the upbeat anecdotes they like. The fact is that the B.C. is under-performing.
Second, the prospects for a quick recovery look slim. The first quarter reforecast knocked personal income tax revenues down from budget, because we aren't earning as much. And it says the shortfalls will be greater over the following two years. The same pattern is true for sales tax. We don't have the money to spend the Liberals expected.
And third, the Liberals' promise to bring in a balanced budget in six months is looking risky.
They'll make it. Give Collins credit - he has hit all his targets so far, and there's no reason to doubt him when he says he'll hit this one. But missing the target isn't the only risk.
The government's plan called for a $2.3-billion deficit this year. But that included a $500-million cushion, and before the forest fires a real deficit that was up to $1 billion lower was likely.
Not now. Moving from a $2.3-billion deficit to a balanced budget in one jump will require a big jump in revenues, or a sharp decline in expenses. The plan calls for revenue to jump by $1 billion next year, a steep but doable target.
The Liberals also want to cut spending by $850 million. Every ministry, outside health and education, must spend less than it did this year. Even the solicitor general's ministry, concerned with safety and emergency preparedness, faces a 20-per-cent cut.
Even hitting those targets leaves the government with a razor-thin surplus, and no cushion for emergencies like this year's $500 million forecast allowance.
It can be done. But the danger is that the poor economic performance - the Liberals' original plans predicted much higher growth and revenues - are going to force dangerous cuts, made not because they make sense but because an artificial political deadline looms.
You're the boss. It might be time to congratulate the finance minister on managing to the budget. But it also might be time to note the lack of real results.
After all, that's what managers get paid for.
Footnote: The Vancouver missing women's case has now cost you something like $40 million. The investigation - mostly at the Pickton farm - will cost $26 million this year, on top of more than $10 million last year. Trial costs are expected to reach another $4 million this year. How much would it have cost to keep them alive, instead of sifting through dirt to learn about their deaths?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
No stars, but credible candidates at NDP debates
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, so the heavens didn't open and send down a golden shaft of light to illuminate a new leader who could guide the NDP out of the wilderness.
But at least there's a decent roster of candidates offering a chance for the drifting New Democrats to redefine themselves.
Seven candidates are ready for a series of debates around the province, events which will actually matter. There's no star, and Gordon Campbell isn't going to be in panic about any of the candidates. (Although those chants of 'Orcherton, Orcherton' from the premier's office may indicate who they would like to face in 2005.)
Who cares, you might ask?
You should. One party states tend not to be a good thing. And given the way we flail around in this province, the New Democrats could be elected just because we get mad at the Liberals. We should at least make sure they're not clueless.
Any one of five candidates has some sort of shot at winning. It's early days, and their policies, positions and personal qualities will become clearer, or fuzzier.
Left and right don't really work anymore as useful labels. But you can parse this race on the basis of how far the candidates want to run from what the NDP used to be. (What was that? Some would say a reckless, incompetent government that rewarded its friends; others would say a government committed to economic development and social opportunity. I'd say both.)
Put Steve Orcherton at the 'hey, we did OK camp.' He was an MLA in the Clark government, one of a small group that never made it into cabinet. He's proud of the record, and favours an interventionist government to take from the rich and give to the poor, with close ties to unions and a special place for them in the party.
Put Nils Jensen at the other end. He joined the party when he launched his leadership bid and figures the NDP needs a fresh, centrist start. Jensen's a Crown prosecutor and Oak Bay councillor. He's also the chair of the water board here in Victoria, a group that always seems to lean towards zealotry on the conservation side.
Jensen looks like a surprisingly strong candidate right now. He's toured much of the province already, and got more positive attention for the NDP than all the other candidates put together. The best way to get any job is to start doing it and wait for people to notice. That's working so far for Jensen.
In between, there's Leonard Krog, a Nanaimo MLA in the Harcourt government who has lost out in several election tries since. He's more centrist than Orcherton, and likely more competent. But his endorsement by former ministers Dale Lovick and Jan Pullinger, a warning label to many New Democrats.
Carole James is probably closer to Jensen. James is a widely respected former Victoria school board trustee and chair of the BC School Trustees Association. She now lives in Prince George. James lost a Victoria seat by 35 votes in the last election. She has decent credentials, but it remains to be seen if they are the right preparation for political leadership.
And Craig Keating, the North Vancouver councillor, also tends to be in the new directions camp.
It's a decent field, competing for what is a pretty bad job. No seat, little budget, bleak electoral prospects, a millstone-like record to lug around. It's hardly a golden opportunity.
Maybe that will turn out to be a plus. In the last NDP race, when there was the chance to be premier - even briefly - thousands of instant New Democrats signed up and the contest approached farce.
This time, about 13,000 core members have the chance to give some thought to what kind of party makes sense for the province.
