CAN REIN IN THEIR LEADER?
- Details
-
Hits: 1073
VICTORIA -- Socreds all over the province are just beginning to realize how disastrous the defeat was they suffered at the hands of the voters in Boundary-Similkameen.
The defeat cannot be readily explained in terms that traditionally spell trouble for governments. By normal standards, the Socreds should have won that byelection.
The economy is in fairly good shape. The forest industry is making large profits. In fact, the industry's pulp sector has been raking in huge profits. World market prices for many metals are up and, for the first time in years, there is optimism in the mining industry.
Unemployment is down from a year ago. Exports are up. Sales of manufactured products are up. The tourism industry is looking forward to a good year. Considering the recession of only a few years ago, things are looking fairly good in B.C.
Yet, the voters in Boundary--Similkameen gave the government a failing grade. The defeat was not just a message, it was a clear manifestation of deep-rooted dissatisfaction and disenchantment.
But if the Socreds' economic performance has been relatively solid, what was it that turned voters in one of the safest Socred seats against the government? Why would they give overwhelming support to the Socreds in the last general election, and hang them out to dry a year and a half later?
There can be only one answer. They were turned off by the general style of this government, which has been uniquely Premier Vander Zalm's. From the day he entered the leadership race to the day of the byelection, the premier's style overshadowed everything the government did.
There's nothing new about premiers imprinting their own style on the government. Other Socred premiers did it before Vander Zalm. Bill Bennett did, and W.A.C. Bennett certainly did before that. The difference is, the two Bennetts hit on a formula that suited the voters, while Vander Zalm's formula doesn't seem to work.
The single-most disastrous element of Vander Zalm's leadership style has been his insistence on doing things his own way. He has great difficulty accepting advice. And don't let that smile fool you. It doesn't indicate a willingness to compromise. All it says is, I'm a nice guy, trust me. It also says, I know what's best for you.
The problem with that approach is that Canadians generally don't believe leaders who tell them they know what's best for them. Canadians, by and large, know perfectly well what's best for them or, at least, they think they do. British Columbians are no exception.
Since, of course, not everybody can have an active part in the day-to-day affairs of the province, the voters have become conditioned to let the government do it for them -- through their elected representatives, through cabinet, through the legislature, but not just through their premier. That's the crucial element Vander Zalm has been ignoring. He has been acting as if the voters gave him a mandate to govern. They didn't. They gave a mandate to the party to govern on their behalf.
That's why the voters, including long-time Social Credit supporters, were offended when the premier tried to shape the government's abortion policy according to his own, personal beliefs, ignoring not just the public's views but those of his own cabinet.
That's why the voters are still offended by the premier's decentralization and privatization programs. True, there is some cabinet support for these programs, but because of the premier's image of running a one-man show, he's saddled exclusively with everything the government does.
The premier's colleagues have begun to recognize the garden path down which he has been taking them. Attorney General Brian Smith said the government must and will change its image. Economic Development Minister Grace McCarthy was even more outspoken. She said a good start would be for the premier's office to stop interfering with the ministries' affairs.
The only one who said the premier won't change his ways was the premier. Attributing the byelection defeat to his stand on moral issues, he said he would rather let someone else take over than change. That unbending attitude has his colleagues worried sick.
Some of them have said privately they are afraid to push the premier too hard, because he just might take the whole Socred ship down to defeat at a moment's notice.
Those fears are not unfounded. He can and he will, if pushed too hard. If his own party backs him into a corner, the premier may just show up for caucus one day and say he's just come from the lieutenant-governor. The election will be in 30 days. If that were to happen right now, not too many Socreds would be returned to office.
The biggest challenge for the Socreds at this moment is how to rein in the premier without spooking him into doing something irrational.
SEXUAL BLACKMAIL HEADS THE LIST
- Details
-
Hits: 1295
VICTORIA -- They may see themselves as Don Juans, but in reality they're nothing more than sexual blackmailers. They're the ones whose activities the B.C. Council of Human Rights statistically refers to as sexual harassment.
They top the list of complaints to the council. They're employers, usually men, on rare occasions women, who try to trade sexual favors for job security.
Last year, more than 21 per cent of all complaints brought to the Human Rights Council were of sexual harassment in the work place.
The nearly equally high incidence of complaints about discrimination on the grounds of physical disability -- 18 per cent last year -- is as sad a commentary on society, but at least it lacks the contemptible ingredients of coercion and intimidation that is so common to the complaints of sexual harassment.
In one of the latest cases the Human Rights Council dealt with, a woman working for the North Shore Vac Shop in Vancouver complained that her boss, a certain Walter Wolfe, subjected her to repeated sexual harassment.
She told a council hearing that Wolfe would grab her hands and make suggestive remarks. He would brush against her breasts, slap her buttocks and try to kiss her. She resisted his advances and was eventually fired.
Another former employee testified that Wolfe, after firing the woman, told him the following: "I wanted her out of the way ... I was going to fire her anyway, but before I did, I grabbed her tit to see how far she would go. She pushed me away, so I fired her."
