Paying attention

Don't worry, Mum and Dad, it's safe here

2012-01-28T15:14:00.000-08:00

I had an email from my father today expressing alarm about the risks in Honduras and urging caution, noting my mother’s concerns for our safety. It’s disconcerting to find out your parents, in their mid-80s, are actively worried about you.
I understand. It was a jarring discovery for me, when Jody and I began living together, that worrying about children was a lifelong thing. My duo, Rebecca and Sam, were in their early teens. Rachelle, Jody’s youngest was Sam’s age. I hadn’t given the topic serious thought, but just assumed that once they were adults you could quit worrying about children.
Hah.
Jody’s two oldest were adults, capable and smart. But I soon learned the worries changed, but they didn’t stop. Hearts could still be be at risk of breaking, dreams thwarted, hoped-for achievements could prove empty - and parents have to anticipate all those things, and share in the sadness if they happen. Not to mention the normal risks of life - icy roads and night bicycle rides and travels in strange parts. (The saying that parents are only as happy as their saddest child is, for most of us, true, for better or worse.)
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to safety in Honduras, and my parents worries as they keep an eye on the news in Medicine Hat.
We’ve been here less than two weeks, have really only seen Tegucigalpa and Copan Ruinas, and my Spanish is still so patchy I am functionally illiterate.
But there’s no denying that parts of Honduras are far more dangerous than we’re used to in Canada. San Pedro Sula, according to the United Nations, surpassed Ciudad Juarez in its murder rate last year, making it the world’s deadliest city.
In Tegucigalpa, the capital, where we spent a week, robberies are common and people who have a choice don’t walk anywhere after dark, which comes around 5:30 p.m. this time of year. A trip to a restaurant, even a few blocks in a good neighbourhood, means calling a taxi, preferably with a driver you already know. Gas stations have attendants, and a guard with a shotgun. Banks have more than one armed guard, and customers get a quick scan with a metal detector before they are allowed in to make their deposits. The photo at the top of the blog, by Jody Paterson, is of a typical corner store - pulperia - in Tegucigalpa. You ask for your potato chips and pop through the little window. Our in-country training included advice on what to do if confronted by a robber (move slowly, avoid eye contact, keep physical distance and hand over whatever he asks for as quickly and unthreateningly as possible).
The idea of reporting crimes to police isn’t even considered, and whoever has the razor wire franchise is Tegus has done very well.
In the two big cities, and apparently some rural areas, things have broken down in a way that would seem inexplicable to most Canadians. It will be a while before I know enough to offer any views about why, or what could be done about it. A major problem is the booming cocaine business, with Honduras as the midpoint between producers in counties to the south and the eager North American consumers. Maras - serious gangs - control some neighbourhoods in San Pedro Sula, collecting ‘taxes’ in their barrios. The Peace Corps pulled its volunteers from Honduras this month, citing safety concerns. But there had been few incidents, and volunteers were mostly young and on minimal incomes, and thus more likely to be in higher risk situations. The U.S. is also looking to cut aid spending, and pressure Honduras for action on drug trafficking and corruption. The Peace Corps’ decision fit with both goals.
(The Miami Herald offered some reporting and an editorial last week, for those who are interested. It does not note the impact of the 40-year “war on drugs,” a self-destructive, ineffective, costly and stupid exercise that has made the drug trade so lucrative and corrupting.)
It’s a sad situation, especially for people without the money to insulate themselves from the crime,
And even in Tegucigalpa, people were living their lives. We walked to a store to buy a music stand - Jody’s wouldn’t fit in the suitcase. People shopped in malls, kids went to school, life rolled on.
We spent a pleasant day in Santa Lucia, a town about 15 kilometres away, where life seemed much more normal. Houses weren’t hidden behind walls, no one seemed particularly worried about crime.
Here in Copan Ruinas, the feeling is similar. It’s fine, everyone agrees, to wander the streets after dark, though perhaps not too late. There are no security guards hovering outside stores, kids play outside at night and houses don’t have walls or locked gates. We carry laptops to the Spanish school, something that would be foolish in the two big cities. People smile when we say hola, three-wheeled taxis bounce over the cobblestones, there’s a walking trail to the Mayan ruins along the road into town. The corner stores are in the front rooms of people’s houses, and wide open, with less security than a Canadian 7-11.
It feels, so far, as safe as Victoria, or Medicine Hat (maybe safer than downtown Victoria at closing time).
When I know more, I’ll write more.
Meanwhile, I’ll be prudent, listen to my Spidey sense, and stay in a safe hotel and use Edgar, the tireless taxi driver we know, when we go to Tegucigalpa to renew visas in a few months.
But really, mum and dad, don’t worry. It’s nine on Friday night, and people are sitting outside talking in the warm evening and strolling down to the corner store.
We’re safe, and we’ll stay that way.

The soundtrack to our lives in Copan Ruinas

2012-01-27T10:13:00.001-08:00

So far, one of the most striking things about our home stay in Copan Ruinas is the soundtrack accompanying life in our little family compound.
Right now, the family next door - two adult daughters of Esmeralda, our host, with children of their own - are listening to some techno-goth dance tracks, with the usual repetitive synth riffs, drum track and occasional lyrics contributed by a distorted voice urging us to “dance with the devil.
I’m in the main room in the house, at the dining table with my laptop. The light is a little harsh - two bare energy-saving bulbs in an overhead fixture. The front door is open, and, for no obvious reason, a neighbour’s dog offers enthusiastic barks as trucks grumbling up the cobblestone street contributing bass, while kids call out to each other. Behind me, in the kitchen, Esmeralda is talking to Rosita, whose 21st birthday fiesta we attended, and a young guy who might or not be her boyfriend, while a three-year-old girl, with shoes that flash light when she walks, asks questions. I have yet to figure out how she is connected to anyone here. Aaron, the baby next door, is crying.
There are crickets, or some sort of insect, adding a steady treble. The gate to the compound swings open, with a rusty screech, and voices murmur outside, snatches of conversation I can’t comprehend. From farther away, kids’ shouts carry to the house.
It’s nice now, homey. It’s seven in the evening, and we had a couple of beers after class in ViaVia, joined by Percy from Cranbrook who is also in the Isbalanque Spanish School and came with us on a tour to a coffee finca this morning. So did Peggy Victoria. What are the odds that four people from B.C. would meet in a language school in Copan Ruinas.
The finca visit was interesting - a tour of the drying area, usually on a concrete pad in the sun, or in a giant wood and coffee-husk fired dryer if it’s cloudy. It’s a co-op, in the hills above town, and not your usual tour. We walked across a stream on a squared-off tree trunk and slide through barbed wire fences to see the coffee plants and the fields. A family was chopping weeds in one field, a woman, two children about seven and nine, and a weathered man who, when we drew closer, had only one hand but wielded his hoe deftly.
But back to the sounds. They are not always so benign.
Last night, Jody was fighting a cold and I was tired from the heat and the realization, after a four-hour lesson, that learning Spanish was going to be a big job. (Yes, I should have realized that earlier.) We trudged up the hill to the house, and crashed for a while, then ate huevos rancheros. They were really good - a poached egg with salsa, beans, local cheese with crema, which is a staple, and tortillas.
Then I just wanted somewhere to read, or do homework, or sit. There isn’t really anywhere like that.
So I collapsed on the bed in our little room. And all around, there were sounds. Outside our window - right outside our window - is an outdoor sink. It’s abut four feet by five feet, cement, and three feet deep. At one end, there’s a shallow concrete part, with ridges, that seems to be used for scrubbing clothes and washing dishes and multiple other purposes.
And for some two hours, the water was running into the tank, a steady waterfall about two feet from our open window.
That was the base for the soundtrack. On the street in front, a futbol game - or war, I couldn’t tell - kept a gang of boys shouting and hooting. Unmuffled motorcycles roared past, and trucks and the three-wheeled taxis that serve this hilly town. Dogs barked and, more pleasantly, so did geckos. Our other window is two feet from the house on the other side, where another daughter lives, and a lively, loud conversation continued there. In the kitchen - right outside our bedroom door - Esmeralda and a stream of visitors talked loudly, occasionally dropping their voices as someone thought about us, but only for a moment.
Once we turned out the lights, the water stopped running and the voices fell. But the motorcycles still roared by occasionally, and a grouchy dog barked at phantoms.
None of this is, I hope, complaining. But we lived in Victoria as two people in small space set back from the road, with three adjacent houses where people lived quiet lives. Most of the year, our windows were closed.
Now we’re in a three-house compound where people of all ages come and go, the doors and windows are all open and the street is part of the living space. Lives are lived loudly and publicly. There seems to be little sense of the need for silence - if the techno is too loud from the neighbouring house, or the children too noisy in the street, the solution is to turn up the cartoons the tired three-year-old is watching on the television.
Conclusions? We aren’t in Victoria anymore, and don’t over-romanticize the joys of communal living in a hot climate.

Our first fiesta

2012-01-25T10:25:00.000-08:00

We’ve been here less than 48 hours, and attended our first fiesta.
Esmeralda, our home stay host, told us there was a party tonight. I think there were two birthdays, but I’m not really sure. My Spanish skills mean I am generally only half-certain about anything that’s going on, often much less. And I’m probably regularly wrong about the things that I think I understand. (Which might have been true even when I understood the language people were speaking.)
Breakfast yesterday was tamales purchased the night before from a neighbour cooking them in her backyard in a big tub over a wood fire. I’ve never been fond of tamales in Mexico - too mushy, like a pudding with chunks of boney chicken. But these were good - chicken, potato and rice in a thinner corn mush casing.
We wandered through the town, scoping it out, had a coffee near the square and I did homework on the roof of the house, while Jody played accordion, then another four hours of Spanish class. The extent of the task ahead grows increasingly claro. I can understand many things, thanks to a good ability to grasp parts of conversation and fill in the blanks. But I have the vocabulary of a two-year-old raised by neglectful parents and can only speak, haltingly, in the present tense. We switch teachers each week; I suspect that’s a good thing for the sanity of la maestra working with me.
We bought a cake for the fiesta - a pastel - and came home. Preparations were under way. We went with Esmeralda to a house around the corner, to get tortillas. Through a house to a backyard, where an older, dark-brown-skinned woman was taking clumps of dough from a large metal bowl, patting them into circles and cooking them on a big pan over a blazing wood fire. We joined several women waiting and left with an aluminum roasting pan full of hot tortilla.
Eventually we made our way to the adjoining house, occupied by a daughter of Esmeralda (another two daughters live in the house on the other side). It gradually filled with cousins and aunts and brothers and sisters and more cousins, sitting mostly in plastic chairs around the edge of the room, with a passel of children in and out of the house and music playing through very bad speakers in way that took me back to the days of Candle transistor radios. We were seated in the place of honour, a satiny sofa. I was introduced to many people, introducing myself as Pablo, offering my mucho gustos and nodded agreeably while smiling wildly as conversations swirled around me.
We ate - delicious chicken stewed in a mild red sauce, rice and vegetables and the tortilla - as people kept arriving. Jody played the accordion for an appreciative audience, we ate the cake and I identified at least one of the birthday people, Rosita, a beautiful young woman turning 21 in a sparkly brown shirt who did all the serving (and looked 15). The serving might be a convention. I don’t know. People kept showing up throughout the evening, and plates of food kept appearing for them.
One guest spoke English, a young Copan guy who spent six years in California studying archeology and then came back to do research at the ruins. He’s working on a site about two kilometres from the main archeological site; there are unexcavated sites all around this region.
We left about 9:45, when some others had gone and it seemed reasonable, but I can hear the party continuing as I write this - especially the loud voices of the young kids.
No big sociological conclusions from one fiesta, but it was a pretty big family gathering for a birthday, though it also reminded me of some WIllcocks gatherings in Toronto when I was a kid. (Except there was no alcohol at the fiesta, which was probably for the best - I was addled enough.)
I didn’t know what to expect about moving to Honduras. But I didn’t imagine myself plunged into someone else’s family life, buying tortillas from a neighbour woman, and sharing a fiesta with a bunch of people who didn’t even seem particularly puzzled to find a gringo sitting on the sofa eating birthday cake while Jody perched on a plastic stool and played Latin American songs on her accordion.

Settling into our new hometown

2012-01-24T10:36:00.000-08:00

So I started to write about how strange this all is, and a tiny moth, brown and with perfect spread wings, landed on my computer screen, attracted by the light.
I’m sitting on the back patio of our home stay, with kids bicycles and mechanics equipment scattered around, boys playing futbol around the corner, Isabel, our host, singing as she cooks in the kitchen, which is behind my back. The boys have gathered around to say hello, improve my Spanish and test their English already.
There’s a wooden ladder propped against a fence, and the neighbour’s house is about five metres in front of me. An outdoor concrete sink is to my right, with the water running. I don’t know why. Laundry is hung on two lines, and the fence.
We’re in Copan Ruinas, arriving from Santa Rosa de Copan today and plunging into our home stay and four hours of Spanish. It’s dizzying.
We live here now. Not in the home stay, though Esmeralda would like that, but in the town.
Beautiful setting. Green hills rising all around, old, narrow cobbled streets and buildings that seem mostly at least 200 years old. About 8,000 people, although it feels much smaller.
I don’t know enough to write much about it. The Mayan ruins, about a kilometre outside town, give the place its name and at least some tourists, although the 2009 coup and crime issues in Honduras have made people reluctant to visit the whole country.
We travelled from Teguicigalpa with some Cuso people heading for a meeting in Santa Rosa de Copan, and ate dinner with them and three other Cuso vols, as they are called, from Calgary and Quebec. Spanish was the common language, which meant I was able to listen, but contribute little.
We caught a ride here this morning, visited the language school and got directions to our home stay. It’s up a cobblestone hill, a kitchen, living room, and three bedrooms, a small one with tiny bathroom for us. It’s rough by Canadian standards - small. rickety shelves, concrete walls partly painted, corrugated tin roof. But we aren’t in Canada - that’s the point.
The Ixbalanque Spanish school is in an old building in town, about a 15-minute walk, depending on how often we get lost. We plunged in, with the first of daily four-hour lessons, one on one. My instructor, a Honduran woman - la maestra is the title - seemed little daunted by my lame skills, and the 24-hour immersion should bring progress. Jody gets a month of lessons courtesy of Cuso as preparation for her placement, and I’m paying for mine. It is a bargain - about $225 a week for 20 hours of lessons, accommodations and three home-cooked meals a day. Lunch was chicken and rice in a mild chile sauce. Based on the smells from behind me, supper will be spectacular.
We stopped for a drink in a second-floor bar/restaurant on the way home. Pina coladas and caprihinas, $2 each. Watched the hills grow dark and the stars come out. It gets dark early in these parts, by 5:30 or 6.
Another person has shown up on the back patio, which seems to be shared by several families, to wash her dishes in an outdoor sink, offering a cheery hola.
We’re not in Victoria anymore.

Downtown Tegucigalpa

2012-01-18T16:18:00.000-08:00

Day two of Cuso in-country training, and I recognized part of what I'm liking about the moving to Honduras experience.
I'm way out of the zone where I know what to do and can handle things easily, and back learning and figuring new things out.
We spent the morning with a journalist and a translator learning about the history, politics, culture and economy of Honduras. I'd read lots, but it was much different having a discussion and trying to get my head around what was going on, what's ahead and how people here can hope to sort things out.
The experience was intensified because the discussion between the journalist, translator and Cuso rep was often in Spanish as they discussed what was going on. Jody could do better, but our former dog Jack used to stare at me with cocked head when I spoke to him, as if he was trying desperately to make sense of the words. I now know how he felt.
I'm trying not to leap to any conclusions based on little information, but the country is in a fascinating mess, with very little that actually works and no clear route out. The coup in 2009 was a big problem, there are few functioning political or legal institutions, drug traffickers are powerful, people are poor and the economy is hurting.
Oh, and they're early victims of climate change weather extremes.
It's not just a matter of avoiding poorly informed conclusions. Some 17 journalists have been killed since 2009.
We went to the centro with the journalist in the afternoon, and walked around a bit and saw the Museum of National Identity, which had some interesting stories, and a 19th century opera house. It's a scruffy core, with a lot of unemployed people and few prosperous ones, and a mix of century-old buildings and 1960s ones in disrepair. Jody said it reminded her of Havana.
But the journalist knew everybody, from street people to the museum director, and had a good open vibe that drew the same in return, and it didn't feel dangerous. (Though I would not go for an after-dinner stroll there.)
I'm liking it all, I think largely because I'm in a new situation and I'm learning and processing new stuff constantly. You forget how much you can slip into not-learning mode.

I've got a new life, you would hardly recognize me

2012-01-17T16:50:00.000-08:00

Well, you'd probably recognize me, but the new life part certainly applies. (And while the headline is from The Sign, I am referencing the Mountain Goats' version, not the Ace of Bass hit.
After a stressful, occasionally miserable four or five months, we're in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, as my partner gets set to start a one- or two-year placement with Cuso International. (They're still looking for a placement for me, but my Spanish is pretty poor, so that's a problem.)
I'll write more about Cuso and its process and my big problems reducing all our possessions to the limits of a six-foot by eight-foot storage locker.
This is just a brief update and an effort to keep the blog from becoming totally stale.
Honduras is certainly a place where Paying Attention should be a way of life. The country, as they say, has issues. The politics are unstable and it has become a big drug transit route from South America to the U.S. markets, which brings a whole truckload of problems. The largest city, San Pedro Sula, has bumped Ciudad Juarez from the world's top spot for murders. People are poor.
But we flew in yesterday and did a brief, careful walk in the neighbourhood and recognized that people are still going about their lives. Kids are going to school, people are working. We shopped at the Mas por Menas grocery and noted a music store where Jody might be able to get the music stand that wouldn't fit in our bags. (We were allowed 50 pounds each by the airline. Our big bag weighed 49.7 lbs; the two backpacks a combined 49.4 pounds. The carry-on baggage included an accordion, two laptops and various things that would have pushed the suitcases over the limit.)
Today was spent in briefings - with a doctor at one of the hospitals who went through an amazingly detailed, skillful and helpful presentation on diseases, food risks and insects. And, along the way, with interesting observations on culture and other issues. The hospital was older, but looked cleaner than the old building at the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria.
We had lunch with three Cuso staff at the Thai King restaurant - go figure - and the afternoon was devoted to a security briefing. It was a little daunting.OK, pretty daunting. But ultimately, the risks seem manageable and we've travelled enough, I think, to have some skills.
I'm still processing it all, and in-country orientation continues for another three days.
But all-in-all, it feels very good to be in such an interesting place, where I know so little and there is so much to learn.