Footnote: Unions are still going to be big players in this process. About 30 per cent of the delegate slots at the November leadership convention will be reserved for union-appointed voters. The rest will be selected at constituency association meetings.
It's doomed, but offer to Haida still a good move
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Just because the Haida immediately dumped on the province's surprise treaty offer doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Attorney General Geoff Plant caught everyone off guard when he called reporters down to his office to offer the Haida control of 2,000 square kilometres in the Queen Charlottes - if they come back to the treaty table.
It won't happen. The Haida broke off talks eight years ago. Last year they launched a suit in BC Supreme Court claiming all the islands and resources around them. The head of the council of the Haida Nation quickly rejected the offer as "mischief."
Plant says it's a serious offer, and a generous one. The 3,700 Haida would get ownership of 100,000 hectares and partial control of a further 100,000 hectares.
That sounds good, especially given the Haida's current land base of about 1,700 hectares. But the Haida are claiming five times as much land as the government has offered. And they're not in a bad position, legally and politically, to be optimistic about the eventual results of their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, most of the pressure is on the province. The BC Court of Appeal ruled last year that the government hasn't been fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate the Haida on logging issues. Licence-holder Weyerhaeuser has agreed to cut its timber harvest in half, until a long-term plan is in place.
That's a lot of lost jobs. Add in the investment chill created by the uncertainty over ownership, the province's inability to get land use decisions made, and the Haida's ability to create problems for existing operators, and you have a major headache for the government.
That headache escalates to four-alarm status when you start considering the Liberals' big hopes for an offshore oil and gas industry by 2010. Oil companies have made it clear that a resolution of First Nations issues has to happen before they even look seriously at the offshore potential.
The province is appealing the B.C. ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's likely one factor in this surprise offer. The courts have said that negotiation is the preferred way to resolve treaty disputes. If the Supreme Court decides either side hasn't been willing to make a reasonable effort at negotiation, that could hurt their case.
This offer probably counts as a reasonable effort. It's undercut - badly - by the lack of federal participation. B.C. has put up land, but Plant says the government never asked the federal government to put forward any monetary proposal. But the offer still signals a willingness to resume talks.
Why aren't the Haida interested? Guujaw, head of the Haida council, says the offer falls far short of what they're claiming. (That is to say, everything.)
That's an unreasonable expectation - about one-third of the Charlotte land is privately owned. But they have a good claim for a big chunk of land, given that no treaty was signed and most of the land is available. It's a question of ownership, and the Haida have a strong, clean claim.
The province isn't just dangling the land offer as bait; it's also wielding a stick. Plant says the offer is good for six months. After that, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
"If we're not able to get the treaty process started meaningfully with the Haida then we are going to look for ways to more enthusiastically assert our ability to make land use decisions to restore access to the land base," Plant says. If the Haida disagree with the government's actions, they can head back to court. (That's risky, especially for government, which faces the prospect of damaging losses in future court cases, direct action on the ground and international boycotts.)
Plant's offer is still a good move, with more positives than negatives. The government signalled its willingness to negotiate to the Haida, the public and the courts. That can't hurt; there's a small chance it could help. And in the world of negotiations, that makes it worth a try.
Footnote: The latest development is a reminder of how distant the prospect of offshore oil and has development remains. Oil companies looking at the opposition of federal Environment Minister David Anderson and the land claim problems are going to keep B.C.'s offshore far down their priority list.
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - OK, so the heavens didn't open and send down a golden shaft of light to illuminate a new leader who could guide the NDP out of the wilderness.
But at least there's a decent roster of candidates offering a chance for the drifting New Democrats to redefine themselves.
Seven candidates are ready for a series of debates around the province, events which will actually matter. There's no star, and Gordon Campbell isn't going to be in panic about any of the candidates. (Although those chants of 'Orcherton, Orcherton' from the premier's office may indicate who they would like to face in 2005.)
Who cares, you might ask?
You should. One party states tend not to be a good thing. And given the way we flail around in this province, the New Democrats could be elected just because we get mad at the Liberals. We should at least make sure they're not clueless.
Any one of five candidates has some sort of shot at winning. It's early days, and their policies, positions and personal qualities will become clearer, or fuzzier.
Left and right don't really work anymore as useful labels. But you can parse this race on the basis of how far the candidates want to run from what the NDP used to be. (What was that? Some would say a reckless, incompetent government that rewarded its friends; others would say a government committed to economic development and social opportunity. I'd say both.)
Put Steve Orcherton at the 'hey, we did OK camp.' He was an MLA in the Clark government, one of a small group that never made it into cabinet. He's proud of the record, and favours an interventionist government to take from the rich and give to the poor, with close ties to unions and a special place for them in the party.
Put Nils Jensen at the other end. He joined the party when he launched his leadership bid and figures the NDP needs a fresh, centrist start. Jensen's a Crown prosecutor and Oak Bay councillor. He's also the chair of the water board here in Victoria, a group that always seems to lean towards zealotry on the conservation side.