Helen Hughes, the council member who chaired the hearing, ordered Wolfe to pay the woman 1,250 "for the humiliation and loss of dignity," and refrain from committing the same or similar contravention.
The woman depended on the job. She was the sole supporter of a three-year-old daughter. I'll leave it to you to find a suitable description for a man who would try to exploit a woman in those circumstances for sexual favors.
I tried to get the council members themselves to give me some pertinent quotes on human depravity, but failed. The council argues that as semi-judicial adjudicators, they must maintain strict impartiality, a reasonable enough position, I suppose.
In other provinces, human rights councils and commissions act on behalf of the complainants. The problem with that approach is that those accused of having violated human rights may feel that the deck is stacked against them from the start.
In B.C., the Human Rights Council assumes a neutral role, assuring respondents of the same impartiality the courts guarantee those accused of crimes.
Not every complaint proceeds to a hearing. Some don't fall within the council's jurisdiction, others are better dealt with under a different act. Still others are settled before they go to a hearing.
A section of the Human Rights Act also permits the council to dismiss complaints that may be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.
It was this section that had human rights activists worried when the legislation was changed in 1984. Their concerns turn out to be unfounded. Last year only one case was dismissed on those grounds.
When a case proceeds to a hearing, both the complainant and the respondent are entitled to be represented by legal counsel. If they can't afford a lawyer, they have access to legal aid.
A settlement is even possible after a hearing has started, but only if the complainant agrees, which seems like a good idea. I'd hate to see anyone who violated human rights be able to escape the consequences by agreeing to pay the complainant a given amount of money, unless, of course, the complainant is satisfied with that solution.
And what are the consequences of being found in contravention of the Human Rights Act? Publicity, my friend, publicity. Upon completion of a hearing, a summary of the case with all pertinent evidence is sent to news outlets. More often than not, the newspaper in the hometown of the culprit will print the story.
Publicity is probably the most powerful incentive for potential violators of human rights to straighten out their act. It can't be too good for the vacuum cleaner business when the proprietor's name and his questionable behavior towards a former woman employee comes to the attention of the public.
So, if I may, I'd like to give a friendly warning to any potential sex blackmailers out there. Keep your hands to yourself. If you don't, you may find yourself before a member of the Human Rights Council. And if the complaints about you are substantiated, you may find your name in this space, along with all the miserable details of your pathetic behavior.
PRESENT CABINET SYSTEM MAY BE SCRAPPED
- Details
-
Hits: 1374
VICTORIA -- Rumors are great fun, but writing about them can be risky business, unless one enjoys eating crow and wiping large amounts of egg from one's face.
Still, there are rumors one cannot resist speculating about. A rumor of that genre has come to me in a number of versions during the past few weeks. It concerns the impending cabinet shuffle.
Speculation about cabinet shuffles is nothing new. For as long as governments have been doing the people's business through cabinets, reporters have tried to guess what the next shuffle may bring.
The rumor in question is not just speculation about who will be dumped from cabinet and who will be elevated to the rank of cabinet minister. This rumor is about a dramatic change in the entire cabinet structure.
At the risk of insulting your intelligence by insinuating that your political quotient may leave something to be desired, let me first explain the existing cabinet structure which is, more or less, the same in every province and also at the federal level.
Cabinet members are appointed by the premier. Each cabinet minister is responsible for a particular area of government. In British Columbia at present, there are 15 cabinet ministers. Each of those 15 has a specific portfolio. Claude Richmond, for instance, is the minister for social services and housing; Stephen Rogers is responsible for transportation and highways; Brian Smith, as attorney general, looks after judicial and law enforcement matters;
Bill Reid's responsibilities are tourism and culture. And on it goes. Each one of the 15 looks after a specific government function.
Some time back, Premier Vander Zalm began fiddling with that system by appointing eight socalled ministers of state. These ministers of state -- all eight are also cabinet ministers -- are the head honchos of the eight socalled economic development regions.
Under the watchful eyes of the ministers of state, advisory councils, task forces and committees have been established in each of the regions. The mandate of the ministers of state is to encourage economic development in their specific regions and, down the road, streamline other government services.
The whole thing has made little sense until this new rumor surfaced. According to the scuttlebutt, the premier is about to scrap the existing cabinet system and replace it with a structure similar to that under which the ministers of state operate.
Under this new system, there would be two "super ministers," one in charge of economic matters, the other responsible for social services. The mandate of these two would be province-wide. There would also be eight "field ministers," one for each of the eight development regions. Contrary to the present system, under which a minister has a specific portfolio, each of the eight field ministers would assume responsibility for any and all government functions in his or her region.
The only existing portfolio that couldn't possibly be assumed by the field ministers is that of the attorney general. None of my sources could provide any satisfactory answer to that question. I can only assume that if the wild scheme comes to pass, there will continue to be an attorney general for all of the province. At least, I would home so.