Big life changes and a wish for the new year

2011-12-30T14:02:00.000-08:00

I’ve been urging the same New Year’s resolution in columns for 10 years now. Which means it’s great, or I’m unimaginative.
I’m living the resolution right now, and lean toward the former explanation.
We’re heading to Honduras for a year or two in the coming weeks, and who knows where after that, which means quitting my job, getting rid of almost all our stuff and taking a leap into a new and somewhat scary world.
All of which forces me to pay attention, the resolution I’ve been suggesting every year in columns since 2001.
We worry, we dream, we plan, and life flies by without really paying attention to what matters, the people we love, even ourselves. We miss a lot while we’re worrying about past mistakes or future opportunities.
But leaving behind a life, like a snake shedding its skin, forces you to pay attention to so many things.
In the summer, my partner and I applied for Cuso International postings. She was offered a place in Honduras, I was offered one in Ghana. For a variety of reasons, we picked Honduras.
It’s been interesting, and unexpected. We’ve been through an assessment day to judge if we were good candidates. We’ve spent a week in Ottawa, with an interesting group of people bound for postings in Africa and Latin and South America, in a great orientation course.
And we’ve been getting ready. We rent, so that’s one less complication. But we’ve been sorting and dumping stuff, a painful process, at least for me. Those old maps could be the start of an art project. The TransCanada Airline plates might be valuable. The Celestion 33 speakers are classics. I spent a fortune on art supplies. What if I need a good suit someday?
Mostly though, after a painful process, I’ve let go of things. Someone else can use the art supplies, and I can buy a new suit if I want one.
It helps that a lot of the stuff is junk. Junk I love, sometimes, but not worth anything. The desk/art table I’m writing on was declared surplus in a newspaper some 50 years ago. It’s oak, heavy, austere. Perfect for writing morning pages in south Oak Bay, or making prints in Gordon Head. I won’t find another like it.
But I’ll find some other table I like when I need one. A card table, a door on sawhorses. Who knows?
All the things that matter have associations with people I’ve cared about. That’s adds stress when it comes to shedding them, but it has been good to think about all those who have touched my life in a way that is important many years later. And it’s a reminder that whatever comes next will be linked to people I love.
My partner in life, and this adventure, Jody Paterson, has had an easier time. She’s better at paying attention now, and not worrying about what was or might be.
Despite all the stress, and the occasional crisis, it’s been good. I’ve paid attention. Change does that.
But you can choose to pay attention even if you aren’t making big life changes.
Ten years ago, here’s what I wrote.
“Today, pay attention. Pay attention to the way your lover or friend or reflection looks this evening, to the way your child holds her head as she listens to the story that will ultimately stop too soon. Pay attention to the small yellow light from a candle warming your living room and the cold, bright light from a handful of stars in the clear night sky. Pay attention to what you have, and what you long for.
“So today, and the next day and the day after that, open your eyes.
“Making this world a little better is within our individual grasps. We are fundamentally decent, I believe that. When we finally see the problems of those around us, we will act.
“This year, simply pay attention.”
It’s good advice, I think, and not a hard resolution to adopt. Give it a try in the new year.
Footnote: For more on our plans, check out the link “Heading to Honduras” on the upper right.

Progress Board gives Liberal decade a middling grade

2011-12-28T14:23:00.000-08:00

The Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell in 2002 to report on how the government is doing and killed by Christy Clark last year, went out with a bang.
The board’s final report this month compared B.C.’s performance on key indicators with its standing in 2000.
It wasn’t a flattering report card for the Liberal government. The province actually slid backward in its economic ranking over the decade, and remained mired in ninth place for social conditions.
The Progress Board was a noble effort. Campbell set up the independent panel to devise measurable standards that could be used to monitor the province’s progress each year. They looked at ways of assessing B.C.’s performance on the economy, health outcomes, environment and social conditions and prepared special reports on key issues.
And the board set goals. It concluded that B.C. should aim to stay in first place for environmental quality and health outcomes — where it was in 2000 — and to rise to first or second place in the other categories by 2010.
It was an ambitious target, but the Liberals embraced it.
The performance has fallen well short of the lofty goals.
B.C. remains in first place among provinces for health outcomes and environmental measurements. (Which, considering all the criticism of the Liberals’ environmental policies, should hearten them.)
But it was ranked fourth for the strength of its economy in 2000; now it has slid a place to rank fifth.
British Columbians had the third⊇highest personal income in 2000; the province had slipped to fourth place by 2010.
The province ranked fifth for employment in 2000; it had fallen two places to seventh by 2010.
And it remained the second worst jurisdiction in Canada for social conditions. B.C. has the highest proportion of its citizens living in poverty, or at least below StatsCan’s low-income cutoff level. When the Liberals took over, the province was in sixth place.
That doesn’t mean that the economy or employment hadn’t grown, or that there had been no improvement in social conditions. Other provinces have just improved at the same rate, or faster, so B.C. lost ground.
Still, the goal was to rise to first or second place in these categories by 2010. Instead, the economic rankings worsened.
The point of using rankings, rather than absolute measures, was to get some idea how the government and B.C. were doing relative to other provinces.
The goal wasn’t to be an average government, but to manage in a way that produced better results here than in other provinces. That hasn’t happened. In fact, B.C. went backward in some key measures.
It’s unfortunate Clark has killed the Progress Board, replacing it with something called the Jobs and Investment Board. It’s unclear if the new body will continue monitoring performance using the same broad range of publicly available measures. Its focus is narrower, with no obvious interest in health, the environment or social conditions.
The results in its final report certainly don’t paint a glowing picture of a province being managed more competently than any other. There’s nothing wrong with being average, but it’s not much to boast about.
That’s a problem for the Liberals, who have been trying to contrast their record with the “decade of decline” under the NDP in the 1990s.
The New Democrat government of the late 1990s was remarkably inept, with a series of largely empty announcements substituting for any coherent, consistent policy direction.
The Progress Board report, though, confirms that the Liberals haven’t been any great shakes at managing the province either, based on the actual results during their tenure. (Partly, that may confirm that government actions are much less significant than they like to claim.)
Political parties often like to run on their opponents’ records. It’s a lower standard to meet — we might not be good, they say, but the other guys are worse. We’ll be hearing a lot of such talk over the next 16 months.
But the reality is that neither of the main parties can claim any great success. Perhaps that will encourage them to quit living in the past, and talk about what they would do if elected.

Time for a real debate on fracking risks, benefits

2011-12-23T12:55:00.000-08:00

The fracking debate — or more accurately the absence of one — is another example of B.C.’s great divide.
If fracking was going on in the Lower Mainland, or the Okanagan, it would be front-page news. (Just look at how quick the government was to pay a company $30 million to make the prospect of uranium mining — more benign — vanish from the Okanagan.)
But fracking is booming in the northeast, as energy companies rush into a shale-gas boom. So it’s largely been taking place under the radar. Many people probably have no real idea what it is.
That should change. A full debate about the practice and the government’s approach to regulation is urgently needed.
Fracking has been around for at least three decades. As a newcomer in Alberta long ago, I was intrigued by the Fracmaster trucks rolling around the highways. They pumped water and additives, under pressure, into wells to fracture the rock — thus the name — allowing oil and gas to flow more freely from conventional wells.
Today’s fracking has little in common with that relatively low-tech approach.
Energy companies have tapped a new resource in gas trapped in shale deposits. Horizontal drilling — drilling down and then parallel to the surface — has allowed long wells through the rock formations. New equipment allows the injection of water, sand and chemicals under extremely high pressure to crack the rock, allowing the gas to flow.
The chemicals, some toxic, help the process. The sand flows into the fractures and prevents them from closing. Unlike the old days, when wells were usually fracked once, the industry will repeatedly frack the same well to increase producton.
The advances have allowed the energy companies to exploit vast new reserves around the world that were trapped in the rock formations. Northeastern B.C. has been a particularly hot spot; half the gas in the province is now produced by fracking. The government says production could double by the end of the decade.
That’s got some big benefits. The government has cashed in on auctions for drilling rights and leases and on royalties. (Though the lease revenue plummeted this year to $223 million, compared with $844 million last year.)
The boom has brought jobs to the northeast, and the rush of shale gas onto the market has depressed natural gas prices — good news for consumers.
But there are huge environmental issues and governments have lagged badly in understanding them and regulating the fracking operations.
Start with water. It takes vast amounts of water to generate the pressure needed to frack a single well. Energy companies in B.C. already have the right to withdraw water from lakes and rivers that’s equal to the consumption of a city of more than 700,000 people. They also draw from wells and have applied for large amounts of water from the Williston Reservoir on the Peace River, used by B.C. Hydro to generate power. There is concern other users will be left dry.
Once the chemicals are added, the water is toxic. That creates risk to aquifers, both in the fracking operation and when the companies try to dispose of the water by injecting it into deep wells. The seriousness of the threat has been debated, but this month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported a preliminary link between fracking and well contamination in Wyoming. Encana, the company involved, disputes the finding.
On top of those risks, fracking has caused earthquakes in the U.S. and England.
Some jurisdictions, like Quebec, and France and some U.S. states, have banned fracking.
But B.C. hasn’t even had a real debate about it, or the regulations and oversight needed.
Independent MLAs Bob Simpson and Vicki Huntington have called for the creation of an all-party legislative committee to hold hearings and report on fracking. It would be a useful start.
Footnote: The province has made some regulatory changes. Companies were required to report water use this year (though about one-third didn’t comply and received fines of under $1,000). And a new online registry will have information about fracking locations, though companies can still keep the chemicals being used secret.

Heading to Honduras

2011-12-22T16:30:00.000-08:00

Those paying close attention might have noticed a new link in the upper right here, called Heading to Honduras.
That’s where I’m going in mid-January.
My partner and I both applied to Cuso International for volunteer work. I was offered a post in Ghana, she was offered one in Honduras. For assorted reasons, we picked Honduras, where she’ll be working with an NGO on communications, knowledge development and whatever else they need.
I’ll expect to find some way to volunteer down there, do some work for clients up here (if you need fast, sharp editing or writing, keep me in mind), write, paint and get really good at Spanish.
It’s the right time for us to make this change, and I’m looking forward to living in a new culture in Copan Ruinas.
I’ll write more about all this, and all the years of blogging/columning on events here.
Check out the link. And if you’re around Victoria, come on out to our farewell party Jan. 11 at the Garry Oak room at the Fairfield Community Centre, from 6 to 10 p.m. Music and fun. It’s also a fundraiser for Cuso and PEERS.

Time to kill Campbell's gimmicky education fund

2011-12-22T08:17:00.001-08:00

I have good news for Premier Christy Clark — a way to deal with Community Living B.C. underfunding that won’t require spending cuts elsewhere or tax increases.
All she has to do is kill a goofy policy initiative of Gordon Campbell that never really made any sense.
Community Living B.C. says it needs about $65 million more a year to meet the immediate needs of adults with developmental disabilities, what we once called mental handicaps.
Clark says the government doesn’t have the money.
But this year the government is committing $47 million to the Children’s Education Fund, a shoddy piece of public policy that came out of nowhere in 2006 when Campbell needed something cool to announce at the Liberal convention in Penticton.
Campbell said the government would commit $1,000 for every baby born after that year to the education fund. Beginning in 2025, every teen graduating from high school would get the $1,000, plus interest — perhaps about $2,200.
It’s one of those silly ideas that makes sense as a short-term political gimmick when people are tossing around ideas in the premier’s office, but serves no real long-term purpose.
There’s no logical basis for the government to decide that a tuition subsidy for students starting school in 2025 is a priority today — more important than caring for the disabled, improving health care or offering a tax cut to encourage employment growth.
In fact, the notion that the government can predict the needs of students two decades in the future is dubious. Imagine the outgoing Socreds trying to come up with a tuition plan that would work for students in 2011.
The amount, for example, could be a pittance compared to the cost of education more than a decade from now.
Or alternately, a future government, given the need for skilled British Columbians, could have decided post-secondary education should be free to some qualifying students, or even all students. That’s not an outlandish notion, given the shift to a knowledge-based economy in the province.
It’s also odd the government decided the needs of students in 2025 would be greater than students today. About 60 per cent of Canadian students graduate with some debt. For those people, the average debt load is $27,000. It would take $90 a week for nine years to pay off the balance.
That’s a big burden, particularly in a soft employment market. Why not take the $47 million and address today’s needs, through scholarships or education credits or tax breaks, or target First Nations’ high school graduation rates, or address other educational needs?
It’s also bizarre that the fund makes no distinctions based on the needs of either the province, or the students.
A multimillionaire’s child will get $2,000; so will a youth coming out of care, living on income assistance and trying to get an education.
A smart program would target bright students who couldn’t afford an education, and be based on merit and need. Or it could support education for students entering fields that were critical to the province’s future.
We’re talking about serious money. The program started in 2007; by the end of this year the available money in the fund is expected to have reached $230 million.
By 2025, the government will have stashed more than $1 billion in the fund.
The money isn’t counted as an expense in the current budget year. It’s counted as an investment, with the interest showing up on the books as revenue each year. The actual expense will show up on the government books when the payouts begin in 2025. (A development that might not thrill the government, or the taxpayers, of the day, saddled with an expense by a long-gone predecessor.)
It’s interesting that the Liberals don’t talk about the fund anymore. It’s like they realize it makes little sense, but haven’t quite figured out what to do about it. So they just keep committing more than $40 million a year to poor policy.
So there’s some free advice for Clark. Announce the fund is no longer a priority in the wake of the economic slowdown. Allocate the money to CLBC, or some other useful measure.
And take care in future to avoid such poor policy gimmicks.

Federal leadership on health care missing

2011-12-20T16:41:00.000-08:00

The biggest issue in the federal government’s move to curb health-care spending increases isn't the new limits, although that should be a concern.
It’s the Harper government’s decision to abandon any leadership role on health care and leave the provinces to sort things out.
The country’s finance ministers were in Victoria this week. The provincial ministers thought they would have a few meals and meetings, talk about big issues and do a little preliminary work on a new health funding plan to replace the current one, which ends in 2014.
Instead, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty arrived at a lunch in a dining room on a downtown hotel’s top floor - very nice harbour views - and the premiers were handed the new deal. No discussion, he said. Here’s the new funding formula.
The current arrangement provides provinces with six per cent a year increases in federal health care funding. Flaherty said that will continue until 2017, then the increases will be capped at the rate of growth in the economy. There will be minimum increases of three per cent, so health care doesn’t face deep cuts if there’s a recession.
Based on current growth and inflation, the provinces could expect increases of about 4.5 per cent a year.
The federal government provides about 20 per cent of health care costs, with the provinces paying the rest. The change means about $55 million less for B.C. in the first year, increasing by a similar amount each subsequent year. It’s not a huge amount, though after five years the shortfall will be nearing $300 million.
The reaction of the provincial ministers was mixed. Six were critical, either of the lower increases or the federal government’s failure to consult and discuss the change.
But B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon said he was satisfied with the change. He welcomed the long-term certainty, so the province could plan, and supported the desire to reduce federal spending. (That’s a little odd, since during the Liberal leadership campaign he condemned a similar proposal from Christy Clark. Clark did not, it should be noted, include the promise of a minimum increase even if the economy went into reverse.)
A little more skepticism might have been in order. The proposed funding formula doesn’t include any provision for population growth, which means there will be a reduction in real per-capita funding. Nor does it reflect the impact of an aging population, or costly technological advances.
And it isn’t based on any assessment of actual health care needs (note that the meeting involved finance ministers, not health ministers). What if a continued six per cent increases would allow dramatic reductions in wait times, or much better seniors’ care?
Instead, the Harper government picked an arbitrary ceiling that could be sold politically and went ahead.
Canada has room to increase health care spending, if it’s in the public interest. Other countries — Germany and the U.S., for example — spend a higher proportion of their GDP on health care. And the Canadian public, so far, has indicated quality health care is a priority.
The federal government initiative also abdicates any leadership role. Health care is a provincial responsibility, but provinces and territories operate under the terms of the Canada Health Act.
Federal funding is important. But federal leadership in tackling the challenges of delivering cost-effective high-quality care would also be valuable.
As a significant funder, the Harper government could have lead a national discussion of what Canadians expect from care, how technology can be used, how prevention could reduce costs and more effective ways of using health-care staff.
Instead, the provinces will be largely left to their own devices, or to figure out ways to work together on their own.
It’s probably an astute move politically — health care issues tend to earn governments more blame than praise.
But it won’t help Canada move to the best, most cost-effective care.
Footnote: Provincial and territorial premiers will meet in Victoria next week to discuss health care. They will likely call for a federal-provincial conference on the funding formula and the future of care, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper will likely reject the idea.

Justin Trudeau could have been describing Parliament’s session

2011-12-18T09:32:00.001-08:00

There’s no real theme to the column, beyond a general sense of wonder.
First, burkas and citizenship. Foreign Affairs Minister Jason Kenney said this week that women would no longer be allowed to take the citizenship oath with their faces covered as part of their religious beliefs.
You can have a good debate about the burka and niqab and their place in society. There are concerns some women are forced into wearing them, making them instruments of oppression. Other women say it is a core part of their religious faith, mandated in the Koran. There are questions about how society changes when some people hide their faces in public.
But Kenney’s reason is goofy. He fears women might not actually be saying the citizenship oath.
Come on. New citizens have all studied and passed a test. We don’t now know whether they are taking the oath, or moving their lips. (Perhaps Kenney will mandate monitors to stand next to every person at the ceremonies in future.) It would be easy to have women wearing head coverings sign a written oath.
Even more offensive was Kenney’s response to questions about legal challenges to the edict. “I’m sure they’ll trump up some stupid Charter of Rights challenge,” he said.
There is nothing “stupid” about asserting the rights guaranteed all Canadians by law. Kenney’s contempt for the law, and those freedoms, is alarming.
Meanwhile, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau got in trouble this week by calling Environment Minister Peter Kent “a piece of s***.”
That, of course, reminded people of his father, then prime minister Pierre Trudeau, being accused of mouthing “f*** off” to opposition MPs 40 years ago.
Trudeau claimed then he was mouthing “fuddle duddle.” Justin Trudeau was more honest, jumping to his feet to apologize and retract his remarks.
So what riled him? NDP environment critic Megan Leslie had asked Kent a question about Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.
Kent responded by noting that “if she had been in Durban” Leslie would be better informed.
But the Conservative government had, for the first time in the history of Kyoto talks, refused to accredit opposition MPs as observers at the talks, denying them a role. Trudeau thought it a bit much that Kent would bar MPs, then criticize them for not going. (Green leader and Saanich-Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May cleverly got herself approved as a delegate for Papua-New Guinea; Liberals and New Democrats could have shown similar initiative.)
Sadly, Trudeau’s rudeness was far from the low point of the just concluded parliamentary session. The Conservative majority has not brought civility or even a basic commitment to let MPs actually do the job of representing their constituents. Legislation has been forced through with minimal debate. There is an appalling lack of respect, civility or even basic decency in the Commons, in large part because the Conservatives seem to see evil enemies across the House rather than men and women elected by Canadians to represent them. (It does, of course, take two to bicker.)
As the session ended, the Conservatives confirmed they planned to increase secrecy by barring the press and public from more meetings of parliamentary committees. Conservative MP Tim Wallace said going behind closed doors “gives members of Parliament an opportunity to speak frankly.”
Wallace is acknowledging duplicity, perhaps dishonesty — saying one thing in public, and another when citizens don’t have a chance to know what’s going on.
Then there’s the stonewalling of the G8 spending scandal that saw border security funds diverted to often frivolous projects in Treasury Board president Tony Clement’s riding, Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s misleading explanations for his use of a search and rescue helicopter as a taxi to get him from a fishing camp in Newfoundland and other lapses.
It’s odd. The Liberals were booted out because the Conservatives promised something better. Now they’re turning into what they once condemned.
Footnote: The session ended with Speaker Andrew Scheer, a Conservative MP ruling that a party dirty tricks campaign aimed at Liberal MP Irwon Cotler was “reprehensible,” but not against the rules. The Conservatives were caught calling voters and falsely claiming Cotler had resigned and a byelection would be held. It was later revealed thatthe company hired to make the calls had also worked on Scheer’s election campaign.

Governments need will to fix growing inequality

2011-12-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

The Occupiers have packed their tents, but the issue of increasing inequality within Canada shouldn't go away with them.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported this week that income inequality continues to increase in Canada and around the world.

And it warns trouble lies ahead. "The economic crisis has added urgency to the debate," its report said. "The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries."

Disenfranchised youth "have now been joined by protesters who believe they are bearing the brunt of a crisis for which they have no responsibility while people on higher incomes appear to have been spared."

The OECD analysis debunks the myth that growing inequality is the result of market forces or some inevitable new order. Government policies have ensured that those with high incomes claim a larger share of the country's wealth, while the poor receive a smaller proportion.

The average income of the bottom 10 per cent of Canadians in 2008 was $10,260; the average income of the top 10 per cent of was $103,500. The top 10 per cent had an average income 10 times greater than those at the bottom; in the early 1990s their incomes were only eight times greater.

The richest one per cent of Canadians shared 13.3 per cent of total income in 2007, up from 8.1 per cent in 1980. And the richest one-tenth of one per cent of Canadians - about 13,000 households - claimed 5.3 per cent of all income in Canada. That's more than twice as much as the share they received in 1980.

The growing gap starts with greater wage inequality. Partly, that does reflect market forces. Technological change has seen high-skilled workers benefit more than those with fewer skills.

