If there were any doubts about Christy Clark’s strategy for remaining in office, Tuesday’s budget removed them. She will fight the 2017 election on the same ground the federal Conservatives did last November — fiscal discipline. There will be no bag of goodies next May, no tax cuts, just a string of balanced budgets achieved by slogging and austerity.
This is, to put it mildly, a gamble. It didn’t work for Stephen Harper. Among other concerns, the country had tired of the prime minister’s single-minded preoccupation with finance.
And Clark scarcely dominates the landscape. The latest opinion polls show her approval rating at just 31 per cent. Only two premiers have lower numbers — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne, whose administration is mired in scandal, and Greg Selinger from Manitoba, still wounded by a caucus attempt to oust him.
In one respect, Clark’s hands are tied. The revenue projections are grim.
Tax income is basically flat. And natural-resource royalties have fallen, the downward trend forecast to contine in 2017 and 2018. What little revenue growth there is comes mainly from increased federal transfers and raiding Crown corporations.
All of which means public services will be stretched even thinner. The Health Ministry gets a 2.9 per cent lift, but cost increases driven by inflation (about 1.8 per cent), population growth (1.3 per cent) and aging (roughly 0.8 per cent) will combine to more than wash away this increase.
There is money to hire 100 new staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — a welcome addition. But in general, this is a stand-pat budget, so far as program delivery is concerned. And the forecast for next year is more of the same.
Yet if financial restraint is unavoidable, is it Clark’s only legacy to run on? Money isn’t everything — quality also counts. If you can’t provide more service, provide better service.
Pick a handful of program areas that people worry most about, such as health care, post-secondary education and child care. Then guarantee measurable improvements in performance.
For health care, two of the most critical indicators are access to a family physician and wait times to see a specialist. B.C. does miserably in both. A fix here is long overdue, and would save money by reducing pressure on hospital emergency departments.
The principal issue in post-secondary education is affordability. Too many kids can’t get the training they need because of sky-high tuition rates.
The government set aside $100 million in this budget for a “prosperity fund.” The scheme has been panned as inadequate for the purpose. But spend that money on reduced tuition fees, and thousands of young people would have a brighter future.
Child care revolves around two main measures — success in placing kids with foster parents, and reducing harm in the form of suicides, homelessness and addiction.
B.C. has a dreadful record in the first of those — wait times for foster placement have risen dramatically.
The reason isn’t lack of foster parents. It’s due at least in part to inertia in the ministry. So fix this problem: Costs would be minimal.
Reducing child harm is a more difficult task. Yet the litany of misery and death, particularly among aboriginal youngsters, is unacceptable.
The government has commissioned a report on this crisis by retired public servant Bob Plecas. Commit to acting on it.
If the premier expects to win the next election, this budget alone will not suffice. Clark must offer hope as well, something Harper rarely did.
And she has to show the public that government can be effective, even when resources are strained. That means giving quality of service, not fiscal discipline, the first priority.