What are chances that the rumor is true? Heaven only knows. With anyone else as premier, I would have laughed at such speculation.
With Vander Zalm I'm not so sure. The premier has a penchant for doing the unexpected and the unorthodox. He is rarely guided by tradition and convention, because he just isn't that familiar with either.
Any other premier would have thrown in the hat when the Supreme Court of Canada scuttled his plan to charge for abortions. Not Vander Zalm. He tried any which way to implement the scheme and gave up only when his cabinet threatened to revolt.
No other premier would have dreamed up the minister-of-state idea either, because it goes against many principles on which our parliamentary system is based, including that which leaves the role of representative and champion for the various areas of the province to the elected MLAs.
And I'm pretty sure that no other premier would dismantle the existing cabinet system in favor of a scheme the rumor would have us believe is the shape of things to come. Again, with Vander Zalm, I prefer to hedge my bets.
If the supposition is true and the premier actually goes through with this plan, fierce opposition will come not only from the NDP but from his own caucus which may be fearful of the ramifications.
The government is in enough trouble as it is, and it doesn't have all that much time to rebuild some of the bridges the premier has burned. I don't think that the premier's colleagues or his party will be too thrilled by any new ventures in socio-political engineering.
THERE ARE WORSE THINGS AND BETTER ONES
- Details
-
Hits: 1289
VICTORIA -- There are worse ways for a journalist to spend an hour and a half than interviewing Premier Vander Zalm. He is relaxed, personable, and makes a genuine attempt to answer every question.
But then, there are better ways. The premier's view of the world around him in general and that of his government in particular are often so seemingly innocent that it's difficult to get sharp and pointed replies to critical questions. You get the feeling it would be much more fun to have a drink with him and talk about his kids or next summer's holiday plans.
At times, he will admit that you brought up a good point, and that he will definitely take another look at whatever issue you raised.
You wonder whether he's just being nice or actually means it. But even if he does mean it sincerely, your experience around politicians tells you that he will probably forget about the whole thing by the time his next appointment comes around. That's the reality of politics.
Still, removed from the daily pressures of press conferences, media scrums and hallway exchanges, an exclusive interview is a productive exercise which reveals a more personal side of the premier.
The interview left me with no doubts that he is still firmly sold on the idea of decentralization. He says that his eight ministers of state can do things a lot more effectively and quickly for the various development regions than the system previously allowed for.
When I pointed out that the establishment a tree fruit processing plant in Summerland, for instance, was something Grace McCarthy could easily have assisted with in her capacity as minister of economic development, the premier offered no response.
To my argument that decentralization implies a transfer of power from a central structure to other agencies, in this case regional districts and municipalities, he said that was being done anyway.
Regional districts were getting greater autonomy. We came full circle when I insisted that he was really further centralizing the provincial government's powers by placing eight of his cabinet ministers in charge of the regions, and making them report back to cabinet and to his office. Things get done faster that way, he said.
He seemed a little uneasy when I raised the subject of the uranium mining moratorium. The government wasn't really in favor of uranium mining, he said, but by imposing a moratorium, nobody could mine for other minerals in areas where there are uranium deposits. In any case, there were no applications for uranium exploration.
In the end, he left the impression that somehow, the ministry experts had made a good case for lifting the moratorium, although he himself might be in favor of a moratorium. I'm not sure what to think of that. I'd like to see the bureaucrat who wins a case against the premier's express wishes.
He was least comfortable with the subject of user fees for seniors, even though he said he was glad I brought it up. His assertions that the whole thing had really been a misunderstanding, created as a result of inadequate information and "bad packaging," sounded a little weak.
If the government just wants to get more money for long-term care from those who can afford it, why are those with the least-possible income $28 a month poorer now?
I think that question hit home when he said that patients were still left with a minimum of $6 a day in "comfort money," the money they have left over after the government charges them for staying in a long-term care facility. Nothing was written in stone, the premier said. A review of the policy might well be in order.
When I said earlier that his perception of politics appears somewhat naive, I should add that it isn't naive enough to make the premier oblivious to the potential dangers inherent in some of his
government's policies. That goes particularly for the privatization of highways and bridge maintenance.
Note that he admitted his government could well be defeated over this issue. That's why the program is being rammed through. By this coming winter, the private sector is to look after the maintenance of B.C.'s highways and bridges. He wants the change to have been in place for at least two years by the time he faces the electorate again.
All the while, he had a pipe going. Better than cigarettes, he said. Still for a guy who quit smoking last Christmas, a pipe is a curious possession, especially when it's lit and the owner is puffing away on it.
Only half-jokingly, he blamed the media for having fallen off the wagon. I suppose a feud as relentless and overtly hostile as that carried on by the Vancouver Sun can make anybody start smoking.
Someday, he'll find out that it doesn't really matter what the Vancouver Sun says. For every reader of that paper, there are at least five who read their community newspapers. And anyway, he can't lose too many seats in the Greater Vancouver area.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search