But provincial and federal government policies have also increased inequality. Canadian governments have promoted part-time work or flexible hours and eased employment standards. The changes improved productivity and brought more people into work, but "the rise in part-time and low-paid work also extended the wage gap," the OECD found.

Canadian governments have played a more direct role in widening the income gap. Tax and benefit policies can narrow, or widen, the gap.

In Canada, they now reduce inequality less than in most of the OECD's 34 member countries.

That reflects choices by government. "Prior to the mid-1990s, the Canadian tax-benefit system was as effective as those in the Nordic countries in stabilizing inequality, offsetting more than 70 per cent of the rise in market income equality," the report found. "The effect of redistribution has declined since then: Taxes and benefits have only offset less than 40 per cent of the rise in inequality."

Tax cuts, for example, have delivered the greatest benefits to the rich - in B.C., income tax cuts have delivered an average benefit of $9,000 a year to the richest 10 per cent of households, while saving the poorest 10 per cent an average $200.

The theory was that everyone would benefit.

It hasn't worked, says OECD secretary-general Angel Gurría. "This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that greater inequality fosters greater social mobility," he said. "Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise."

The OECD offers potential solutions. A greater investment in education, starting in early childhood and continuing into the adult years, would help people improve their job prospects and incomes.

Benefit polices need to be improved. "Large and persistent losses in low-income groups following recessions underline the importance of government transfers and well-conceived income support policies," the report says.

The growing share of income going to top earners means they can afford to pay more in taxes; governments should review tax policies "to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share."

And "the provision of freely accessible and high-quality public services, such as education, health and family care is important," the OECD says.

But before anything happens, we have to decide that the increasing gap is undesirable. And we have to recognize that government policies have played a significant role in increasing inequality, and can do just as much to reduce it.

Court right to toss drinking-driving law

2011-12-02T15:16:00.000-08:00

The B.C. Supreme Court struck a good balance in tossing part of the province’s new drinking-driving laws.
Justice Jon Sigurdson upheld the provisions that penalize people who blow between .05 and .08.
But he ruled that the use of the same approach to levy much tougher penalties for those who blow over .08 — the Criminal Code definition of impairment — is unconstitutional because it violates the Charter of Rights protection against “unreasonable search and seizure.”
The difference is the severity of the penalties. Sigurdson found that the Charter violation was tolerable in the case of the lesser penalties, given the importance of reducing impaired driving.
But the sanctions for blowing over .08 on a roadside screening device are much harsher. People have a right to a reasonable, independent appeal process when they face severe penalties, Sigurdson ruled, and the government has failed to provide one.
The fear that police officers effectively become judge and jury, without an adequate appeal process is well-founded.
It’s not a surprising ruling. The government’s aim — besides reducing impaired driving — was to save money by shifting impaired driving cases out of the courts.
Instead of laying a criminal charge, opening the door to a not guilty plea and trial, the government wanted to come up with similar penalties that could be imposed cheaply. Impaired cases make up about one-third of the caseload in provincial courts, in part because tougher penalties have given drivers a greater incentive to fight the charges.
The changes worked. The deaths linked to impaired driving fell 40 per cent in the year since the change was introduced, and the number of impaired driving charges fell by almost 75 per cent.
But the change, Sigurdson ruled, also violated British Columbians’ rights.
The courts have ruled that when a police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” a driver is impaired he could require a roadside breath test. But the test was simply an indicator that the driver should submit to a proper breathalyzer exam.
If he failed that, criminal charges could be laid. The driver would then have a chance to challenge the charge in court, cross-examine the officer and introduce evidence in his defence.
The provincial regulations skip all those steps. There is an appeal process, but it involves a strictly limited written appeal or hearing before a motor vehicle branch employee. Police don’t have to disclose evidence and there are no questions allowed.
Sigurdson found the province’s penalties for blowing over .08 were significant enough to require better safeguards to prevent innocent people from being wongly punished.
Drivers lose their licences for 90 days and face a $500 fine and the $880 cost of a remedial course. They are required to install ignition interlock devices once their licences are returned, which requires them to provide a clean breath sample before the car will start. Those cost more than $1,500. All in the total cost is more than $4,000, and some people, of course, lose their jobs. (Those who blow between .05 and .08 face a three-day suspension for a first offence, rising to seven days for a second infraction and 30 days for subsequent offences. They face fines of $200 to $400 and a $250 fee to have the licence reinstated. Repeat offenders also must take a course on drinking and driving, which costs $880, and have their cars impounded.)
The government has already been warned about problems with the regime. Earlier this year, a Supreme Court decision noted the appeal process was “fundamentally at odds with basic concepts of fairness and impartiality.”
There are easy fixes, at least going forward. The government can bring in a proper appeal process that respects Charter rights, or it can reduce the penalties.
It’s important to deter impaired driving. But it’s also important to respect basic principles — like innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a fair hearing before serious punishments are imposed.
Footnote: In the first 12 months, police imposed about 25,000 roadside suspensions. About 15,000 involved the more serious penalties for failing the roadside test or refusing to blow. It’s unclear whether drivers will challenge those penalties as a result of the ruling.

The facts on the Attawapiskat housing and community crisis

2011-12-01T12:27:00.000-08:00

I have been meaning to try and sort through the claims about funding for the Attawapiskat First Nations community. The northern community is a disgrace. The Conservative government have attempted to blame poor band management, pointing to $90 million in funding over the past five years.
Fortunately, I don't have to, because âpihtawikosisân lays out the facts here, with useful links to the source documents, including band financial reports.
Well worth a read.

Gloomy forecast sinks balanced budget plan

2011-11-29T15:50:00.000-08:00

Amid all the gloom - and there was buckets of it - a glimmer of good news shone through Finance Minister Kevin Falcon’s quarterly report on the province’s finances and economy this week.
Mostly, the news was bad. The outlook for the economy is worse than it was three months ago, and it wasn’t great then. The deficit for the year is now forecast at a record $3.1 billion, $331 million worse than Falcon predicted in his last forecast. (Though the actual number is misleading, since about $1.6 billion reflects the one-time HST incentive to be repaid to the federal government .)
And things could get still worse in the coming months.
The good news is that Falcon is backing away from the ill-considered and potentially disastrous commitment to balance the budget by 2013-14.
Falcon still says that’s his goal. But he now acknowledges the target might be impossible.
British Columbians should heave a collective sigh of relief.
Sure, it’s embarrassing for the government to have to adjust its deficit target again and the whole notion of balanced budget laws is starting to look silly. The Liberals introduced a law making deficits illegal beginning in 2004. They amended it in 2009 to allow two years of deficits, then amended it again to allow two more years. Now, it looks like there’s a good chance of a new amendment, meaning the laws on balanced budgets changes about as often as the ministers responsible for Community Living B.C.
But clinging to the target would be destructive, with the goal of a balanced budget by 2013-14 achieveable only with deep spending cuts that would slash services and hurt the economy.
Falcon is in good company. Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said last month the Harper government won’t likely balance its budget until 2016, two years later than the budget promised. The Ontario government expects to run deficits until 2017, and that target appears optimistic.
What’s happening is a return to traditional Keynesian economic theory. Governments should budget for surpluses when times are good and use money to pay down debt, the approach dictates.
But when there is a recession, governments should be prepared to run deficits both to maintain services and avoid weakening the economy further by reducing demand.
The real-world risk is that governments never quite get around to balancing the budget when times are good, meaning mounting debt, higher interest costs, an increasing burden for future generations and, as we’re seeing in the case of Greece, a nasty day of reckoning when lenders won’t extend more credit.
B.C. is a long way from that point; the province’s credit rating is good and the debt-to-GDP ratio moderate.
Falcon can’t be made to wear all the blame for the growing deficit. The Finance Ministry’s assumptions about economic growth were more moderate than the independent panel of economists that advises government. The problem is that things keep getting worse than expected.
The U.S. economy is stalled, Europe is in crisis and demand in China is falling. B.C.’s export-dependent economy is being badly hurt by reduced demand and falling commodity prices.
And falling financial markets have meant losses in ICBC’s investment portfolio, with the result that the government now forecasts the corporation won’t be able to deliver the budgeted $290 million in revenue.
At the same time, the government can be criticized for unrealistically low spending budgets, which have created crisis in the courts and Community Living B.C.
The expense budgets are even more out of whack for the next two years. Most ministries face two years of budget freezes; health spending is forecast to rise three per cent in each of the next two years, half the rate of the increase this year.
All of which makes the balanced budget target even more out of reach — and Falcon’s retreat even more welcome.
Footnote: Falcon delivered some additional bad news. The move from the HST back to the PST is more complicated, and going more slowly, than anticipated. It looks like the change will take a full 18 months, until March 31, 2013. That’s bad for homebuilders and other economic sectors, and for the Liberals.

Dismal child poverty record, and no plan to improve

2011-11-26T09:30:00.000-08:00

The Clark government believes reducing the number of unnecessary regulations is important.
It doesn’t feel the same way about reducing child poverty.
That’s the obvious conclusion from the Liberals’ display of government priorities during the legislative session that wrapped up Thursday.
The Liberals introduced, debated and passed a new law — the Regulatory Reporting Act — that requires an annual report on the number of regulations added and removed during the year, and on initiatives to cut regulations.
Why? Because, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon told the legislature, it’s important — vital — for government “to be publicly accountable for progress or lack of progress” on reducing regulations. Only by measuring and reporting can the public be assured that progress is being made, he said.
But when it was reported that B.C. had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the eighth consecutive year, Premier Christy Clark rejected calls for a plan to address the problem, with targets, actions and a requirement for an annual report on “progress or lack of progress,” to use Falcon’s words.
Why no plan? Clark and the other ministers never offered a coherent reason.
Because there isn’t one.
The facts are clear. The annual national look at child poverty, released by First Call, an advocacy group, found that 12 per cent to 16.4 per cent of B.C. children were living in poverty in 2009. That’s the highest proportion of poor kids of any province, a dismal ranking B.C. has retained for eight years. (You can debate poverty measures, but the fact remains this province is the worst.)
So some 100,000 to 140,000 children are being raised in poverty, an increase of about 15 per cent from the previous year.
That’s bad for them; childhood poverty is linked to lifelong health issues, educational limitations, unemployment and a variety of other problems. And it’s bad for the province, since a large number of people will never make the contributions they could have.
Any competent manager — a title the Liberals like to claim — knows that progress starts with a plan. You set targets for improvements, develop action plans with expected outcomes, monitor and report on progress and make needed changes as you go.
Clark said the government doesn’t need a plan. It’s doing things like raising the minimum wage and providing housing supports and launching job strategies. Those will help reduce child poverty.
Maybe, though it’s an odd claim since the government has insisted for most of the last decade that raising the minimum wage wouldn’t reduce poverty.
But a bunch of random actions aren’t a plan. There’s no objective, even a modest one like moving B.C. from the worst in Canada to the seventh worst. There’s no estimate of the effect of any actions on reducing poverty.
And there’s no reporting or accountability. Reducing regulations, the government passed a law to make sure there would be real accountability there. Not for reducing the number of children living in poverty.
Children and Families Minister Mary McNeil says the government has “committed to working closely with municipalities” to develop regional poverty reduction plans. That might be useful, if it ever happens. But it should also be part of a provincial poverty plan, with targets and outcomes and public reporting on progress.
There’s nothing radical about the idea of developing a plan to reduce child poverty. Seven other provinces already have plans or are working on them. Alberta is expected to launch a plan. That would leave B.C. and Saskatchewan as the only provinces without a coherent plan to reduce child poverty.
The current approach isn’t working, despite some reductions in the number of poor children in recent years. If it was, B.C. wouldn’t still have the worst record in Canada.
Falcon’s Regulation Reporting Act passed into law on the last day of the session. That mattered to the government.
Poor kids are still waiting.
Footnote: A plan could make quick progress. About one-third of the children living in poverty have parents dependent on income assistance or disability benefits. (A single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else.) Providing enough support to lift those children out of poverty, or allowing their parents to earn some money without losing benefits, would move B.C. into the top half of the rankings.

Big pension problems get tiny government response

2011-11-22T18:31:00.000-08:00

Canadians have lost a lot over the years.
A generation ago, most people could count on buying a home for the equivalent of about three year’s salary. That dream is gone.
And a generation ago, most people could count on retiring with a guaranteed pension from their company. They knew how much they would get, and with Canada Pension Plan and old age security, they could count on a comfortable retirement.
It’s extraordinary how that has been taken away, with no real debate.
Companies decided defined benefit plans — ones that paid a guaranteed retirement income — were too costly.
Employee and company paid into defined benefit plans. If the reserves looked they might not provide the promised benefits in future, they had to be topped up.
So companies pushed to eliminate the plans, or change them to defined contribution plans. Employees and company would contribute and the funds invested. The pension would be based on however much money was in the fund on retirement. There was no obligation to provide an income. (Government workers, including MPs and MLAs, still have defined benefit plans. MLAs and MPs believe you should pay for guaranteed pensions for them, but not that you should have one.)
And work changed, from long-term employment with big companies to much less certain work, often part-time or on contract, and without any pension.
In fact, only one in four British Columbians have workplace pensions today.
This huge change in the social contract hasn’t been discussed. And while workplace pensions have been slashed, there has been no corresponding increase in public retirement benefits. Those benefits are low compared to other OECD countries, in large part because Canadians could once count on workplace pension plans.
The Harper government has offered a token response to the pension problems with legislation allowing new pooled pension plans.
It’s a lame response to a real problem. The new plans would give small business the opportunity to provide a pension plan by signing a deal with a bank or investment company. The employees would have the voluntary chance to contribute, and the employer could also contribute if he chose (not that likely, I’d say). The investment firm would take its cut for managing the money and the savings would be available at retirement.
Some employers will offer the plan. Some people will sign on.
But not many. And there is no real benefit over RRSPs; people who have not contributed to their own retirement fund, for whatever reason, are unlikely to opt into voluntary pooled plan.
The government could have easily made the plan at least slightly better. It could have allowed the pooled plans, and had the funds managed by the Canadian Pension Plan investment experts. That’s similar to the approach taken in Saskatchewan, where such a plan already exists. That’s also the model promised by the B.C. government in 2008, and never delivered.
That would have provided excellent money management at the lowest cost. Instead, the Harper government offered the banks and the investment houses the chance to manage the money and collect the fees.
That’s strange, because earlier this year Finance Minister Jim Flaherty called for an investigation into the high fees charged by providers of Canadian mutual funds and other investments. A study found Canadians pay more than twice as much in management fees as Americans. Those costs significantly reduce the money being available for retirement. Now Flaherty is opening a new market for them.
This isn’t just an issue for those nearing retirement age.
The giant baby boom bulge is now nearing 65. In 1971, there were 6.2 British Columbians of working age for every person over 65. By 2034, there will be just 2.4 working-age people for each person over 65. If boomers push for better pensions, the cost will fall heavily on those still working.
Footnote: The best option would be a planned increase in CPP benefits, now capped at about $935 a month. That would require increased contributions by employees and employers. The minimum retirees can expect in Canada is about $1,170 per month — that’s basic old-age security plus a guaranteed income supplement for the poorest seniors.

After 20 years, Jumbo still in limbo

2011-11-18T15:37:00.000-08:00

The past week in the legislature offered good reminders of how surreal things can get in the grand old building.
On Tuesday, the issue of whether the Jumbo Glacier resort near Invermere would be approved was big. Opponents, including former NHL star Scott Niedermayer, were in Victoria. The New Democrats backed them, and raised the issue in question period.
What’s surreal about that, you might ask?
Coincidentally, the next day I was clearing files off an old iMac. And I came across my last column about the controversial issue of approval for the resort. It was from October 2004.
Seven years have gone by and the governments involved haven’t been able to say yes or no to the giant project, which could include some 6,000 housing units, 23 lifts, stores, restaurants and jobs. And bring more than $500 million in economic activity.
The 2004 column noted that occasion was surreal as well. For one thing, the project had already spent 13 years in various efforts to get approvals and translate dreams into construction.
Then resource minister George Abbott had just announced that the project had passed provincial environmental assessment review. But even though the Liberals actually had a resort minister at the time, charged with promoting such developments, Abbott distanced the government from the proposal.
The real decision would be made by East Kootenay Regional District directors, he said. Look over there.
Seven years later, Lands Minister Steve Thomson has the responsibility for approving or rejecting the master development agreement for the project. He says he needs to think about the costs and benefits, First Nations opposition, community attitudes and other factors.
You can argue either way. Jumbo would be the only resort in North America where you could drive to high glacier skiing. The valley has already been logged and mined. The jobs and investment fit Premier Christy Clark’s stated agenda.
But the resort would hurt existing heli-skiing businesses. It could damage grizzly populations, which concerns First Nations and reduces ecotourism activities.
The Ktunaxa First Nation, an effective band with its own resort development and casino, opposes the project in territory it claims. An economic assessment it commissioned found the resort wouldn’t increase economic activity, as it would just take customers from other B.C. ski hills.
What’s really striking is that seven years have gone by without a decision. The issue has divided the community. The developer has kept spending money. Opponents have spent money too. Government workers have been preparing reports and memos, for which you have been paying.
And government is unable to say, this makes sense, or no, it does not.
Politically, the shadow of provincial Conservative leader John Cummins looms over the decision. If the government decides not to allow the project, Cummins will complain about the Liberals granting First Nations a veto on development.
Cummins likewise loomed over the week’s other wildly surreal moments.
On Monday, Liberal MLA Eric Foster introduced a private members bill calling on the legislature to support the federal government’s repeal of the long-gun registry.
That’s silly. It’s a federal issue; the province has no role.
But MLAs from both parties spent an hour talking about guns and crime, a remarkable waste of scarce legislature time (and the $100,000-a-year MLAs’ time). Liberal MLA Bill Bennett argued people need guns to defend themselves against the state, suggesting he’s got some concerns about just where Christy Clark is going with the government. Or something.
So why such a waste of time and money?
Because the Liberals want to line up on the side of people who think the gun registry was a terrible idea — voters who might drift to Cummins and the Conservatives.
Less time on pointless gun talk, and more on speedy project decisions would serve the public better.
Footnote: Bennett, who represents the Jumbo resort region, used a private member’s statement to blast both parties for their handling of the project approvals. “The twists and turns in government process over the last 20 years on this project are a disgrace.” he said. “All members should be embarrassed by the unjust way that this proponent has been forced to tread water for 20 years by both political parties in this House today. I ask, on behalf of my region: Please, let’s have a decision.”

Keystone, Prosperity and government negotiators

2011-11-16T10:48:00.000-08:00

There are many interesting aspects of the decision to delay the Keystone pipeline. The Times Colonist has a useful editorial here.

One striking thing is how quickly the company moved from its position that the oilsands crude pipeline had to traverse a sensitive Nebraska aquifer. The routing was necessary for the project, the developer had maintained all through the approval process, despite major protests from the people and politicians of the state, including the Republican governor.

But as soon as the U.S. government put the approval process on hold, the company changed its tune. The pipeline would be rerouted to avoid the aquifer.

It's a process that should be familiar to British Columbians. The provincial government approved plans for Taseko's Prosperity Mine, and accepted the company's claim it needed to use a large, fish-bearing lake as a tailings dump, destroying it. The Liberal government gave approval.

But the federal government said no, the environmental damage and impact on First Nations outweighed the economic benefits. It blocked the mine.

And Taseko quickly came back with a new proposal that didn't require the destruction of Fish Lake. It would spend about $300 million more and manage the tailings in a less damaging way. (I wrote more about the province's lax approach here.)

Both cases are a reminder that companies want to do things as cheaply as governments will allow (while avoiding obvious liabilities from future problems). They want the low-cost tailings dump, or the shorter pipeline route, because they can make more money, which is their duty to shareholders.

Governments need to be knowledgeable, tough bargainers to avoid unnecessary environmental damage or other decisions not in the public interest. (Yes, there is such a thing as necessary environmental damage. We aren't living in tents in the trees, after all.)

It's not at all clear that governments are tough or skilled bargainers. The B.C. government was prepared to let Taseko destroy a lake unnecessarily; it also handed huge benefits to forest companies when it released land from tree farm licences without getting compensation for taxpayers.

