Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 31, 2015, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A17 W HAT if? What if Premier Greg Selinger had not shocked the public, and his own party, by introducing a PST increase to fund infrastructure in 2013? What if he had met with potential allies - the Manitoba Business Council, the chambers of commerce, municipalities - in advance of introducing the tax bump and shored up their support? What if Selinger had decided to hold a referendum ( as balanced budget law requires) to win over the public? There is no doubt Selinger's handling of the PST increase is one of the major reasons he is being asked, as a sitting premier, to fight others in his party for the right to lead. That fight will culminate in a March 8 leadership vote in Winnipeg. It's also a major contributor to the NDP government's sagging popularity among voters. Many of those involved in the leadership race, and those who are just passionate about Manitoba politics, have wondered aloud whether a different approach - more consultative and possibly involving a referendum - would have changed Selinger's future. In other words, could the premier have maintained support in his party, and cultivated support in the broader community, with a different tack. That's a lot of what ifs, and it would be impossible to calculate other outcomes in Manitoba if it were not for examples in other jurisdictions, where political leaders are introducing the idea of infrastructure tax increases in a more thoughtful, measured way. In the United States, for example, lower gas prices and growing infrastructure needs are prompting as many as 12 states to consider fueltax increases. That is in addition to the eight states that boosted gas taxes in 2013 and 2014 to fund road construction. A more instructive example comes by way of British Columbia, which is now in the final stages of a referendum campaign over a proposed 0.5 per cent sales tax increase to fund anti- congestion transit projects. There are many fascinating aspects to the B. C. referendum. But perhaps most fascinating is the fact municipal leaders, and not the provincial government, are leading the campaign to approve the tax bump. B. C. Premier Christy Clark was the one who proclaimed in 2013 there would be no new tax measures to fund transit projects without a referendum. The Mayors' Council, a coalition of municipal leaders from the lower mainland area around Vancouver, took up the challenge of formulating a tax proposal and a ballot question. The province is assisting with the costs of the mail- in vote, which implies Clark would approve what would become Canada's first municipal sales tax. The outcomes of referenda are notoriously difficult to predict, particularly because turnout is generally very low. But poll results show the ' yes' campaign has been pretty successful in making its case. In exchange for approximately $ 7.5 billion worth of transit improvements, lower mainlanders will pay, on average, another $ 125 per family. Support for the measure has been consistently high. Although Clark has been criticized for being too hands- off in the referendum debate, she has demonstrated dedicated taxes for motherhood issues such as infrastructure can find support. Allowing the Vancouver- area mayors to take the ball and run with it means Clark can claim any resulting tax increase is " the will of the people." In Manitoba, we know Selinger was advised to take a similar approach. There were opinion- leading groups outside of government that were willing to lead the ' yes' campaign in a referendum. There were poll results showing Manitobans, in general, were willing to trade a small tax increase for dedicated spending on infrastructure. The conditions were there for Selinger, who had previously promised to never raise taxes for infrastructure, to allow others to take up the fight so he could defer to the will of the people. Instead, we got one of the most ham- handed policy initiatives in the history of Manitoba politics. The one- point bump to the PST to fund infrastructure was added into the 2013 budget just 10 days before it was tabled in the legislature. There was no warning for potential allies. And the public was taken completely off guard; the last they heard from Selinger, in the 2011 provincial election, he was categorically dismissing any suggestion he would raise taxes to fund infrastructure. Government messaging on the PST increase was muddled, even misleading. The NDP government could not precisely say where the money would be spent, so tried to pretend it would go to everything from schools and hospitals to bridges and highways. Cabinet ministers charged with selling the tax hike failed to properly emphasize the collateral economic benefits of hundreds of millions of additional dollars being invested into infrastructure. Selinger regrouped in the 2014 budget, with a new finance minister ( Jennifer Howard) and a new jobs and economy minister ( Theresa Oswald) who managed to hone the message and focus the spending. All that turned out to be too little, too late. Both ministers turned on Selinger in a public mutiny last fall, exacerbating an already profound drop in public support for Selinger and his government. The evidence from other jurisdictions is clear: It is possible to introduce a tax increase that meets with broad public and special interest support. Even though B. C. has a much different political culture, it was still possible for Selinger to