Jensen looks like a surprisingly strong candidate right now. He's toured much of the province already, and got more positive attention for the NDP than all the other candidates put together. The best way to get any job is to start doing it and wait for people to notice. That's working so far for Jensen.
In between, there's Leonard Krog, a Nanaimo MLA in the Harcourt government who has lost out in several election tries since. He's more centrist than Orcherton, and likely more competent. But his endorsement by former ministers Dale Lovick and Jan Pullinger, a warning label to many New Democrats.
Carole James is probably closer to Jensen. James is a widely respected former Victoria school board trustee and chair of the BC School Trustees Association. She now lives in Prince George. James lost a Victoria seat by 35 votes in the last election. She has decent credentials, but it remains to be seen if they are the right preparation for political leadership.
And Craig Keating, the North Vancouver councillor, also tends to be in the new directions camp.
It's a decent field, competing for what is a pretty bad job. No seat, little budget, bleak electoral prospects, a millstone-like record to lug around. It's hardly a golden opportunity.
Maybe that will turn out to be a plus. In the last NDP race, when there was the chance to be premier - even briefly - thousands of instant New Democrats signed up and the contest approached farce.
This time, about 13,000 core members have the chance to give some thought to what kind of party makes sense for the province.
Footnote: Unions are still going to be big players in this process. About 30 per cent of the delegate slots at the November leadership convention will be reserved for union-appointed voters. The rest will be selected at constituency association meetings.
It's doomed, but offer to Haida still a good move
By Paul Willcocks
VICTORIA - Just because the Haida immediately dumped on the province's surprise treaty offer doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
Attorney General Geoff Plant caught everyone off guard when he called reporters down to his office to offer the Haida control of 2,000 square kilometres in the Queen Charlottes - if they come back to the treaty table.
It won't happen. The Haida broke off talks eight years ago. Last year they launched a suit in BC Supreme Court claiming all the islands and resources around them. The head of the council of the Haida Nation quickly rejected the offer as "mischief."
Plant says it's a serious offer, and a generous one. The 3,700 Haida would get ownership of 100,000 hectares and partial control of a further 100,000 hectares.
That sounds good, especially given the Haida's current land base of about 1,700 hectares. But the Haida are claiming five times as much land as the government has offered. And they're not in a bad position, legally and politically, to be optimistic about the eventual results of their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, most of the pressure is on the province. The BC Court of Appeal ruled last year that the government hasn't been fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate the Haida on logging issues. Licence-holder Weyerhaeuser has agreed to cut its timber harvest in half, until a long-term plan is in place.
That's a lot of lost jobs. Add in the investment chill created by the uncertainty over ownership, the province's inability to get land use decisions made, and the Haida's ability to create problems for existing operators, and you have a major headache for the government.
That headache escalates to four-alarm status when you start considering the Liberals' big hopes for an offshore oil and gas industry by 2010. Oil companies have made it clear that a resolution of First Nations issues has to happen before they even look seriously at the offshore potential.
The province is appealing the B.C. ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's likely one factor in this surprise offer. The courts have said that negotiation is the preferred way to resolve treaty disputes. If the Supreme Court decides either side hasn't been willing to make a reasonable effort at negotiation, that could hurt their case.
This offer probably counts as a reasonable effort. It's undercut - badly - by the lack of federal participation. B.C. has put up land, but Plant says the government never asked the federal government to put forward any monetary proposal. But the offer still signals a willingness to resume talks.
Why aren't the Haida interested? Guujaw, head of the Haida council, says the offer falls far short of what they're claiming. (That is to say, everything.)
That's an unreasonable expectation - about one-third of the Charlotte land is privately owned. But they have a good claim for a big chunk of land, given that no treaty was signed and most of the land is available. It's a question of ownership, and the Haida have a strong, clean claim.
The province isn't just dangling the land offer as bait; it's also wielding a stick. Plant says the offer is good for six months. After that, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
"If we're not able to get the treaty process started meaningfully with the Haida then we are going to look for ways to more enthusiastically assert our ability to make land use decisions to restore access to the land base," Plant says. If the Haida disagree with the government's actions, they can head back to court. (That's risky, especially for government, which faces the prospect of damaging losses in future court cases, direct action on the ground and international boycotts.)
Plant's offer is still a good move, with more positives than negatives. The government signalled its willingness to negotiate to the Haida, the public and the courts. That can't hurt; there's a small chance it could help. And in the world of negotiations, that makes it worth a try.
Footnote: The latest development is a reminder of how distant the prospect of offshore oil and has development remains. Oil companies looking at the opposition of federal Environment Minister David Anderson and the land claim problems are going to keep B.C.'s offshore far down their priority list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