Report fails to clear Basi-Virk plea deal questions

2011-11-15T14:18:00.000-08:00

UBC president Stephen Toope didn’t come up with answers about how taxpayers ended up paying $6 million to cover the legal fees of two Liberal staffers who admitted taking bribes.
That wasn’t Toope’s asssignment, he said when he delivered a report on when taxpayers should and shouldn’t pay the legal bills for government employees. The government asked him to make recommendations about the policy in the future, not report on how it worked in the past.
Toope’s report was useful. But it didn’t dispel the smell hanging over the B.C. Rail scandal and the $6 million payout that helped ensure guilty pleas from Dave Basi and Bob Virk, shutting down the B.C. Rail corruption trial well before all the evidence was heard.
The government chose to release Toope’s report while he was in India, part of Christy Clark’s Asian tour. The University of B.C. has good reasons to be building ties with China and India. But the approach did emphasize the close ties between Toope and the government, and Clark’s unavailability to deal with questions.
Toope recommended the government keep on picking up the legal fees for government workers facing job-related lawsuits or criminal charges.
Partly, it’s a matter of fairness. If people are doing their jobs, and someone sues them or files criminal charges, they shouldn’t face crushing legal bills.
It’s also practical. If an enforcement officer fears facing a huge legal bill as a result of being sued for denying a development permit, he might just say yes to a bad project. Legal indemnification supports independent decisions in the public interest.
Toope recommended a clearer written policy, and better ways of managing costs in big ticket criminal cases. The government has effectively written a blank cheque to defence lawyers and special prosecutors. Toope said those costs could be reduced, at least on the defence side.
And he said the government should seek to recover costs if people are found guilty — something it chose not to do in the Basi-Virk case.
Toope also found there has been no real policy about covering costs in criminal cases. Public sector managers tried to push for a written policy, but the politicians never got around to making any decisions.
But the understanding, from the first case — when the government paid former Glen Clark’s legal fees in the casino licensing case — was clear. If the defendants were found not guilty, the taxpayers paid. If they broke the law, they had to pay for their own defence.
Until Basi-Virk. The government had claims on the defendants’ assets and could have collected a significant chunk of cash. But government, prosecutor and defence cut a deal. The two men pleaded guilty, and got an easy sentence of house arrest. The government — you — covered $6 million in legal fees.
The NDP raised the issue in question period this week. Attorney General Shirley Bond read from a statement in October 20101, when David Loukidelis, deputy in the Attorney General’s Ministry, and Graham Whitmarsh, finance deputy, said they made the decision because the Basi and Virk had limited ability to pay. The $6 million ensured a guilty plea; the alternative was to let the trial continue at a potentially greater cost, with no assurance of a conviction.
But it remains unclear how the two deputy ministers decided Basi and Virk couldn’t pay (the government already had $350,000 in security from Basi it could have claimed), how they had estimated trial costs and whether considered that the $6 million looked much an incentive to plead guilty, creating a perception damaging to government and the justice system.
Auditor General John Doyle is also looking at the $6 million payout.
Hopefully, he’ll come up with some better answers for the public.
In the meantime, the B.C. Rail scandal continues to hang over the government.
Footnote: The legal fee issue isn’t the only remaining question. It’s still unclear, for example, why lobbyists Brian Kieran and Erik Bornman, who both admitted paying bribes to Basi and Virk to get inside information on the deal, weren’t charged. It’s also unclear whether that was normal practice for them, or Basi and Virk. They also admitted leaking information to lobbyist Bruce Clark (Christy Clark’s brother), but it has never been explained why they did.

Flaherty gives Clark a chance to avoid deep cuts to balance budget in short term

2011-11-12T12:58:00.001-08:00

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty offered Christy Clark a big break this week, if she’s prepared to grab it.
Flaherty conceded the Conservatives can’t deliver on their promise to balance the federal budget by the 2014 fiscal year.
It’s more likely to take until 2016, he said, although the budget could be balanced a year earlier if the Harper government finds some $4 billion in annual spending to cut.
That revised plan is good news for Canadians. The pledge to end deficits by 2014, despite the continuing economic slowdown, was always dubious. Clinging to it would have meant damaging spending cuts or tax increases at a time when the economy is already faltering.
But Clark and the B.C. government are still committed to returning to surpluses by the 2013/14 fiscal year — a year earlier than the original federal plan, and perhaps two years ahead of Flaherty’s revised projection.
The provincial government has no credible plan to get there. The last budget, in February, was a stopgap. Gordon Campbell had been forced out. The Liberals didn’t have a leader.
So the budget plugged in some numbers to let the Liberals claim there was a plan to eliminate the deficit, even though they made no real sense.
The budget increased health spending 6.2 per cent this year. But somehow, miraculously, the government proposes to cut that to three per cent increases in each of the next two years.
Most ministries — 13 of the 16 — are dealing with budget cuts this year, and freezes for the next two years.
That’s not a realistic plan, even with a continuing wage freeze.
The government faces increasing costs across the board, as well as a number of specific, costly pressure. Community Living B.C. needs an extra $65 million a year. The federal government’s “tough-on-crime” legislation will cost hundreds of millions a year in court and jail costs. Education Minister George Abbott is promising new programs in schools.
The budget was also based on the continued higher tax revenue from the HST, which voters tossed out in the referendum.
In the September budget update, after the first three months, of the fiscal year, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon acknowledged that the plan no longer worked. The budget projected — optimistically — a surplus of $152 million in 2013/14.
Falcon said that reworking the numbers without the HST produced a projected deficit of $610 million for the same year.
If the government sticks to its plan — and its budget law — it would have to find $458 million in cuts, or revenue increases, to eke out a barely balanced budget, he said.
And cuts, remember, would be to budgets that are already inadequate to maintain core services.
That’s not the only problem. The government was reasonably conservative in its revenue forecasts, which might have created the potential for extra money. But the world economic situation has worsened. U.S. markets for B.C. exports remain weak, the growth in exports to Asia has slowed significantly and Europe is in disarray.
Sticking to the budget plan would require deep cuts to already underfunded ministries, or tax increases. Either would damage the economy. The prudent course would be to accept that the global economic problems justify a deficits for a few more years.
The timing makes this all tricky. The first surplus budget is supposed to be introduced in February 2013, three months before the next election. Many voters will likely recall the 2009 pre-election budget, and the forecast $495-million deficit that ballooned to $1.8 billion. The NDP and Conservatives will argue that any budget forecasts from the Liberals aren’t to be trusted.
And Clark has a problem in provincial Conservative leader John Cummins. His goal is to outflank the Liberals on the right, and he’ll be on the attack if Clark decides to abandon the current plan to balance the budget.
Flaherty’s announcement this week could help the Liberals deal with those attacks. If the Harper Conservatives consider it prudent to take more time to balanced budgets, why shouldn’t the B.C. Liberals take the same course?
Footnote: If the government is going to abandon the current plan to eliminate the deficit by 2013, they will likely be an indication later this month when Falcon presents the second quarter update on the first six months of the current fiscal year.

Former CLBC chair confirms, belatedly, underfunding

2011-11-08T17:05:00.000-08:00

The Vancouver Sun had an odd letter to the editor from a former chair of Community Living BC today. (Not the current chair, as the published version indicated.)
Lois Hollstedt was the first chair of the board and served until 2010. She argues in the letter that the Crown corporation is underfunded - undoubtedly true.
And that more problems are ahead as the lack of funding, in the face of growing demand, creates a continuing crisis - also undoubtedly true.
But where was Hollstedt as the crisis developed?
Last year, as CLBC chair, she wrote the introduction to the corporation's annual report and concluded with this:
"Finally, as we continue to serve more and more people, our budget has expanded to meet demand," Hollstedt wrote. "It has been my privilege to be involved in these changes and I want to thank everyone for their roles in bringing CLBC into reality and for continuing to work toward our vision."
That was not true. The budget had not expanded to meet demand, as she now confirms. An honest and accurate report from the board would have raised the issues Hollstedt sets out in the letter to the editor much earlier.
So why did she say the opposite? Is the board representing the people CLBC was created to serve, or acting in the government's interest?
My intent is not to single out Hollstedt. But there has been a striking co-option of advocates, and the results have been damaging.

The published letter is below:

CLBC board chair hopes publicity results in money

BY LOIS HOLLSTEDT

Re: Community Living seeks to restore core values, Oct. 29

While your story presented a good and fair overview of CLBC's creation, it did not discuss the lack of money provided by government to fully fund the mission it gave to the organization.

Simply, the growth in people asking for and needing service has been greater than the money provided.

Demand has grown from four to six per cent a year, inflation is two to three per cent a year, and the money has not kept pace.

The 2010/11 Annual Report (page 26) shows over five years operating money grew 9.4 per cent ($622 million to $681 million) while adults served grew 29.6 per cent (10,400 to 13,481).

2011-12 budgets increased 0.79 per cent and the $8 million announced last month lifts it to a 1.2-per-cent increase for this year.

Your story indicates 2,800 people are on the wait-list. Without substantial new resources, people will not get the services they need, and government was told by me and by the CEO that this would happen.

In 2010-11 the equivalent of $39 million in service changes were redirected to new people, and without this difficult work by a dedicated staff across B.C. the problem would be so much worse.

Let us hope the publicity from this continuing story will result in significant new money for more people to have their needs met.

Lois Hollstedt CLBC Board Chair

A safe, useful way to keep the Occupy movement evolving

2011-11-06T12:55:00.000-08:00

In Vancouver and Victoria, it's clear the cities are going to shift the Occupy campers from their current venues.
And it's equally clear some of the people involved are going to be inclined to resist.
Before people start getting arrested, or hurt, and before anything ugly that distracts from the issues that prompted the whole effort in the first place, all involved - city and occupiers - should consider the proposals of Mr. Beer and Hockey here.
He has spent time in the Occupy Vancouver camp, and was there when the young woman died this weekend. As a "a peaceful, gradualist, Godwinian Anarchist" he has a proposal worth serious consideration. (And read more on his blog when you're there, if you're not familiar with it. He's a heck of a writer and an astute observer.)

Poll delivers bad news to Clark and Liberals

2011-11-04T14:54:00.000-07:00

Christy Clark went all tough on crime this week, proudly enrolling in Stephen Harper’s “lock-em-up” camp. Strange for a federal Liberal, who mostly think the crime measures — mandatory minimum sentences and the like — are expensive, ineffective political pandering.
A day later, a poll showed why.
The New Democrats have the kind of support that would see them elected an 2013, the Angus Reid poll found.
And a big factor is John Cummins and the B.C. Conservatives, a rather serious problem for the Liberals.
The poll is bad news for Clark. It found 40 per cent of voters say they would vote for the NDP in the next election. The Liberals are at 31 per cent, a serious gap.
The Greens are at eight per cent support, in their typical range.
But the Conservatives are at 18 per cent, unprecedented heights for a party that has been firmly, even proudly, on the political fringes for more than three decades.
If the Conservatives hold that support, or anything close to it, the centre-right vote will be split and the Liberals will lose a lot of seats.
Of course, people often say they support parties with limited chances of success between elections, before returning to the fold when it matters.
But several things might make this different, with Cummins the main one. He’s an experienced, skilled campaigner, as shown by his six successful campaigns to be an MP under Reform, Alliance and Conservative banners. He has attracted others with experience to the party and knows how to do the basic stuff that other fledgling political efforts, like the Greens, tend to mess up. Cummins has been quick off the mark and effective in issuing news releases critiquing the Clark government, for example.
And Cummins has a chance, with some credible candidates, to make a pitch to voters who aren’t happy with either of thetwo main parties, a significant group these days.
The poll looked at how votes were shifting and found some interesting changes.
The Liberals have lost the support of about one-third of the people who voted for them in 2009, according the other poll results. About two-thirds of the defectors have shifted their support to the Conservatives, but more than one in four former Liberal voters now support the NDP.
But the New Democrats have also lost the support of 16 per cent of their former supporters — and half of those people have jumped to the Conservatives.
The poll isn’t all bad news for the Liberals. The poll found 25 per cent of those surveyed think Clark would make the best premier, compared to 19 per cent who pick Adrian Dix. She was judged significantly better-suited to deal with the economy, which was the top issue identified.
However she and Dix were tied in their approval ratings in their current jobs.
And, significantly, 12 per cent of respondents said their opinion of Clark had improved in the past three months, while 39 per cent said it had worsened. Dix fared better, with 18 per cent saying they were more impressed with him based on the last three months, while 17 per cent said their opinion had worsened.
Clark faced a formidable challenge in convincing voters that her Liberal government would be different than the Gordon Campbell version. The worsening poll results suggest she’s not succeeding.
And now she has to try to turn back the Conservative surge, which will also be difficult. Clark could push the Liberals to the right, as she did with her tough on crime talk, but that risks alienating more moderate voters.
The Liberals can argue, as they did this week, that voting Conservative would result in an NDP government. That, however, sounds both arrogant and uninspiring. “Vote for us, in spite of what we’ve done” is a weak slogan.
The election is stlill 18 months away. But Clark and the Liberals have a lot of work ahead of them.
Footnote: The poll was conducted Oct. 31 and Nov. 31 and based on an online sample of 803 people. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent.

More evidence independent CLBC review needed

2011-11-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Chelsea McGarry is 18. The young Quesnel woman has Down syndrome, autism, early onset Alzheimer’s, diabetes and celiac disease.
It’s been quite a struggle. But Chelsea had been receiving enough supports and service to allow her mum, Shelley, to care for her at home.
Until now. Because when Chelsea turns 19 in December, those supports get chopped and her file transfers to Community Living B.C.
And that problem-plagued Crown corporation, struggling with underfunding, refused to approve a care plan.
Chelsea’s mother has been battling for support. Children’s Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has advocated for her, and so has her MLA, Bob Simpson.
But only when Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines reported on the nightmare did CLBC agree to new meetings to resolve the issues, and the outcome of those is far from clear.
It’s yet another example of how vulnerable are, how fearful they are of making waves in case they face reprisals, and how badly an independent review of the troubled agency is needed.
CLBC was set up in 2005 to provide support and services to adults with developmental disabilities — mental handicaps — and their families. Many have other emotional, mental and physical problems that complicate their lives.
But every year since then, the amount of money available per client has been cut. Services have been reduced and the approximately 550 teens who “age out” and shift to CLBC supports face massive struggles to maintain the quality of their lives.
The corporation has pushed people from staffed group homes, sometimes after years of residence, into homeshares, a a cheaper alternative. CLBC has argued that some clients do better in the new settings.
But Kines uncovered a review of one of the companies managing homeshare services in the Lower Mainland. The consultants report, done for CLBC, was shocking. The consultant could find no evidence basic background checks had been done on some of those providing homeshares to vulnerable adults. There was a lack of training and poor oversight. Homeshare providers weren’t given the information they needed on client’s behavioural and health problems, leading to potentially dangerous incidents and a series of “crisis situations.”
The company, which manages 44 homeshare contracts, was stretched too thinly to properly monitor care. Its manager noted the rush to close group homes — almost 10 per cent have been closed — created similar pressures across the province.
It’s far from the only example of problems.
CLBC refused for months to provide information on wait lists, before revealing that 2,089 people — about one in six clients — receiving some services were waiting for supports to meet identified needs. Another 751 people were getting no services and waiting for help and support. It’s still not know how long the waits last.
The government was forced to come up with an extra $6 million in September because inadequate funding had left clients facing urgent threats to their health and safety, an indication of a basic planning and budgeting failure.
And the government effectively acknowledged the problems, recently firing the CEO of Community Living BC and the minister responsible, Harry Bloy. (The corporation has reported to four different ministers in the last year.)
New Social Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux has promised internal reviews and a greater focus on responding to families’ concerns.
That’s not good enough. CLBC has already betrayed families’ trust by repeatedly denying that people were being forced from group homes before finally admitting that was simply untrue.
And the attempts to deal with individual cases when they capture media attention themselves raises more concerns.
What of the people with developmental disabilities without advocates — those whose parents are dead, or families estranged? There is no one to speak for them, and many can’t do it themselves.
The government has acknowledged its failures in this important are. And independent review, with input from families and advocates, and a public report are needed to chart a way out of this crisis.
Footnote: The Representative for Children and Youth only has authority to investigate problems and advocate for individuals until they turn 19. Turpel-Lafond has suggested that be raised — perhaps to 24 — in recognition that adulthood is instantly attained on the 19th birthday. That too would be a useful change.

We too walk past those who need our help

2011-10-26T07:48:00.000-07:00

Two-year-old Wang Yue wanders into a Guangdong street and is knocked down by a van that speeds on. Eighteen people pass here as she lies in the street without stopping to help. She cries, laying in her own blood. At last, a peasant woman picks her up off the street. She died Friday.
The horrible scene, captured on closed-circuit TV and seen by millions, has sparked a global discussion. Why are people in today’s China so indifferent to a child in pain, crying, bloody, in the street? How can they turn away from suffering? Has the rush for economic success drained people of humanity?
Last week in B.C., John Gaffney finally got out of hospital, after five months. He wasn’t sick. Community Living B.C. didn’t want to pay for a group home for Gaffney, who is 46 and has Down syndrome and dementia. His parents didn’t think he would be safe in the home share CLBC proposed. So he stayed in hospital. (That wouldn’t happen to someone without a disability.)
Gaffney is a symbol. It’s clear that CLBC has lost its way. The focus has shifted from supporting adults with mental handicaps in living full lives, to dealing with “urgent health and safety needs,” as the corporation said in seeking more funding. The government has shuffled ministers, fired the CEO and offered a series of changing stories about what’s going on.
But until last week, no one in government acknowledged the people being forced from group homes they had shared for years, or the clients who lost every support when they turned 19.
They walked around those people.
With good excuses, I’m sure. Deficits and finite resources and other priorities. Some of the people who walked and rode past Wang Yue probably had good excuses too.
Then Liberal MLAs Randy Hawes and John Van Dongen joined families and advocates and the opposition in saying the government was failing people who really needed support. But the indifference to their plight lasted at least a year, as threats to health and safety and quality of life grew.
Last week in B.C., the missing women’s inquiry was getting underway in Vancouver. The first witnesses were testifying about how Robert Pickton could kill women for years without being apprehended.
There are lots of reasons. But fundamentally, Pickton and many others could prey on the women because we — governments, police and most of us — choose to make it easy. We walked around them, as people in that Guangdong market walked around Wang Yue’s broken body.
Consider the evidence in just the first few days of inquiry. A majority of Vancouver street-level sex trade workers reported suffering beatings, rape and other violence, testified Kate Shannon, a public health researcher and a professor in the faculty of medicine at the University of B.C. Most never reported the attacks to police, because if they did officers would sometimes pick up them late at night, detain them and then drop off in some distant part of the city to find their own way home. Others feared harassment, arrest or theft by officers.
The desire to avoid police also meant workers took greater risks, like getting into a car without assessing the danger or ignoring lists of dangerous potential clients.
John Lowman, a Simon Fraser University criminology professor who researches prostitution, said public and police pressure forced sex workers into darker and more dangerous neighbourhoods, where they were easier prey.
Catherine Astin, a nurse who worked on the Downtown Eastside, said she and colleagues noticed women were disappearing. But they didn’t go to the police.
Police and frontline workers shouldn’t be singled out.
Prostitution is legal in Canada. But the government, on our behalf, has passed laws that increase the danger for workers. Communication for the purposes of prostitution is illegal, forcing women into the shadows and preventing them from screening clients.
Living off the avails of prostitution is illegal, so women cannot band together in a safe location and hire their own security.
Everyone knew those laws, and the way they were being selectively enforced, put women at risk, led to them being beaten and killed. No one cared enough to do anything about it. Lowman testified predators found it easy to justify violence against people that society had signalled were disposable.
Maybe we wouldn’t walk past a child lying in the street. But we’re certainly prepared to turn away from others whose suffering is just as real.