turn the tax increase into a win if he had taken the time to prepare his allies, and the public at large. But Selinger is learning now that in politics, the distance between what happened and what if is enormous indeed. dan. lett@ freepress. mb. ca IDEAS �o ISSUES �o INSIGHTS THINK- TANK A 17 Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, January 31, 2015 T HIS winter, thousands of Manitobans will board a plane destined for somewhere warm and sunny. They will spend a week or two lounging on the beach or by a pool, enjoying a brief respite from real life in the Great White North. In some four- or fivestar paradise by the sea in Cuba, Mexico, Jamaica or the Dominican Republic, they will eat and drink as much as they want, practically whenever they want. The ice in their margaritas and the water they use to chase away the sun ( and their hangovers) will come in purified form, likely from a bottle of some shape and size. No one will question this - after all, one of the first things you're told when you travel to one of these sunny destinations is to not drink the water from your tap. But this past week, what is for many people an accepted part of the travelling experience has become an uncomfortable and inconvenient reality as the City of Winnipeg issued a two- day boil- water advisory. Attitudes toward water, especially among those of us living in cities where we take it for granted the stuff coming out of our tap is clean and safe to drink, can change very quickly. Past history suggests one or two highly publicized incidents where tap water safety was called into question can make many people reluctant to take a drink from the tap. Indeed, it is highly likely that even though Winnipeg's water is now completely safe to drink, many residents will be reluctant to consume what comes from the tap and will turn to bottled water for their hydration needs instead. Probe Research Inc. has been tracking public attitudes regarding water consumption for more than a decade. Every two years since 2002, we have conducted a survey of 2,000 Canadians that is paralleled by a similar survey of 2,000 Americans regarding a whole range of water- related issues, including bottled- water consumption and public attitudes toward the safety and cost of tap water. The study, which launched shortly after significant and very high- profile water treatment failures in Walkerton, Ont., and North Battleford, Sask., has evolved over the years to paint a compelling portrait of what Canadians think ( and fear) about what comes out of the tap. Back in 2002, in the shadow of Walkerton and North Battleford, 69 per cent of Canadians ( including 70 per cent of Manitobans) were very or somewhat confident their tap water was safe to drink. In the most recent study ( which was completed in December), more than eight in 10 Canadians ( 83 per cent) agreed their tap water was safe to consume, including 78 per cent of Manitobans who were confident that their tap water was fine to drink. This increase can be explained by several factors, including the passage of time since the Walkerton tragedy as well as increased stringency on the part of water regulators. But it is also because cities throughout North America have spent a great deal of time and effort convincing their citizens their municipal tap water is not only safe, but every bit as good taste- wise as bottled water. A testament to this victory on the public- relations front is the fact today, only one- third of Canadians ( 34 per cent, including 35 per cent of Manitobans) agree bottled water is safer to drink than tap water. It would be interesting to know whether Winnipeggers will be hesitant to take a swig from the tap, or if they will be stocking up on cases and big jugs of bottled water as they did this week. Reports of stores being emptied of bottled water supplies shows just how jarring news of a threat to our water supply is - and also how much we take this resource for granted here in Winnipeg. It has been pointed out on these pages that residents of the community who live closest to Winnipeg's drinking water supply ( Shoal Lake First Nation) live under a perpetual boil- water advisory. Many communities throughout our province, particularly northern First Nations, do not have a steady, continuous supply of clean and safe drinking water, with many of these places relying on communal taps and water trucks. In a survey conducted for the Free Press by Probe Research four years ago, 78 per cent of Manitobans agreed these communities should move to the front of the line for improvements to their water infrastructure. While some progress has been made, the everyday experience for some in these communities is considerably worse than what Winnipeggers had to deal with this week. Winnipeg's brief boil- water advisory was, at worst, a minor inconvenience that was no different than what sun- seekers have to deal with when they flee south for the winter. Rather than start to fear what comes out of the tap, let's be thankful that we have steady, reliable access to good clean water 99.9 per cent of the time. Curtis Brown is a former political journalist and the vice- president of Probe Research Inc. curtis@ probe- research. com. T HIS week, Winnipeggers learned a little bit about what life is like for the thousands of Canadians who are forced to live without access to water that is safe to drink. I live in Toronto now, where I work as an environmental lawyer with Ecojustice, but my family still lives in Winnipeg. When