The Vancouver Island Health Authority has announced an across the board cut of 2% to each of its departments as part of its plan to reduce spending by $42.5 million by March 31, 2004. A court recently ruled that Health Minister Collin Hansen cannot hide behind the appointed health authorities. It is as if Hansen personally made the blanket 2% cut because the court ruling means he is accountable for it.

Anyone can argue the pros and cons on many of the strategies for reducing health costs from privatization to contracting out to increased user fees, but it is hard to find anyone who can justify a 2% reduction to all program budgets. Surgical capacity will be reduced by 2% and everyone needing elective procedures will wait longer. That is a direct violation of Gordon Campbell's promise to make health care available when and where people need it.

The health authority has attempted to blame the cutbacks on contract wage increases and technological change. The authority has known about the contract provisions for over a year, and the Campbell government had the opportunity to change those provisions when it was breaking the contracts and imposing new terms. It cannot now say that it broke the contracts but forgot to fund the provisions it left untouched.

The health authority didn't bother to mention that the Minister of Health and some senior bureaucrats receive performance bonuses in their personal pay cheques if they come in under budget. The Vancouver Island Health Authority has a budget of $1.2 billion. The cuts amount to 3.5% of that annual budget. On a budget that large it is almost impossible to exactly balance, and since deficits are not allowed, the health authorities must aim for small surpluses, like 3.5%. It could be that when the books are audited for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, the authority will end with a surplus approaching the cuts it has announced. Thousands of people will have prolonged suffering as they wait for their procedures while the health authority safely preserves the Minister's performance bonus. Shouldn't the rewards and penalties depend on patient satisfaction and objective measures of health outcomes in addition to fiscal performance? That's what the Campbell caucus said when they were in opposition.