Cover-up fears as taxpayers pay $30 million to mining company

2011-10-25T08:36:00.000-07:00

The provincial government’s $30-million payout to Boss Power Corp. stinks.
Taxpayers are paying compensation to the company because the government bungled its ban on uranium mining
The last-minute settlement suggests the government paid a premium so damaging evidence wouldn’t be heard in court.
And there is every reason to believe politicians ordered government managers to break the law and penalized a manager who tried to do the right thing.
Boss Power had the rights to the Blizzard claim, a uranium deposit about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. The company could expect fierce opposition to any mine, but a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining lapsed in 1987. The company planned to press on with the project.
In 2007, Kevin Krueger, then the junior minister mines, confirmed the government had no policy or regulations prohibiting uranium development, although he acknowledged public opposition.
In 2008, that changed. The government issued a news released headlined “Government confirms position on uranium development.”
It set out a new approach. Uranium mining wasn’t part of the province’s plans, Krueger said.
Boss Power sued. The company had staked its claim, spent money on developing the deposits and said it had been encouraged by the government.
The ban took away its rights and the government should pay compensation, the company said.
The government’s statement of defence was revealing. It said the ban only applied to new projects. Boss was free to go ahead.
But 10 months later, the government brought a blanket, retroactive ban. The lawsuit went ahead.
Meanwhile, the government, according to the its own court filings, was breaking the law.
Boss Power applied in 2008, before the ban, to do exploratory work on its claim. The law requires the chief inspector of mines, then Doug Sweeney, to assess the application on its merits.
But the then-deputy minister, Greg Reimer, and assistant deputy minister John Cavanagh ordered Sweeney to ignore the application. They had asked the Attorney General’s Ministry for an opinion on whether it was legal.
It wasn’t, they were told, according to the government’s admissions in the legal case.
Then they repeated the order that Sweeney not fulfill his statutory duty.
Sweeney had legal and ethical concerns. He was relieved of his responsibilities for the file, and the marching orders went to more compliant officials. Sweeney ultimately left government, and says his family, career and reputation were damaged by the affair. (Cavanagh disputes the accuracy of the government’s admissions.)
These facts emerged as Boss Power’s case moved through the courts.
When Boss found out what had happened behind the scenes, it added a charge of “misfeasance of public office” to the lawsuit.
Basically, that alleged the government abused its power, which would givethe company a claim to additional compensation.
All this was set to come out in court if the case went ahead. The officials would have testified, and had to answer questions about whether politicians ordered them to break the law.
Until the government came up with $30 million of your money, plus more to cover Boss Power’s legal costs, to end the case.
Which inevitably brings to mind the decision to cover $6 million in legal costs for Dave Basi and Bob Virk to head off the revelation of potentially damaging evidence in that case.
The NDP raised the issue in question period Monday, but got no answers.
So we don’t know who gave the order to ignore the company’s application, or why the Attorney General Ministry’s legal opinion was ignored. We don’t know how much the settlement costs rose because of the government’s abuse of power.
We do know that a government that can’t find money to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities can come up with $30 million to keep potentially damaging evidence from being heard in court.
Footnote: The government issued a news release on the settlement late on Oct. 19, the day the shipbuilding contracts were dominating the news. If it was an attempt to hide the news, it failed miserably.
The other interesting question is whether this would be an issue, or if there would be ban, if the deposits were in the north, not the Okanagan.

Uranium ban costs taxpayers $30 million

2011-10-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

From the files:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Uranium a glowing problem for government

The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court...

Back in 2009, I wrote about the risk to taxpayers of a uranium mining ban imposed by the government.

Unfortunately, the column was accurate. This week the government announced it's paying $30 million, plus legal costs, to Boss Power Corp. as compensation for its belated decision to ban uranium mining.Back in 2009, I noted the potential cost to taxpayers as a result of the government's mishandling of the controversial issue of uranium mining in the province.

The government issued its new release on the same day as the shipbuilding announcement, an indication it might not have wanted people to notice the payment.

The rest of the 2009 column is here.

Hawes, Clark and an MLA's job

2011-10-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

Randy Hawes and Christy Clark offered up two very different visions of what MLAs are supposed to be doing on Monday.

And our democracy, and society, would be a lot better if more politicians acted like Hawes.

In the morning, New Democrat Nicholas Simons introduced a motion calling on the government to halt the closing of group homes for people with mental handicaps. About 65 have been closed, almost 10 per cent, often forcing longtime residents into new, less supportive settings. Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation delivering services to people with developmental disabilities, is trying to cut costs.

The motion was a gesture. It will never be passed.

Liberal MLA Kevin Krueger, briefly the minister responsible for CLBC, spoke against it. The closures are good, he said, everything is fine. Nanaimo Liberal MLA Ron Cantelon offered the same general view.

A couple of New Democrats, as expected, supported the motion put forward by Simons.

And then Hawes spoke. He talked about the concerns his constituents had raised. A man in his 70s, with a wife slipping into Alzheimer's, had cared for their developmentally disabled son for 50 years. The father still wanted to care for his son, and his wife, and thought he could - if he get two more days a week of respite care. But CLBC couldn't provide it, so the man faced the "heartbreaking choice" of placing his son in care, which would cost the government much more, Hawes recounted.

A single mother, who had worked and raised and supported her mentally handicapped daughter who needed round-the-clock care, was told supports would be cut when the girl turned 19. The mom was told she would have to quit her job, go on welfare and try to provide the care her daughter needed.

Hawes said this just wasn't right. He said the former minister responsible, Harry Bloy, had told the legislature no clients were being forced out of group homes against their will.

That wasn't true, he said.

Simons's motion was simplistic, Hawes said.

But something has gone wrong, he continued. There should be a "top-tobottom examination of CLBC, which included the parents and the selfadvocates that originally set this up."

And while that's happening, Hawes said, the government should immediately provide services to those who need them.

"We need to give those families that today aren't seeing hope . We need to give them hope, and we need to give it to them now," he said.

About two hours later, CLBC was the topic in question period, the 30 minutes allocated for the opposition to raise issues with the government. The New Democrats, again, pressed Premier Clark for a review of CLBC and a moratorium on group home closures.

Clark said the government is spending quite a lot - about $50,000 per client a year, if you count welfare - on people with developmental disabilities.

But she rejected, again and again, calls for an independent review of CLBC - the "top-to-bottom examination" Hawes had urged.

And then Clark offered up something revealing.

New Democrat Carole James prefaced a question with a reference to the "heartbreaking stories from families about a lack of care for their children." She cited the case of a mentally handicapped woman forced from the group home she had lived in for 19 years.

Clark said the opposition is being negative.

"And you know what?" she said. "I don't necessarily begrudge them that. I used to sit as children and families critic. I know the game the member is playing."

I didn't realize Clark was playing a game back then, as I watched the debates. I thought the lives of children at risk were important enough that MLAs would be serious and honest.

Just like Hawes on the lack of support for people with developmental disabilities.

"In the over 10 years that I've been in this legislature, there's no issue that's caused me more loss of sleep or more concern for those most vulnerable people," he said. "We need to act now."

I'd rather have an MLA who loses sleep than one who thinks the legislature is a place to play political games.

Gambling app and Clark's 'creeping sickness'

2011-10-17T19:14:00.000-07:00

Christy Clark used to be clear on gambling expansion. She was against it. The Liberals, and Clark, promised to halt gambling expansion in their 2001 campaign.

Now her government is continuing a 10-year effort to increase both the number of people gambling and the already large amounts they lose.

The B.C. government already has the dubious distinction of being the first in North America to introduce online betting, a form of gambling with heightened risk of reckless betting and addiction.

Now B.C. Lotteries plans another first, by developing apps for cellphones and other devices so people can lose money while on the move.

What's wrong with that, some would ask? If people are foolish enough to lose money on bets, that's their problem.

In opposition, Clark offered pointed responses to that position.

"Gambling is a creeping sickness in society," she told the legislature in 1997. "I don't think a government should decide to balance its books on the backs of gamblers."

The NDP government was considering gambling expansion to increase its take, then about $270 million.

Today, it's $1.1 billion.

"Does this government not realize that every dollar that they pull from the economy is another dollar that the consumer won't be spending here in British Columbia?" Clark asked. "This is money that won't be going to your local grocery store, clothing store or gas station."

OK, times change and new information emerges. A politician's principled stand in opposition fades when it's time to find more revenue to balance the budget. Clark might have decided that, indirectly, the losses stay in the province, even if local businesses are hurt.

But some flip-flops are hard to rationalize.

Here's Clark, again in the legislature, on the extensive research showing gambling expansion would hurt women and families.

"Those studies are all there that tell us over and over again that expanding gambling has a deleterious effect on women's health, on their personal safety and on their economic stability," she said. "Based on those studies, we know that."

Clark was right then. And the research findings haven't changed.

It's hard to rationalize choosing to harm the health and safety of women, and thus their children, in pursuit of bigger gambling profits.

Maybe Clark didn't believe any of the stuff she said; that it was just political posturing. But she and the Liberals seemed sincere. Certainly the campaign promise to halt gambling expansion was clear.

The government tried to justify online betting by arguing people would do it anyway, gambling on riskier websites outside B.C. That was a dubious claim; the fact those sites are risky deterred people.

There's no similar justification for introducing mobile gambling. The industry is in its infancy, with limited acceptance. The greatest interest is in jurisdictions where many people have cellphones and few have computer access.

But mobile gambling will help lure new, young gamblers. B.C. Lotteries, in its government-approved business plan, has targets for increasing the number of British Columbians who gamble regularly.

In 2010-11, about 61 per cent of adults - some 2.3 million British Columbians - gambled at least once a month. By 2013-14, the government hopes to increase that to 63 per cent, creating another 182,000 gamblers.

(The average loss per person, over a year, is $890. Somewhere between three and six per cent will become problem gamblers or addicts.)

Colin Campbell, gaming policy expert at Douglas College in Vancouver, called the plan "a deliberate attempt to target the youth market."

The lottery corporation has been advertising on websites offering free games widely used by the same group.

So much for families first, and Clark's view that gambling expansion is "a creeping sickness."

Footnote: Mobile gambling, like online betting, poses special risks, according to David Hodgins, head of the University of Calgary's Addictive Behaviours Laboratory. There is a greater risk of addiction, in part because of the easy access at any time, and a greater incidence of alcohol and drug abuse among online problem gamblers.

Teens seemed to show the highest likelihood for online gambling addictions. And the spread of Internet and mobile gambling continues the process of normalizing and legitimizing an activity that was once considered negative and damaging.

Teachers, government clash; students lose

2011-10-14T13:57:00.001-07:00

Parents probably want to know one thing about the B.C. Teachers’ Federation latest excursion in B.C. Supreme Court — will it make escalating job action in the schools less likely?
Probably not. Barring big changes in the way the union and government are approaching the issue, the current labour dispute will follow the common path of escalating disruption, posturing by both sides and legislation imposing a contract.
The union went to court to ask Justice Susan Griffin for clarification of an earlier ruling. In April, she found the government had violated the teachers’ Charter rights by stripping provisions from their contract in 2002. Legislation removing class size and composition limits — that, is the number of special needs students allowed in any one class — was hastily introduced without consultation, negotiation or an effort to find a less draconian solution than gutting legal agreements, the court ruled. The teachers had a right to negotiate changes to contracted working conditions.
Griffin gave the parties 12 months to come up with a solution before she imposed one.
The BCTF starting point is that the government should put the former provisions back in the contract. That would cost about $300 million a year, as more teachers would have to be hired if class sizes were reduced, as well as more special needs workers.
The government, naturally, takes a different approach. It believes a good faith effort to resolve the issues through discussion should be enough to satisfy the court. Sort of a “better late than never” approach to what it should have done in the first place.
So far the government has promised $30 million next year, rising to $75 million in the following two years, to help improve the situation for special needs students and teachers. That’s about $18,000 per school in the first year, enough to hire an extra part-time aide. Education Minister George Abbott has refused to address the broader issue of class size limits.
The union went back to court to ask Griffin to clarify her ruling (or really, to back its interpretation). She told the union go away and sort out the problems with the government.
The most likely outcome would be a deadlock and return to the courts in April to let Griffin impose a solution, with both sides gambling they’ll prevail.
At the same time, in a parallel process, the BCTF and the employer (really the government) are in contract talks.
The union wants big pay increases and other contract improvements. The government says teachers will have to accept a pay freeze like other public sector unions, in part because any increase for teachers would trigger “us-too” clauses in other contracts.
Teachers’ job action is already affecting schools and Abbott has mused about imposing a contract. That’s not likely to happen until the government decides the public is fed up enough to accept a legislated agreement and the removal of the teachers’ right to bargain (and strike).
The class size and composition issue, if linked to contract talks, could be helpful. The government could maintain its pay freeze in the new contract. But teachers could get extra money — and more jobs for members — if there was action on class size or composition.
But that would require a pragmatic, mature approach to negotiations, something uncommon in BCTF-government talks.
Meanwhile, the government is preparing to launch a big education overhaul. It’s all vague so far, but Abbott promises personalized learning for every student, quality teaching and learning more flexibility and choice for students and parents and new technology, both in classroom and for students who choose to learn at home.
That initiative could offer opportunities for progress on the contract, if it meant more resources for teachers — or increase conflict if teachers oppose some of the measures.
Footnote: The education changes will include an overhaul or abolition of the B.C. College of Teachers, which certifies and regulates teachers. The college has been dominated by the union and appeared to be ineffective in dealing with wrongdoing, putting the interests of teachers ahead of the students. At least some of the changes will be included in legislation that could be introduced within days.

Independent review of CLBC is needed now

2011-10-07T16:24:00.000-07:00

From today's Times Colonist editorial:

"The government's refusal to order an external review of Community Living B.C. is baffling. The throne speech, after all, promised reviews of all Crown corporations, beginning in January, "to ensure taxpayers and families are protected and the interests of all British Columbians are well served."

CLBC, as a Crown corporation, would be part of that process. All that's needed to respond to serious concerns about its performance and accountability would be to launch a review now, not in a few months.

The government has acknowledged problems at the corporation, which is responsible for supporting adults with developmental disabilities and their families. Last month, it added $8.9 million to the CLBC budget to meet "urgent health and safety needs" of clients.

When any organization requires emergency funding five months into the fiscal year because clients' health and safety are at risk, something has gone seriously wrong...."

You can and should read the rest here.

As evidence of the problems, the Times Colonist's Lindsay Kines also reports on the huge waiting lists for services for people with developmental disabilities.

Riot TV plan could backfire for Clark

2011-10-07T14:28:00.000-07:00

For an astute politician, Premier Christy Clark is making some odd moves.
First there were the attack ads on Conservative leader John Cummins, which worked mostly to raise his profile in a positive way. It was a big boost for a leader still unknown in much of the province.
And now there is the weird push for televised trials of people charged in the Stanley Cup riots, which drew attention to the big problems in the justice system that her government hasn’t fixed - and has in fact made worse - over the past decade.
Clark says the public is interested in the court proceedings ands the riot was televised, so the trials and other court proceedings should be too. (She actually went farther, with comments that indicated she had abandoned the notion that people are considered innocent until proved otherwise.)
Televised court proceedings would be a good thing. Most people have never been inside a courtroom and have little idea of what goes on. Television could help change that.
There are potential problems. Some witnesses might be reluctant to testify if they thought they were going to be on the evening news. Lawyers might be tempted to perform for the cameras.
But cameras covered the Dziekanski inquiry, with no obvious ill effects. In the U.S., proceedings have been televised for years, generally successfully.
Still, if Clark and the government wanted televised trials, they could have started serious work long ago. Leaping in with a poorly considered bid to single out one group of accused people for political reasons is a poor way to advance openness.
That’s only one problem. The justice branch and Crown prosecutors are supposed to have a high degree of independence from their political masters. The idea is that they act in the interests of justice and shouldn’t take orders from politicians, preventing, for example, the use of the courts to harass opponents of government policy.
The justice branch rejected Clark’s throne speech call for televised trials and said prosecutors wouldn’t be making the requests.
That forced Attorney General Shirley Bond to issue an extraordinary order forcing the prosecutors to seek televised proceedings in riot cases.
It’s highly unusual political interference. Bond said it had happened in the past, but Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer reported the government cited three cases. “One was a directive to seek leave to appeal a sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada,” Palmer wrote. “One a directive to ‘consider, if appropriate’ applying to vary a probation order. The third created a brief amnesty from prosecution to encourage people to turn in firearms and other weapons.”
The whole controversy was also a reminder that another hockey season has already started and no one has been charged in connection with the riots.
The effort could also continue to be an embarrassment. Crown prosecutors can apply to open the court to cameras, but the judges decide. Defence lawyers and others involved will want a say. Clark’s ploy could add more delays to an already overburdened system. Excessive delays have resulted in dozens of cases being thrown out this year, including serious offences like drug trafficking and assaults on police. Families are waiting unreasonable times for critical hearing dates.
There are lots of factors in the delays, and some long-term solutions.
But the immediate issue is that there just aren’t enough judges, prosecutors and courtrooms to hold the needed hearings. There were 143 provincial court judges in 2005; today there are 127. The courts simply can’t cope with the volume of cases.
You can see how a few people tossing around ideas for the throne speech might come up with the notion of scoring some points with this gimmick.
But it’s hard to understand why someone didn’t think harder about the many potential problems, both practical and political.
Footnote: A new Ipsos Reid poll confirmed the Liberals are having political problems. The NDP has the support of 45 per cent of decided voters, with the Liberals at 38 per cent. Cummins and the Conservatives, with the Liberals’ help, are at 12 per cent and the Greens six per cent. Adrian Dix has stronger approval numbers than Clark, but she seen as the person who would make the best premier by more voters.

Riot gimmick aside, an adequate throne speech

2011-10-04T12:43:00.001-07:00

Throne speeches are supposed to set out the government’s agenda for the legislative session. But they’re typically full of nice-sounding but meaningless phrases, big visions and praise for the party in power’s brilliance.
Clark’s first effort this week offered the usual rehash of past promises - in this case, barely past, since she replayed last week’s jobs strategy.
And it gave a hint of the government’s direction.
But it also featured the kind of poorly thought out gimmickry that threatens to build the perception of Clark as a less-than-serious premier.
First, the positive. Something is apparently going to happen in education, though it’s unclear what.
The B.C. College of Teachers, in charge of ensuring teachers are properly trained and certified, is going to be overhauled or replaced. That’s good. The college has been a captive of the teachers’ union, and locked in a conflict of interest.
And the government is going to do something about the lack of support for special needs students in schools. It doesn’t have a choice; a court ruling this spring found it broke the law in arbitrarily removing class size and composition limits from teachers’ contracts and gave it a year to fix the problem. The changes are a step toward that.
Beyond that, the education changes get fuzzy. The speech talks about abandoning “a 20th century curriculum with 20th century teaching methods.” Teachers skills will be improved and parents will get “in how, when and where education takes place.”
I have no idea what that means. The education budget is effectively frozen for the next two years, so there’s not a lot of money for new initiatives.
The speech sent confusing messages on the current two-year public sector wage freeze. It appeared to announce the freeze would be eased next spring, despite the weak economy. But the government says increases will only be available if unions and employer can find ways to cut costs within existing budgets, freeing some money for contract improvements.
It’s worth a try, and both sides should be motivated: The unions, to get increases for members; the government, to avoid pre-election job action.
There was the usual nod to health care. The government will try to ensure every British Columbian has a family doctor by 2015, promote disease prevention and seek efficiencies. All dandy, but hardly a new direction.
And the speech acknowledged the problems of delays in the justice system. The speech promised legislation to encourage people to settle family law disputes - divorce, child custody and the like - outside the court system. That should be a priority.
Then it rather bizarrely floated the idea of allowing cameras in the courtrooms when anyone charged in the Stanley up riot appeared.
Cameras in courtrooms, despite some potential problems, would be good. Most of us have no real idea how the system works, or the kind of cases that occupy the courts.
But the criminal justice branch and Crown prosecutors - independent of the politicians - have rejected the idea of singling out people charged in connection with the riots, as opposed to gangsters or other offenders. Judges might have similar qualms.
And spending more court time dealing with the issue, when people are being released across the province because of excessive delays, would be foolish. This week, in Rossland, the B.C. Supreme Court released a man charged with possession of meth for the purpose of trafficking and assaulting an RCMP officer by driving a truck into him because of delays. There simply isn’t enough time to deal with complicated trials in the region.
The speech didn’t address the shortage of prosecutors, judges and courtrooms, beyond a proposal to have retired judges work part-time on occasion.
There was the promise of a February Family Day holiday, beginning in 2013. There wasn’t anything on forestry, housing affordability or poor British Columbians.
Footnote: The speech was a departure from Gordon Campbell’s tendency to float grand visions, often forgotten, in his throne speeches. There were the five great goals for a golden decade, the conversation on health, the new relationship, the war on climate change, the focus on the Heartland. A more modest approach, given the tough economic times, was pragmatic.