I heard about the boil- water advisory, I immediately began to worry about my friends and family back home. I texted my mom: " Boil your water." Then I stopped and thought about the bigger picture. Winnipeg was under an advisory for two days. Shoal Lake 40, the First Nations community just 150 kilometres outside the city, has been under a boil- water advisory for more than 17 years. This despite their territory being home to Winnipeg's drinkingwater source. While Canada joined the international consensus and ( after some reluctance) recognized the right to water at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, it is failing to live up to that ideal within our own borders. Canada lacks a national water law and rigorous, enforceable water- quality standards. Instead, it relies on an uneven patchwork of provincial water policies to protect drinking water. This means that from coast to coast to coast, our drinking water is not equally protected. And while most major Canadian cities have relatively sophisticated water- treatment facilities, many rural, low- income, or First Nations communities lack such infrastructure and rely on untreated or minimally treated water. In the absence of a national water law, communities under federal jurisdiction, such as First Nations, have virtually no legal protection of their drinking water. In fact, according to a 2009 study by the United Nations, First Nations homes are 90 times more likely to be without safe drinking water than other Canadian homes. And so, it is hardly surprising more than 100 First Nations communities across Canada were under a drinking- water advisory as of November 2014. Ironically, labour laws compel the federal government to provide safe water to its employees who live and work on First Nations - even if residents are forced to go without clean, safe drinking water in their homes. Although lack of safe drinking water is a problem disproportionately experienced by First Nations communities, non- First Nation communities can also be impacted. For instance, Melissa King lives in Harrietsfield, N. S., where years of industrial activity have contaminated the well water her family depends on, leaving it so laden with toxic chemicals that her two- year- old son has never had a bath at home. She lives just a 20- minute car ride outside of Halifax. For these people, not being able to use the water in their homes isn't simply an inconvenience. It is something that poses a very real threat to their health and quality of life. Studies show communities that lack access to safe, clean drinking water face significant health risks, including elevated rates of waterborne illnesses, pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and other infections. This is the ugly truth about water protection in Canada. It is unacceptable. No matter where we live, every Canadian should have access to safe, clean drinking water. Here's an even uglier truth: Environmental inequities don't start and stop with access to safe, clean drinking water. Canada's failure to create and enforce strong environmental laws also threatens the air we breathe and the health of the communities where we live. These failures do not affect us all equally. Time and time again, the most isolated among us - rural, low- income or First Nations communities - bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm. Unlike the United States, where the Environmental Protection Agency gives mandatory consideration to environmental justice in their evaluation of projects and regulation development, Canada has no laws that address the concept of environmental justice - the fair and consistent distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, without discrimination on the basis of socio- economic status, race, ethnic origin, or residence on an aboriginal reserve. This is one reason why, from Shoal Lake 40 to Melissa King and her family, we are confronted with example after example of environmental injustice within our own borders. It is hard to believe these injustices still persist in our country. It's even harder to believe that although 181 of the 193 countries in the United Nations support a human right to live in a healthy environment - which includes access to clean, safe drinking water - Canada is not one of them. But it should be. It is time for Canada to recognize our right to a healthy environment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A charter right would give us a new, powerful legal tool to fight environmental injustices and ensure that even the most vulnerable and isolated among us can assert their right to turn on the tap and drink the water that comes out of it. Who can deny that every Canadian - no matter who they are, or where they live - should be entitled to a minimum standard of environmental quality? Our highest law must recognize environmental rights are human rights. Until then, the injustices in Shoal Lake 40, Harrietsfield, and far too many other Canadian communities will continue - and the fight to right these wrongs will not get any easier. Kaitlyn Mitchell is the staff lawyer for Ecojustice, a national charitable organization dedicated to defending Canadians' right to a healthy environment. CURTIS BROWN DAN LETT Most Canadians trust the source of their H20 Water is a human right too many are denied KAITLYN MITCHELL Selinger had a better option for a tax increase winter week Winnipeg- ESSENTIAL LIQUID THE A_ 17_ Jan- 31- 15_ FP_ 01. indd A17 1/ 30/ 15 6: 19: 00 PM ;