Smart meters and policing big UBCM news

2011-09-30T14:33:00.000-07:00

Smart meters were expected to a big deal at the UBCM meeting in Vancouver.
The surprise was Solicitor General Shirley Bond’s bombshell revelation that the federal government had issued a take-it-or-leave-it final offer for new 20-year RCMP contract.
First, smart meters, and a controversy that suggests the government hasn’t learned anything from the HST debacle.
I’m not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters, which transmit data n power use in every home and business wirelessly.
For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health.
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure. I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them.
But it is troubling that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits.
In fact, the government passed legislation that prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
And the government’s claim that the meters won’t ultimately lead to time-of-use billing — that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times - is unconvincing. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility, and it’s the best cost-justification for the project. Only Energy Minister Rich Coleman claims it won’t happen.
Time-of-use billing, done right, is actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST failure.
Coleman told the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions - no chance to opt out, or options for a wired alternative to the meters. No review by the utilities commission.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. The cabinet knows best.
The government’s assumption seemed to be that the opposition was a small group of kooks.
But UBCM delegates from across the province voted 55 per cent in favour of a moratorium on installation of smart meters as the convention concluded. That’s a large group of elected officials for Christy Clark and company to dismiss as too dim to know what’s good for them.
Especially when that same attitude got the government in so much trouble over the HST.
The RCMP dispute rates another column, but UBCM delegates were unanimous on this issue.
Earlier in the week, Bond said the federal government had broken off negotiations on a new 20-year policing contract. The province had to accept the last offer by Nov. 30, or the RCMP would begin pulling out in 2014.
It’s a bluff. The RCMP is building a $1-billion headquarters in Surrey (original cost estimate, $300 million). And pulling out of B.C. would leave it with 6,000 surplus employees. That’s a heck of a severance bill.
Bond tried to counter the ploy, saying the province would look at a provincial police force if it couldn’t get needed accountability on costs and service levels in a new deal.
That’s the right position. And in fact, it might be time to move away from the problem-plagued RCMP.
But municipalities are worried about losing the federal subsidy — 10 per cent for larger centres, 30 per cent for smaller — that helps cover RCMP costs.
They voted unanimously to urge the parties back to the bargaining table.
Footnote: One problem in RCMP talks has been the turnover in the solicitor general’s job. Bond is the sixth minister to hold the post in the four years since negotiations began. Some, like Coleman, were keen on retaining the RCMP; others, like Kash Heed, wanted to look at change. The lack of consistency has meant B.C. is ill-prepared for the current deadlock.

About those smart meters

2011-09-29T17:30:00.001-07:00

I am not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters. For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, don't exercise enough and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health. (I shun cellphones, but only because I don't like to talk to people on any phone.)

And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure.

But I am troubled that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits. In fact, the government passed legislation that specifically prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.

I am unconvinced that the ultimate result won't be time-of-use billing - that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility; it's only the Liberal politicians who claim it won't happen. (It's actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.)

And I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them by government.

What's been most striking about the smart meter debate at UBCM this week is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST debacle.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions.

The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. Municipal councils that passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on installations, or opt-out provisions, were dismissed as equally dim.

There are undoubtedly times governments have to go ahead with unpopular measures.

But, in this case, why not let people opt out? Or provide an incentive - a $20 B.C. Hydro credit - for accepting a meter? Why not let the utilities commission asses the costs and benefits to customers?

The government is, effectively, saying the families concerned about the meters, and the municipal councils supporting them, are just too clueless to be taken seriously.

And that, as we've seen, ends unhappily for those in power.

Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan

2011-09-27T15:02:00.001-07:00

Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell’s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.

Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan

2011-09-27T15:02:00.000-07:00

Clark job plan does little for today’s unemployed

2011-09-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

Premier Christy Clark’s job plan, despite all the flying around the province and flashy announcements, is a bit of a letdown.
There are some good measures. It’s worth trying to attract more foreign students, creating teaching jobs and bringing economic activity. Speeding up approvals for mines and logging and other activities, without compromising environmental standards, would be helpful. So would the promised agreements with First Nations to bring greater certainty for potential resource developments. And maybe all the new panels and committees and agencies will help bring economic activity.
But based on the advance hype, the more than 200,000 unemployed people looking for work probably expected more. After all, Jobs Minister Pat Bell promised a “seismic” impact from the strategy back in May. That suggested big changes and a lot more opportunities.
Instead, Clark delivered a package of promises that, for the most part, won’t result in increased employment for several years. There were promises of funding for infrastructure related to ports in the Lower Mainland and Prince Rupert, so, assuming speedy progress, there will be some construction jobs in the near term.
Most measures won’t produce significant results for years. Clark set a goal of eight new mines in operation by 2015, for example. That would bring many good jobs — but not now.
And the jobs plan is highly dependent on global economic recovery. Government can make B.C. a more appealing jurisdiction for mining companies committed to increasing production, for example. But they will only be interested if commodity prices are strong enough to encourage investment.
That’s the reality of the B.C. economy. We remain highly resource-dependent. Demand for minerals, logs and lumber and energy in other countries is required to fuel growth.
But it’s surprising, given the extent of joblessness in B.C. right now, that the plan did not include some short-term measures that are within the province’s control.
The federal-provincial stimulus program, now completed, offers one model. The infrastructure projects — with a few exceptions — were needed long-term investments in communities. Governments moved them up to provide jobs when they were needed, accepting the additional interest costs and earlier increase in the debt.
Jobs are still needed, and communities have a list of worthy projects. Clark could have announced a stimulus fund.
Or the government could rethink its commitment to make balancing the budget by 2013-14 it’s main priority.
Returning to a balanced budget as the economy improves should be a goal. But clinging to an arbitrary date could be bad policy. The federal government, for example, has given itself an extra year to return to eliminate its deficit.
Delaying the return to balanced budgets would give the government the ability to consider spending aimed at easing the impact of unemployment in the near term. Immediate measures could be taken to protect and increase employment — a subsidy for B.C. Ferries to allow a tourism promotion, for example. The government could protect families from the impact of prolonged job losses by funding training for people whose Employment Insurance has run out, or programs to fund needed community projects.
In fact, the fixation on the deficit could increase unemployment in B.C. Given the defeat of the HST and the slumping economy, the government is faced with making deeper spending cuts to meet its deficit targets, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says. Those cuts will inevitably mean job losses at a time when prospects for new work are slim, and likely mean a reduction in community services when they are most needed.
A long-term focus is certainly valuable. But for many families, the impact of joblessness — or the threat of joblessness — is immediate, and dire. And when they can’t spend, their communities suffer.
Clark’s jobs plan has many commendable features. But for those seeking work today, it has little to offer.

Liberals' attack ads both incompetent and destructive

2011-09-20T12:56:00.000-07:00

The Liberal attack ads aimed at B.C. Conservative leader John Cummins show that Christy Clark was wise to ditch the idea of a fall election.
Because if the campaign matched the ads for sleazy, self-destructive incompetence, the Liberals would be routed.
The Liberals launched the attack last week with radio ads, a website and news releases, with Aboriginal Relations Minister Mary Polak, apparently because of her conservative credentials, charged with leading the attack.
The radio ads capture the tone. A man and a woman are talking about Cummins.
“He opposed Christy’s minimum wage increase but takes a $100,000 pension from taxpayers,” the snarky woman says. “Another unprincipled politician,” the guy responds.
“He says he quote ‘owes it to his offspring,’” the woman snipes. You can’t trust Cummins, they conclude. (The quote about accepting the pension for the sake of his children is 16 years old.)
It’s a fair criticism, but not from the Liberals. They ran on a promise to get rid of MLA pensions, then brought in a rich pension plan that would be the envy of anyone in the private sector. Gordon Campbell will actually be eligible to collect a higher provincial pension — around $125,000 while still on the federal government payroll as high commissioner to London.
In the other ad, the couple grumble that Cummins, who says he voted NDP in the last provincial election, isn’t a real Conservative.
“A joke,” the guy grumps.
“So Cummins pretends he's a Conservative, then votes NDP,” the woman says. “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician."
“How can you trust a politician like Cummins who says one thing and does another?”
Challenging Cummins conservative credentials is ludicrous. He was elected as a Reform MP in 1993, then as a Canadian Alliance member and a Conservative. He’s a strong social and fiscal conservative. (Probably too strong for many B.C. voters.)
His NDP vote just illustrates his disdain for the provincial Liberals.
And how could Clark and company have been so tone deaf as to include the line criticizing politicians who say one thing and do another?
They’ve just been slapped for doing exactly that with the HST. Then there are the promises not to sell B.C. Rail, rip up contracts or expand gambling, all examples of politicians who say one thing and do another.
Cummins has the Liberals in a panic. They are concerned, rightly, that the Conservatives could attract enough of their support to allow an NDP victory. In 1996, Reform took just nine per cent of the vote, and the New Democrats won. The Conservatives were at 18 per cent support in a May Mustel Group poll.
But the ads were a gift to Cummins, who remains unknown in much of the province. The Liberals brought media attention, largely positive, to their nemesis. It was remarkably dumb.
The radio ads, and the anti-Cummins website with the standard attack ad creepy photo and allegations, also tie Clark to dishonest, sleazy, American-style attack ads — hardly a good thing for someone promising a new style of politics.
The ads sometimes work. The federal Conservatives attacked Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff relentlessly with slimy ads, and succeeded in defining them in negative ways.
But they are fundamentally dishonest and destructive to democracy and public life, encouraging mindless division and contempt for all politicians.
There are lots of reasons to criticize Cummins and the Conservatives and their policy positions. But these ads are about smearing a person, and presenting him not just as wrong, but as corrupt and “a joke.”
That should concern anyone who hopes for a functioning democracy.
And Liberals should also be concerned that the party has spent money on an amateurish smear campaign that does more damage to its own cause than the target.
Footnote: Cummins is a challenge for the Liberals. He’s skilled and quick — almost two decades in federal politics will do that — and has a reputation for speaking his mind and representing his constituents’ interests. He’s too extreme for many voters, but offers an alternative for people who would never vote NDP, but are angry at the Liberals, as well as voters who sat out the last few elections because they didn’t see a credible party that represented them.

Province, CLBC failing the disabled

2011-09-16T15:50:00.000-07:00

Here’s how bad it has become for mentally handicapped people in B.C.
Barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency that’s supposed to be providing the supports they need has had to beg government for more money to meet “urgent health and safety needs.”
The planning and funding were so inadequate that these people’s health and safety were at risk. Not their quality of life, or their parents’ ability to sleep at night knowing their children had a shot at happiness.
Their health and safety.
We are talking about people with developmental disabilities — mental handicaps like Down syndrome or other limits. Many have other serious conditions, physical, mental and emotional. Their parents are often aging themselves and facing limitations.
In a caring society, these people can have rich lives. Families can often provide support, until parents grow too old and needs too great. Day programs, group homes, supported workplaces and other options offer a way for people to share in the joys and sorrows of life.
But in this province, we’re not even meeting urgent health and safety needs, let alone providing needed support.
Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation providing services, called a press conference to announce it had found an extra $8.9 million to meet “urgent health and safety needs” of its clients. The provincial government had contributed an extra $6 million. Another $2.9 million, allocated for helping people with FASD and other problems, was redirected, because, CLBC says, the money wasn’t needed to assist those people.
The corporation actually seemed to think this was a good news story.
It wasn’t. The corporation was acknowledging that it did such a bad job in planning — or the government cut its budget proposals so significantly — that five months into the year clients had “urgent” health and safety needs it couldn’t meet.
That means serious needs that fall short of the urgent threat to life and limb are still not being met.
Even with the $8.9 million, the provincial funding for CLBC is up just 1.8 per cent. The number of clients needing services is increasing 5.1 per cent, and many costs are also rising with inflation.
The money is obviously inadequate. Advocates, including the B.C. Association for Community Living, said a $70-million increase is needed to provide proper support.
CLBC per-client funding has been cut every year since the Liberal government created the agency six years ago. In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $46,000. Just returning to the original level would require an extra $85 million.
CLBC has been looking, appropriately, at ways to meet people’s needs more cheaply. Clients who have been in group homes, for example, a relatively cost form of housing and support, might be able to do as well or better in other arrangements. Supported workplace programs could be chopped and developmentally disabled clients encouraged to compete in the job market.
But families and advocates have complained —with convincing evidence — that the corporation is putting the priority on cutting costs, not client needs.
This has been particularly brutal for the 550 young people who will turn 19 this year. That’s the magic age when support through the children’s ministry ends and CLBC takes over. Supports are slashed, or disappear. Even when there are serious risk of harm, people are told there is no money to deliver the services that CLBC’s case planners agree are needed. CLBC can’t, or won’t, say how many people are on waitlists.
The underlying problem is that the agency — and Harry Bloy, the hapless minister responsible — have little credibility. Both claimed repeatedly that clients were not being forced from group homes. They acknowledge now that was not true.
This is a dismal failure, at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in the province.
Footnote: The problems are only to going to get worse. Despite an increasing number of clients in each of the next two years, the Liberal budget calls for funding to be effectively frozen and Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has been warning that even deeper cuts in government could lie ahead.

Liberals have seen the enemy, and he is John Cummins

2011-09-15T17:45:00.000-07:00

Note: Saturday updates at end of post.

I don't know anything about professional politics, although I have some experience in the corporate kind.

Maybe the Liberals' sleazy attacks on John Cummins are just the way you win.

After all, the federal Conservatives' attacks on Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff seemed to work. American politicians and their handlers have great success with attack ads.

So Christy Clark has adopted the same approach. Find a way to portray other leaders as creepy, amoral, sinister figures, buy some ads and stick up some grisly photos to show them in their worst light. Make them not just people with bad policies, but evil, perhaps deranged or stupid, princes of darkness.

Use the attacks to solidify your base, as they say, and raise money.

The smear campaigns don't seem to make voters think you're desperate or fearful, or at least not often. Though it does seem odd that the Liberal party is buying radio commercials to attack a politician most British Columbians haven't likely heard of.

But couldn't parties win by arguing their opponents' policies were dumb or destructive, without vilifying them on a personal level or making up motivations for their actions and policies?

That would be a lot less damaging for democracy and public life.

If this kind of stuff works, it says something sad about us as voters.

Saturday updates:

Les Leyne has a good column in the Times Colonist on just how wretched and fake these attack ads are.
And the Gazetteer calls for a much stronger denunciation of a style of sleazy, destructive politics that threatens democracy itself. You should read him here.

CLBC funding boost inadequate, and an admission of bungling

2011-09-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

From today's Times Colonist editorial on the announcement of additional money for CLBC:

"The government's grudging commitment of extra money for services for mentally handicapped adults falls far short of what's needed and shows inept handling of an important responsibility.

The government provided an extra $8.9 million for Community Living B.C. Wednesday in response to a public outcry over sharp cuts to services for some of the most vulnerable people in our province.

Obviously, any increase is welcome. But the increase is barely one per cent of the Crown corporation's budget, and far short of the $85 million needed to restore perclient funding to the level in 2005, when CLBC was created. Even with the increase, the province's contribution this year will increase 1.8 per cent, despite a 5.1 per cent increase in the number of people with developmental disabilities who require services.

CLBC executives said the money is needed to cover "urgent health and safety needs" of the Crown corporation's clients.

That is an admission of failure. It is not difficult to forecast the need for services. The government knows how many young people with developmental disabilities, currently supported by the children's ministry, will turn 19 and rely on CLBC. It can predict current clients' needs.

Yet barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency does not have enough money to cover urgent health and safety needs...."

You can read the rest here.

And reporter Lindsay Kines news coverage is here.

Lessons from Kienan's abduction and return

2011-09-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

First, cheers and gratitude for the safe return of three-year-old Kienan Hebert, a remarkable happy ending to a nightmarish story.
The fact that stranger abductions are extraordinarily rare doesn’t lessen the heart-stopping impact of his abduction.
That celebration and the prosecution of the now-arrested suspect, Randall Hopley, will take some time. And it's important to remember there has not been a single piece of evidence offered to support the theory that Hopley did this.
But we need answers to broader questions.
Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has shown calm dignity throughout the ordeal. He has forgiven Hopley, he says, citing his own Christian faith and its requirement for forgiveness.
But on Monday, he set out his frustration with the justice system. Hebert didn’t offer an emotional response — no demands that such people be locked up forever, for example.
He wanted to know why Hopley didn’t get help that would change his behaviour despite his repeated contacts with the police and courts that stretched back almost to the 46-year-old man’s own childhood. And why, given that, he was free.
They are good questions. And the implications go far beyond this case.
Hopley is, based on media reports, an archetype. Our courts are full of people like him; they occupy a large amount of police officers’ time. They lead a life of petty crime, with occasional forays into something more serious.
Hopley fits the profile. He is neither smart nor educated; one of his defence lawyers told the court he was mentally handicapped. Hopley’s father died in a mine accident when he was about Kienan’s age. His stepfather, Doug Fink, said was out of control as a child, running away and constantly in trouble. “I didn't want nothing to do with him, he'd only stay so long and he couldn't help himself, he'd be in trouble again,” Fink said.
Dale Fedoruk, who lived in Sparwood, where Hopley has lived for about 16 years, said he was “a dirty, creepy guy.”
Hopley was a thief, breaking into businesses in an industrial park, stealing from cars. He wasn’t particularly good at it, and would sometimes confess to police when caught. Hopley had kept police busy since moving to Sparwood in 1995, an officer told a judge in 2003.
He pleaded guilty to stealing $795 from a business in that case, and got four months of house arrest, a year’s probation and an order to repay the money. He was to abstain from drugs and alcohol as well.
Those kinds of orders are common too. But Hopley, like many offenders, had a poor record in actually following the orders, frequently ending up back in court for breaches of various orders.
These people, often with addictions as well, are the frequent flyers in the criminal justice system. And the system does a poor job of dealing with them, undermining the sense of security in communities.
There were more serious charges as well. Hopley was sentenced to two years for a sex assault in the 1980s and faced charges — later dropped — of attempting to abduct a boy in 2007. Those should have been warnings, Paul Hebert says.
“The judges and the system failed us,” he said. “Hopley needs help and the system didn’t give him the help he needed and because of that, we have been affected. Our rights have been taken away and our family got hurt.”
The justice system - judges, prosecutors, police - are notoriously reluctant to accept scrutiny.
But it’s reasonable to make an effort to look at Hopley’s life of involvement with the courts and police and see if Hebert is right in believing that a better job cold have been done in protecting the public.
A Crown prosecutor sought a psychiatric examination for Hopley before sentencing in 2008, for example, but the defence objected and the court didn’t order one. Perhaps that might have been useful.
And, in fact, the issues might have less to do with the court system than with the lack of early childhood intervention to deal with people before they become criminals.
There’s a lot to learn from this case.
But first, there’s a lot to be thankful for.
Footnote: The RCMP also needs to provide answers, especially about the way in which Kienan was dropped off at his families’ empty home at 3 a.m., with police apparently unaware that someone had entered the crime scene. Police have said they “facilitated” the return, but need to explain what arrangements, if any, they made and how they managed the risk to Kienan and others.

CLBC cuts and the invisible minister

2011-09-12T06:34:00.000-07:00

Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines has another report on the devastating cuts to services for people with developmental disabilities, this time focusing on the total lack of support when people turn 19 and Community Living BC takes over responsibility from the children's ministry.

After 10 years, time to rethink 9/11 response

2011-09-09T11:39:00.000-07:00

We’re coming at the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the wrong way.
It’s as if we want to relive those terrible moments, and forget what has happened in the decade since.
That Tuesday was a stunning day. Most of us had grown up believing that war and terrorism happened somewhere else. The images — a plane striking the twin towers, people jumping to certain death, the stunned faces of New Yorkers — had great impact.
So governments rushed to find ways to prevent new attacks. And, for the most part, we supported them in the first few months.
But 10 years later, it’s time to step back, consider what we have wrought and choose a new path forward.
The reality is that America, the target of the vicious attack, is worse off in virtually every way than it was a decade ago.
Not because of al Qaeda’s efforts. Americans are a resilient people; they have surmounted much greater difficulties.
The wounds have been self-inflicted. America, now in financial trouble, spent more than $3 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the attacks, and hundreds of billions in security measures. The indirect costs were also enormous, as other priorities — like regulating a financial system that had become a giant con game — were ignored.
Its global stature, and the credibility of its government inside and outside the country, were greatly diminished as freedoms were eroded, rights compromised and torture condoned. The American public has developed a profound mistrust of those in power and destructive political divisions.
Nor has Canada been immune. We joined the Afghan war at a military cost of $18.5 billion, and the sacrifice of 162 lives. Our Parliament passed new anti-terror laws that limited rights once considered fundamental. Security measures touched most Canadians’ lives at some point, even if only in the form of delays and searches at airports.
A Rideau Institute report this week estimated that Canada has spent an extra $90 billion as a result of 9/11, creating new measures and agencies and expanding the roles of others — almost $2,600 for every Canadian.
It’s time, after a decade, to come to a more realistic assessment of the risks of terror attacks, and the best ways of responding.
The 9/11 attacks did change things. The threat of terrorism always existed — the World Trade Centre had already been targeted, in 1993. But the attacks in New York and Washington showed the scale of possible damage and demonstrated to would-be attackers the impact of a major successful blow.
But the decade since has not brought a wave of attacks. The threat of an organized global terror effort never materialized; al Qaeda while dangerous, never grew in strength or effectiveness; Canadians continue to be affected much more by security efforts than by terrorism.
Some will argue that our continued security shows the effectiveness of the measures and that we should spend more, and sacrifice more liberties, to increase safety.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper took that position this week. When Parliament rushed to pass the Antiterrorism Act in the aftermath of 9/11, it included provisions that some of the extraordinary measures infringing on individual liberty would expire in 2007. Canada has been safe without them since then, but Harper plans to bring them back this fall.
In a column on the first anniversary of the attack, I noted that “the state — Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq — always wants to increase its power over the people. It’s not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier — surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it’s an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.”
It’s time to push back, in a sensible and informed way. It’s time to question the scale and scope of security spending, in a prudent way. Canada spends $40 million a year to have armed RCMP air marshalls on flights, for example. Perhaps that can end. Perhaps we can spend focus less on extraordinary laws and more on effective intelligence.
That was a terrible day 10 years ago. But it did not change everything. It’s time we regained our balance, and confidence, as a people.

Postscript

Here's my 2002 first anniversary column on 9/11. It stands up well.

A licence to extend the state's power

There's something at once wrong and frightening about the fervent celebration of the attacks on the United States one year ago.

Wrong, because it rests on the false pretence that Sept. 11 was a defining moment that changed everything, for everyone.

And frightening because it is being used to justify mindless conformity, an erosion of individual rights in favour of the state -- and even war.

It was a terrible day. But most people have placed that devastating event into some appropriate place among the other terrible and joyous moments that define a life. About 40,000 children were born in B.C. last year. For those families, 2001 won't be the year the World Trade Center was destroyed; that pales beside the wonder of a new life beginning. About 315 British Columbians killed themselves last year. For those families, it will be the year that someone was lost, and something in them died, too.

The attacks were terrible. But they were not different in purpose or effect than the decades of horrors that the current generation has witnessed.

Even their scale is not beyond comparison. Some 3,000 people died last Sept. 11. Twenty times as many died when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki; twice as many died in Bhopal after the 1994 Union Carbide disaster; about the same number of Africans will die of AIDS while you are at work today.

Last Sept. 11 was an awful day, but everything didn't change because of it. We still go to work, look for happiness, slide into despair. We raise our children. Just like always. And one year later, I am much less frightened of a terror attack than I am of the governments supposedly on my side.

The state -- Canada or Afghanistan, America or Iraq -- always wants to increase its power over the people. It's not sinister; if you are in charge of keeping order, then you will want to make that task easier -- surveillance cameras on every corner, fewer legal right for citizens. But it's an imperative that means citizens must always be prepared to push back.

For a year governments have been using Sept. 11 as a licence to extend the state's power. And an uncertain public has failed to push back.

Airport security may have needed upgrading, perhaps through improved training. But a $24-per-ticket surcharge is taking $400 million a year from travellers' pockets and has wounded regional airlines and the communities they serve. The take from Vancouver alone is enough to hire more than 600 extra security staff; the need has never been demonstrated.

The federal government likewise made no effective case for $8 billion in increased security spending over the next five years, money it could never find to help Canada's poorest children or reduce the tax burden.

And now the U.S. is pressuring Canada to spend more on defence, even after a 10-per-cent increase this year. (The Americans spend $400 billion a year on their military, more than the next 25 countries combined. To match their level of per-capita spending, Canada would have to more than triple its defence budget.)

Sadly, it's not just about money. The Bush administration quickly passed the "USA Patriot Act" (the name, commanding mindless acquiescence, should sound alarm bells.) Americans lost rights they had treasured for 200 years. The right to legal representation, to a speedy and public trial, to protection from unjustified searches -- all gone. Americans can now be jailed indefinitely and secretly, without a trial.

Canada didn't go as far. But the prime minister can now outlaw groups based on secret evidence. Police gained the right to arrest someone who has broken no law on the suspicion that person is involved in terrorist activities. You can now be jailed for refusing to answer police questions.

And then there is war. Canada fought in Afghanistan, to little obvious effect. And now we are being asked to fight in Iraq, not because of anything that nation has done, but because the U.S. believes Saddam Hussein may some day do something. This is not a war on terrorism; it's a beating for a nation the U.S. simply wishes had a different leader.

Enough. Everything did not change in a few terrible hours one year ago. We have rights and freedoms and values worth defending, and a commitment to the rule of law that should not be abandoned when a government finds it convenient.

We will betray our past and our future if we allow ourselves to be defined by a single day of terror.

Campbell's order, no fall election and the slow HST repeal

2011-09-05T18:23:00.000-07:00

On Gordon Campbell’s Order of B.C., Christy Clark’s belated rejection of a fall election and more.

First, Campbell’s selection for the Order of B.C. The decision is bad by any measure. The order was created in 1989 to recognize achievement and service. Candidates are nominated, and then selected by a seven-person panel. It’s supposed to be an honour and a celebration.

Campbell was forced out of office by public anger. It’s far too early to judge his impact as premier. He has been a divisive figure over the last decade.

There were no grounds to award the honour. Especially as only one premier - Bill Bennett - has been inducted into the order. And it came 21 years after he left office.

Campbell’s prize was so rushed it probably broke the rules. Elected representatives aren’t eligible. The nomination deadline was March 10. Campbell didn’t resign until March 15 and so shouldn’t have been considered.

The selection panel includes a university president, the province’s chief justice, a deputy minister, a Union of B.C. Municipalities rep, the Speaker and two members of the order.

A mostly elite group, and one closely tied to Campbell and the Liberals. Speaker Bill Barisoff is a Liberal MLA and a loyalist. The deputy minister, Pierette Miranda, worked in the premier’s office. The UBCM rep, Barbara Steele, was a Liberal candidate. The universities’ representative, Ralph Nilson, has donated to the Liberals. One of the order members, John Furlong, was backed by Campbell as the 2010 Olympic top boss.

Which all makes Campbell’s selection look like a handful of establishment people looking after one of their own, without even thinking how other British Columbians might see the choice. (A perception reinforced by the simultaneous induction of Ken Dobell, Campbell’s long-time managerial sidekick, and David Emerson, the federal politician who ran as a Liberal and immediately crossed over to the Conservatives and a cabinet job.)

It’s surprising the panel didn’t think this might be seen as thumbing their noses at British Columbians, whose disdain forced Campbell from office.

Second, Clark’s announcement that a fall election is no longer an option and she’ll wait for the fixed election date of May 14, 2013.

It’s the right decision. The province has been damaged by two years of chaotic tax policy and political uncertainty. It’s time to try for stable government.

And Clark hasn’t given any clear indication of her vision and agenda for the province in the six months since she won the leadership. It’s too soon for an election.

But her refusal to rule out a fall election until now still looks irresponsible.

And Clark’s comments in announcing that she wouldn’t call an election reinforce the perception, right or wrong, that she isn’t serious enough about the premier’s job.

Clark said she had listened to the public, and people didn’t want an election. And she said she recognized that an election would be harmful, given global financial instability.

But that was Wednesday. Just five days earlier, Clark had refused to rule out a fall election. Surely she knew about the global financial crisis then.

Third, the HST reversal. The government took about 11 months to impose the tax from they announced it, having done no studies or analysis of its impact.

But Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says it will take 19 months to rescind it, even though the government has had months to prepare for the likely result of the referendum.

That’s a damaging delay. Why do a major home reno, for example, if the tax hit will be much lower once the HST is repealed? Or start a restaurant?

Falcon and company were once critics of the creeping pace of government. Now he seems comfortable with what he once considered outrageous.

All of which suggests Clark is wise to put off an election for a while.

Footnote: The other HST question is why the government has been so quick to roll over and promise to repay the federal government the full $1.6 billion incentive payment to adopt the tax. The HST will have been in place for half the required five-year term. The province spent money to implement the tax, in good faith. At the least, some hard bargaining was in order, not a quick agreement to repay all the money.

HST result shows a new class-based voter division

2011-08-31T10:49:00.000-07:00

The HST referendum result might signal a greater political shift, something beyond a tax revolt or anger over an arrogant, untrusted government.
The idea of class-based politics, for want of a better term, after being considered largely irrelevant for the last 60 years, could matter once again.
The HST went down to a significant defeat, with 55 per cent of those who voted rejecting the tax and 45 per cent backing it. A majority of voters in 60 ridings voted to dump the tax; in 25, they supported the HST.
The new tax won the strongest support in three ritzy Vancouver ridings. West Vancouver-Capilano, average household income more than $140,000, topped the list.
The vote to reject was strongest in three lower-income Mainland ridings. Voters in Surrey-Green Timbers, where the average household income is about $70,000, were keenest on dumping the HST.
Broadly, the higher the income in the riding, the more people supported the HST. The lower, the more likely they were to oppose the tax. The trend was consistent across the province.
No matter how you analyze those results, there is a significant division between the way people perceive their interests, based on their income levels.
Canadian elections haven’t reflected that divide for a long time, perhaps since the Second World War. Certainly lower-income voters, particularly with union jobs, have been more likely to support the NDP. But voters from all income levels have found homes in different parties at different times.
Voters, broadly, have considered themselves middle class and voted accordingly. Even if they were, objectively, earning much less than others, people expected their lot in life to improve, and their children’s lives to be better still.
They voted to advance the interests of the people they expected to be. Aspirational voting, you might say.
Until the referendum. People now seem, once again, to be picking sides — by class or income, or simply based on the divide between those who are doing well and those who are being left behind.
Which suggests that more people are losing hope that they, or their children, will cross over into the solidly middle class.
That’s not surprising. My grandparents, British immigrants with limited skills and education, bought a house in Toronto for $500 after they had been in the country for a few years and he was working for General Electric. When I was five, my parents bought a house in the new Toronto suburbs, sprawling out to accommodate the post-war baby boom. I bought a house in Alberta for $67,500 after a relatively short stint in the workforce. We all expected home ownership, opportunity and a better life for our children.
Now the average price of a detached home in Vancouver is more than $1 million. The jobs that once provided steady, good incomes for people in mills and manufacturing are gone.
And with them, the expectations of a better life have vanished for many British Columbians. They can no longer see themselves as middle class.
It’s a significant shift. Canadians have shared the expectation that they would do well. Vote Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Socred — they offered different approaches to a common, better future. Now, many have lost the hope that underpinned those votes.
An Ipsos Reid poll released Tuesday supports that view. It found that 49 per cent of those surveyed thought scrapping the HST would have a negative impact on the B.C. economy, while only 17 per cent thought it would be positive.
But 43 per cent thought axing the tax would be good for their families, while only 25 per cent thought it would be bad for them.
Voters have rated the economy highly as an issue for the last few decades. Parties judged to be good at improving the economy won support across all income groups, because people believed they and their families would benefit.
But not this time.
That’s a significant development, especially for the provincial Liberals. Their message in the next election campaign, whenever it comes, will be that an NDP government would be bad for business.
The HST result suggests voters might be less convinced about putting the economy first, and more concerned with whether the next government would be good for them.

After the HST, government needs a clear plan

2011-08-26T17:43:00.001-07:00

OK, the HST is gone. Now it’s time to get things back on track.

For more than two years, things have been a mess in B.C.

Politically, we’ve had a citizens’ revolt, the resurrection of Bill Vander Zalm and the ouster of Gordon Campbell.

Economically, we’ve been a mess. Tax policy has been made up on the fly. Campbell promised a 15-per-cent income tax cut, then the government reneged once he quit. The government cut corporate taxes, then Premier Christy Clark said she would increase them again if the HST survived. The Liberals said the HST was not in the plans during the 2009 campaign, introduced it, then watched as it grew increasingly doomed.

All at a time when the economy was already fragile.

Businesses, and individuals, adapt to different tax regimes. But they like certainty. If a corporation is going to invest $100 million in a mill, it wants to know that the taxes won’t suddenly change once the doors are open. If a family is going to spend $10,000 on a new roof, they want to know that waiting for the result of the HST referendum wouldn’t save them $400.

That’s been missing.

And, despite the referendum result, certainty is still missing.

No one knows what happens next.

Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has said the government doesn’t have to bring back the old provincial sales tax, with all the exemptions were in place in 2009. He said the tax could be more like the HST, applied to more goods and services, to increase revenue.

Health Minister MIke de Jong has taken the opposite view. He told Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province that the petition and referendum questions were clear.

“The choice is the HST as it exists today, or the PST as it existed previously,” he said. “If people opt to get rid of the HST and go back to the PST as it existed in 2009, that’s what the government is going to do.”

De Jong is right. But until the government is clear, the tax uncertainty continues. And so does the risk of another taxpayer revolt, if the government tries to weasel on the referendum result.

Falcon appears, in the aftermath of the vote, to accepted that reality.

That’s just one issue in the post-referendum world.

Falcon has said that rejecting the HST would mean big changes for B.C.’s budget.

It’s time for the government to lay those out for British Columbians.

The defeat of the HST means about $360 million less in annual revenue, according to the analysis by the government’s independent panel. The federal government’s $1.6 billion incentive payment to encourage the province to adopt the tax has to be repaid over time. The PST tax office has to be restored.

So what’s the plan? Will taxes rise, and if so, who will pay more? Will spending be cut, and who will lose out? Or will the government borrow more to repay the federal government, and accept the interest costs?

They are all legitimate responses. What’s needed is a clear, multi-year government plan, so everyone, businesses and investors particularly, know the rules.

And so voters can decide whether it makes sense.

A serious government would be setting out its plan, accepting the public’ verdict.

Instead, it seems the Clark government is still considering a quick election.

That’s just irresponsible. There is no clear election issue. The Clark government hasn’t set out an agenda, or a prudent budget based on the HST referendum results.

Clark has a chance to set out her government’s plans and priorities, supported by a new budget in February. That would let voters make an informed choice.

It’s been a more than two years of stumbling government and slapdash fiscal policy in British Columbia.

Clark needs to show what alternative her government has to offer before Britisn Columbians go to the polls.

Four lessons from Barry Penner's departure

2011-08-24T12:27:00.001-07:00

Four thoughts on Barry Penner's resignation as attorney general and retirement from politics.

First, there's something wrong with any system that expects politicians - or anyone - to work constantly.

Penner said he's leaving politics because he wants to spend time with his wife and six-month-old daughter, and a cabinet post makes that impossible. "I was supposed to be on holiday the last two weeks," he said. "And I think I got maybe one-and-a-half days . because of urgent issues in the ministry that had to be attended to."

BlackBerries are always buzzing and crises emerging.

Really, a cabinet minister should be able to go away for two weeks, and even take most weekends off. Real emergencies are rare. Most decisions don't have to be made instantly, and perhaps shouldn't be. Not every political issue demands immediate action.

But organizations can easily slip into phony crisis mode, where people compete to be busiest.

For example, if an article troubling to the government appears in the Times Colonist on a Saturday, the offended ministry often springs into action and fires off an email letter to the editor, supposedly from the minister, the same day or on Sunday. At least a few people's weekends are ruined.

But it's pointless. No one at the newspaper looks at emailed letters to the editor until Monday morning.

There isn't a newspaper until Tuesday.

There is no reason for the panic or the weekend work, except a desire to look busy or important.

Worse, it's unlikely we get good decisions from ministers constantly frazzled and overloaded and rushing from meeting to meeting, half-listening to staff while they scroll through emails. It's tough to think, or read, or pause for a thoughtful response when you're crushed in busy work.

It's also unlikely that we get the diversity we need in cabinet, and government. Anyone not prepared to put up with being on call 18 hours a day, seven days a week, has less chance of advancing to the top jobs.

Surely, among the driven workaholics, we want people at the cabinet table who value time with their children, or to read or make music. People who think reflection or going to a friend's house for dinner - without checking a BlackBerry surreptitiously under the table throughout the meal - are important. (I write as a reformed workaholic.)

Some politicians do maintain balance. But Penner's resignation suggests the pressures, self-imposed and external, to keep on working.

Second, while Penner certainly did not criticize Premier Christy Clark, neither did he show much support.

He resigned as attorney general now, Penner said, because Clark and the party are pushing MLAs to set up campaign teams in case she decides on a fall election. Penner felt it would be wrong to recruit campaign staff if he wasn't going to run in the next election (which, legally, is to be in 2013) and wrong to stay in cabinet if he's not running. Without the pressure to declare, he might have stayed in cabinet, he said.

And Penner made his own announcement; the premier's office didn't get the chance to manage the news.

The third point is a little complicated. I think well of Penner. I don't believe he's lied to me. He's not a jerk in the legislature. He always seems to enjoy representing the people in his riding, seeing it as a serious job and an honour. He doesn't run from issues. Sometimes, his sincerity seemed like it might be a liability in his party. I rate him highly.

But when you think about it, rating a politician highly for those reasons alone seems a little sad.

And fourth and finally, Penner's departure shows Clark is still seriously considering a fall election. The HST referendum results will be released in the next few days - Thursday is the target. Clark and the Liberal strategists have a narrow window to decide whether to call a vote, likely in October in advance of municipal elections.

Footnote: Clark's continued interest in a fall election might not be wellreceived in caucus. MLAs would have almost two years left in their terms under the fixed election date law, but face tough battles - and possibly defeats - if the vote is held this year.

Others fear the practical problems of raising money and recruiting volunteers when many political activists are already looking to the November municipal elections.

Riots, rubbish and the decline of Britain

2011-08-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

A remarkable amount of rubbish has been spoken and written about Britain’s riots.
Start with Prime Minister David Cameron. “These riots were not about poverty,” he said this week. “That insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.”
The beleaguered prime minister might wish poverty was not a factor, but he can’t possibly know it wasn’t.
In fact, The Guardian, in a fine piece of journalism, gathered the addresses of 1,100 people charged in the riots and plotted them against a map showing neighbourhoods’ official measures of “multiple deprivation.”
The majority of areas where suspects lived were deprived, and two-thirds of them had got poorer between 2007 and 2010. More than 40 per cent of the suspects lived in the bottom 10 per cent of communities on the deprivation index.
That does not justify rioting or theft or any other crime. But it does suggest it is stupid, if the goal is understanding and prevention, to pretend poverty, joblessness and deprivation are not factors.
Then move on to consider the moral outrage of politicians of all stripes, who spoke as if the rioters were aliens who had emerged, to everyone’s shock, on British streets.
Peter Oborne, the chief political commentator for the Daily Telegraph, a staunchly conservative newspaper, laid that to rest brilliantly.
There was something “very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in Parliament,” he wrote. “MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.”
“I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society,” he wrote. “The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.”
Sir Richard Branson, he wrote, was considering moving his Virgin operations to Switzerland to avoid taxes. A report said that might be a blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer — the finance minister — because it would mean less government revenue.
“In a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor,” Oborne wrote. “People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted.” People who have become rich in part because of the structures of British society — schools, roads, police — no longer wish to pay their share.
MPs stood in Parliament to deplore the looters’ theft of TVs and designer clothes, Oborne wrote. But the same politicians greedily grabbed whatever they could under their lax expense provisions until they were exposed. Can a Labour MP who made taxpayers pay for a $14,000 Bang & Olufsen television really claim to be much different from a looter lugging a flat-screen TV out of a shop?
“The prime minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate,” Oborne wrote. “He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor ... He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.”
I visited England four years ago, for the first time in years.
The greatest shock was the drunken louts, obnoxious and threatening. They weren’t all young, and it wasn’t a matter of being in the bar zone at night. They were in Exeter, a quiet university town, at night, and on trains at midday. They seemed a symptom of a decaying society.
As do the riots.
I don’t want to add to the rubbish. But any society that restricts upward mobility, cuts supports to those on the bottom who have become dependent on them over generations and not only accepts a perpetually uneducated, unemployed underclass, but tolerates lawless acts by some of its members, is going to face big problems.
If it increasingly celebrates the gap between the rich and the rest — winners and losers under the system set up by the winners — those problems will be more dramatic.
And no amount of politicians’ pronouncements, policing or moralizing are going to change the reality.
Canada is, of course, much different. But we should, perhaps, think about just how much different.

CLBC service cuts hurt most vulnerable

2011-08-16T14:40:00.001-07:00

It's understandable that Social Development Minister Harry Bloy is ashamed of cruel cuts to services for some of B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens.

But his refusal to acknowledge the reality and his flat-out false statements are insulting to people with developmental disabilities and their often exhausted and frightened families.

"Developmental disabilities" is a clunky term. Many of the adults supported by Bloy's ministry are what we once called mentally handicapped. Some have severe autism or fetal alcohol syndrome; many have major physical and mental health problems as well. Some need round-the-clock medical care and constant supervision for their own safety, and the safety of others.

Much of that care has been provided through group homes. To save money, the government has been closing group homes and pushing people into cheaper arrangements.

And, based on the evidence, the government and Community Living B.C. know this is wrong. Bloy has insisted no people have been forced to move against their will and families have been consulted. Families say both claims are false.

Connie and Ken Greenway told Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines they were given little warning and no say in a decision to close the group home where their 46-year-old disabled son Darrin has lived for 15 years.

CLBC, the Crown corporation created by the government to provide services to the developmentally disabled, wanted the company operating the group home to sign a new contract with a deep funding cut. The company refused.

So the home will close and residents will be forced to move.

Remember, we are talking about fragile, vulnerable people with serious problems and great difficulty in dealing with change. Many, like Darrin, have spent years in the same home. It is, for them, like being ripped from family and sent into the unknown.

For their families, the changes bring a whole new set of fears. All parents fret about their children's future. But the fears are much more real as aging parents confront the reality that their vulnerable children will continue to be at risk after they die or are incapable of providing support and advocacy.

The closures aren't isolated. Community Living B.C. closed more than 40 group homes last year, forcing the residents to move and - often - reducing they support they received.

And the closures are not driven by revelations of waste, or innovations in support.

This is about cutting costs. The government has chosen not to put these families first.

According to CLBC, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created by the Liberals six years ago, under Christy Clark's watch as children's minister.

In 2006-07, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. And by 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.

If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006.

The effect of the cost-cutting goes far beyond group home closures. People who have, with extensive support, lived full and rich lives are seeing that ripped away, condemned to spend their days alone in a room.

And parents whose children are turning 19 face a special nightmare. Services for developmentally disabled youth are provided by the Ministry of Children and Families. Strong school programs offer opportunities.

On the day clients turn 19, those supports are ripped away. CLBC assumes responsibility, and parents find their children's lives are dramatically worse. Programs are unavailable, waiting lists are long and growing. Even when CLBC's own assessments say supports are needed for safety reasons, help is not provided.

This is not a case of families or interest groups demanding more, or better, support and care.

They just want the levels that have been in place for years to be maintained.

They want assurances that an adult child, unable to fend for herself, will not be put in danger, or forced to live a needlessly diminished life.

But the government, on your behalf, has decided it costs too much to continue helping vulnerable people live life fully.

Hydro report raps corporation, government

2011-08-12T14:53:00.001-07:00

The government’s review of B.C. Hydro and power rates was grim reading.
The initial attention was focused on inefficiency within the Crown corporation.
The review panel — John Dyble, Premier Christy Clark’s deputy minister, Peter Milbrun, deputy minister of finance, and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, acting deputy minister of advanced education — found B.C. Hydro paid too little attention to controlling expenses.
Hydro has an admirable commitment to quality, reliability and safety. But it has been paying a high premium to achieve those goals, and passing the cost on to its customers.
The result, the panel said, has included overstaffing. It suggested about 20 per cent of the 6,000-person workforce could be eliminated. Compensation had not been properly managed — 99 per cent of eligible employees received performance bonuses — and the corporation had missed opportunities for savings in dealing with suppliers.
The frank, independent look was welcome, though it raises questions about the attentiveness of B.C. Hydro directors — five of the 10 have been on the board for more than two years — and past energy ministers.
The report also suggested the government’s policy orders to B.C. Hydro have resulted in large and unnecessary rate increases.
Gordon Campbell, for example, said B.C. Hydro must make the province self-sufficient in electrical by 2016. It was ordered to have enough capacity to meet the entire power needs of the province even in a year of record low water — and to build a big buffer on top of that.
That has proved an expensive, wasteful order. B.C. Hydro had to ramp up staffing to achieve the goal.
And because the power was to be acquired by contracting with private producers, the public corporation had to commit to costly, long-term contracts for electricity that might never be needed.
B.C. Hydro estimates its current round of power from private producers will cost $124 MWh, for example. That’s more than twice as much as the market price, and one-third more than power from a Site C dam would be.
Because of the government’s order, B.C. Hydro faces the real risk of buying expensive power from private producers and selling it at a loss on the open market.
There is little risk in adopting a more conservative approach in adding capacity; in a crunch, B.C. can buy power from U.S. or Alberta producers, as it has in the past.
There’s another major policy issue. The report indicates that the government has been, effectively, using B.C. Hydro to bring in hidden tax revenue.
B.C. Hydro pays government for water rights — the use of rivers and streams across the province. It charges twice as much as other Canadian governments charge power companies, the report found.
If B.C. charged rates in line with Manitoba and Quebec, then B.C. Hydro’s costs would fall by $150 million a year, the panel noted. That would result in an immediate rate cut of at least four per cent.
And the government also claims a larger share of B.C. Hydro’s revenue as a dividend than comparable utilities — more than $600 million this year.
Energy Minister Rich Coleman said that’s not likely to change. The government is running a deficit; it needs the revenue from water rights.
But it’s an inefficient and unfair way to collect revenue. Taxes, generally, are imposed based on some principles, with a primary one being that they are progressive — the amount paid rises with income or wealth.
Raising revenue through electricity bills doesn’t work that way. A low-income family with an older house — perhaps heating with electricity — would pay a larger share than an wealthy couple in an expensive condo.
And this approach to taxation also imposes larger costs on energy-dependent industries, reducing what should be a competitive advantage on attracting investment.
B.C. Hydro has some work ahead in improving its efficiency and cutting costs. But the government has an even larger role in fixing flawed policies.
Footnote: The review panel looked at the smart meter program and concluded it was justified based on future savings, although it urged B.C. Hydro to seek ways of cutting the $930 million cost. The panel also notes that unless the corporation introduces differential rates to discourage power use at peak periods, some potential savings under the smart meter program won’t be achieved. Government policy has rejected differential rates; that too should be reviewed.

The first five thoughts on the BC Hydro review

2011-08-11T17:35:00.001-07:00

Five early thoughts on the BC Hydro review.

1) Where were the board, ministers responsible and government as BC Hydro, apparently, was mismanaged and staff soared 20 per cent over the levels needed over a period of years?

2) The government now should explain the huge amounts of money wasted by its discredited policy directives that BC Hydro use IPP purchases in pursuit of a foolish goal of electricity self-sufficiency.

3) The government has to explain its decision to use BC Hydro rates as a vehicle for tax increases. The review found, for example, that the government charges Hydro excessive rates for water rights, which are passed on to customers in the former of higher electricity bills. That's a regressive tax, and potentially destructive to industry in the province, encouraging investment elsewhere.

4) The review read much like something that would be done after a new party was elected to government and set out about fixing - and highlighting - the errors of the previous administration. Christy Clark deserves credit for the hard look (although there are political advantages to distancing herself from Gordon Campbell). But not all Liberals might agree - Bill Bennett and Blair Lekstrom, for example, were briefly energy ministers during the problem years. Half the B.C. Hydro board have been in place for more than two years, and the report raises serious questions about their effectiveness.

5) The report suggests failures of government policy and management. It is good to bring them into the light, but does raise questions about other areas of government.

Full post to come.

Banishment our way of treating mental illness

2011-08-09T14:58:00.001-07:00

Donovan Seward’s banishment from Saltspring Island is a nice metaphor for the way we deal with mental illness.
Seward was ordered off the Island by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing. He faced several charges, including a dine and dash and assaulting an RCMP officer during his arrest. He was also a nuisance since joining the local homeless community.
So he was banished. Problem solved, at least for Saltspring residents.
But not really.
Seward is 31. He’s suffered from mental illness since childhood, says his mother, Myrna Seward. He’s had past brushes with the law, stints in hospitals and a suicide attempt. He’s tormented by voices in his head sometimes, she says, and if he quits taking his medication, he lives in a fantasy world. “He’s completely delusional,” she told the Times Colonist. “He thinks he’s John Lennon half the time.”
The bail conditions didn’t include a requirement that he get medical help or supervision. The officers didn’t take him to emergency for assessment, a possibility under the Mental Health Act.
Really, the problem has just been pushed along from Saltspring to wherever Seward lands next.
Don’t criticize the justice of the peace, the police or the people of Saltspring. Our whole approach to mental illness is based on pushing people away so they become someone else’s problem if things go wrong. (It’s important to note that most people with mental illness manage quite well, as do most people with diabetes or any other disease.)
The health care system shortchanges people with mental illness. There are always other priorities, usually with more skilful advocates. Boomers demanding timely hip replacements are more likely to be heard than someone struggling with unmanaged schizophrenia.
Alan Campbell, who retired last year as director of mental health and addictions for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said B.C. and Canada lag. “For every one of the five years I’ve been doing this job, we’ve put forward strong, well-reasoned cases for more funding,” he said. “My understanding is that our requests are given real consideration, but they just don’t fare well in the end.”
The health system manages its costs by denying or rationing treatment. But it’s actually banishing troubled patients, just as Saltspring did.
Sometimes families or social service agencies are forced to pick up the pieces. Communities deal with the fallout, as people who are not treated fall to the streets.
And often, the police, courts and jails take on the responsibility the health care system shunned - as they did in Seward’s case.
Police spend their days dealing with people who are addicted, intoxicated or mentally ill. They face challenges, and sometimes danger, acting as social workers and counsellors.
Officers know that because the root problems aren’t being addressed, they’ll deal with the same people and the same behaviors the next day.
When the problems become serious enough, or annoying enough to the community, then people with unmanaged mental illness end up in court and, far too often, in prison.
Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, who oversees the federal correctional system’s operations, estimates that 36 per cent of men in federal prisons, and 50 per cent of women, have some form of mental illness. The figures are similar for provincial jails.
There is a cruel irony in all that. Governments closed down large residential mental health facilities, partly to save money and partly because they were considered inhumane. But they failed to deliver the promised health care, housing and community support, with the result that people with mental illness ended up in prisons, which are far more inhumane, and offer no effective treatment.
There is no universal, simple solution. People with mental illness have rights, including the right to refuse treatment. Seward had been living in subsidized housing, with support, in Victoria, but decided to move to Vancouver.
But the current approach is a shambles. And rather than dealing with the issue and providing the health care and community support needed to allow people to deal with their illnesses, we are, like Saltspring, just pushing them along to become someone else’s problem.

Cuts to B.C. human trafficking office

2011-08-08T08:28:00.000-07:00

The B.C. government has cut funding for an office dedicated to dealing with human trafficking.

Which does not displease Jody Paterson, who argues the money could be spent much more effectively on more pressing issues.

"We spent $2.25 million on this office in the last four years, apparently to help 100 people. It kills me to think how that money could have been used for real needs rather than for chasing ghosts.
You'd think that with all the sex workers I'd met over the years in B.C., I might have met one who'd been trafficked at some point in her life. Nope."

You can read the rest here.

More on solving America's debt crisis

2011-08-07T08:21:00.000-07:00

I wrote last week that the U.S. could go a long way toward solving its debt crisis simply by being a bit more like Canada and raising taxes to our level.

"The U.S. collects taxes equal to 24 per cent of its GDP. If the take was increased to 31 per cent - the amount collected in Canada - the current year's deficit would fall from $1.5 trillion to $500 billion....

In fact, if the Americans increased overall tax revenue as a share of GDP to the average for OECD countries - 34.8 per cent - they could have a balanced budget immediately, without cutting anything from spending."

(You can read the post here.)

The New York Times makes the same point in an editorial today.

Lessons from a swim in the Gorge

2011-08-05T12:43:00.001-07:00

We went for a swim Monday, about two blocks from home, in the Gorge waterway. We swam in the salt water as the tidal currents swept under the Tillicum Bridge toward Portage Inlet.

It was just a swim. And it was more. Because even 15 years ago, I wouldn't have ventured into the questionable Gorge waters.

The swim was a reminder that even when things are truly wrecked, we can fix them.

All it takes is one person with the will to start.

The Gorge is an urban waterway that extends inland from Victoria's harbour until it widens into Portage Inlet.

There are a few creeks feeding into the inlet and the Gorge, but the big influence is tidal. Water surges in, and out. The rapids under the Tillicum bridge run one way, then the other.

In the last 120 years, the Gorge has gone full circle. Its heyday was the late 19th and early 20th century, although First Nations had fished for herring and salmon and used it as a gathering place for centuries.

Victorians travelled in boats and by wagon and streetcar to the Gorge narrows to picnic, enjoy the natural setting and listen to concerts.

In 1911, as Dennis Minaker noted in his book, The Gorge of Summers Gone, the British Columbia Railway Company built its own version of Coney Island at the narrows to encourage more people to use the streetcar line. There was a roller-coaster and an early version of Splash Mountain that sent terrified customers down a steep ramp in small boats that plunged into the Gorge.

The water was always central to the activities. People swam and boated and gathered clams. There were races and exhibitions and bathhouses. Promoters built towers and staged diving shows - until, in 1922, 19-year-old Billy Muir was paralysed in a 110-foot dive. He died three years later.

But a few decades into the 20th century, the Gorge waterway was too polluted for anyone but the foolhardy to go swimming.

Residential development all along its length and around Portage Inlet meant increasing runoff, often with storm water and sewage spilling into the waters. Industry along the harbour and Gorge had added its own toxic legacies over Victoria's early years. And the Gorge had become a dumping ground for unwanted items large and small.

It was fine for boaters, but its attractiveness for swimmers - and its once-rich environment - seemed to be lost forever.

But John Roe didn't think so. In 1994, he and his nine-year-old son started spending their days hauling stuff out of the water - shopping carts, rusted metal, car tires.

It seemed, frankly, nutty - a classicly quixotic exercise in the impossible. The Gorge seemed too far gone for any effort to succeed, let alone one driven by one man and a boy in their spare time.

But individual efforts can have a powerful effect.

Other people started helping haul stuff from the water or contributed money. Scuba divers volunteered to pull up the junk Roe couldn't reach.

Business and governments offered support.

Roe, who had covered all the initial expenses, led the formation of the Veins of Life Watershed Society.

Grants and donations paid for equipment and bigger workforces. The cleanup efforts moved beyond pulling junk from the water and started focusing on stopping the flow of pollutants.

And at some point, there was a transformation. It was no longer accepted as an inevitable that the Gorge would remain unusable.

Instead, its recovery was seen as the imperative.

By 2000, a symbolic milestone Roe had set was reached. The Gorge was the site, for the first time in 65 years, of a swimming race.

Today, the transformation is remarkable. Salmon have returned, cormorants and eagles perch in trees along the waterway and herons and kingfishers haunt the shoreline. Emerald green eelgrass beds wave in the tides and otters and seals fish in the water.

And all because one man and a boy took a look at the state of the Gorge and decided to do something about it.

It's worth remembering, in these days of problems that seem too large or complex to yield to our efforts.

And pondering - perhaps as you enjoy a swim in the Gorge on a sunny afternoon.

U.S. could fix debt crisis by being more like us

2011-08-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

Americans could fix their giant deficit/debt crisis relatively painlessly. All they have to do is become more like Canadians.

Specifically, they just have to pay the same level of taxes that Canadians do.

U.S. politicians have spent the last few weeks in a destructive exercise in brinkmanship over raising the country's debt limit. Republicans said they wouldn't allow more debt without a plan to reduce the deficit, and the plan couldn't include any tax increases.

Democrats didn't want the deep spending cuts that would be required. Failing to raise the limit could mean the U.S. couldn't borrow the money to pay its bills, causing all sorts of international economic problems.

A last-minute deal appears to have put off the crisis for a while.

Basically, the problem is simple. The U.S. spends much more than it takes in. The Tea Party politicians pretend it's feasible to cut spending by 40 per cent to deal with the gap. It's not.

But there is a solution. The U.S. collects taxes equal to 24 per cent of its GDP. If the take was increased to 31 per cent - the amount collected in Canada - the current year's deficit would fall from $1.5 trillion to $500 billion. (Instead, the compromise deal imagines spending cuts that would reduce the deficit by about $200 billion.)

Canada manages with that level of taxation. Our economy is stronger than the U.S. economy. Our society, arguably, functions better. Creativity and entrepreneurship aren't strangled. We grumble, but the tax burden isn't really onerous - people aren't fleeing for tax havens so they can pay less.

But a large chunk of Americans have bought into the dual notions that they are heavily taxed, and that all taxes are bad.

Neither is true. In fact, if the Americans increased overall tax revenue as a share of GDP to the average for OECD countries - 34.8 per cent - they could have a balanced budget immediately, without cutting anything from spending. No more mounting debt for future generations to repay, no risks of default or massive interest costs on rising borrowing.

Most of us grumble about paying taxes, especially when governments do goofy things with our money - like spending on fast ferries or stadium roofs or submarines that don't work.

But the current level of taxation in Canada isn't obviously punitive. We share the costs of services like schools and health care and police and get obvious value for much of the money we send off to government.

OECD countries function well, for the most part, with their levels of taxation. Even Germany, with tax revenue at 39 per cent of GDP, seems to manage.

It's not like the money disappears. Seniors get pensions and spend the money in their communities. The navy employs a few thousand people in Victoria, and buys services from scores of companies. We drive on the roads that our tax dollars pay for, and call the police when we need them. And the police, in turn, spend their salaries in the community.

It irks some that the payments are compulsory. I can boycott stores I don't like, but I have to send a cheque off to Revenue Canada. People without kids pay for schools, and those who oppose the war in Afghanistan pay for bigger military budgets.

But that's the price of living in a democratic society. It's pretty good value.

We can and should go wild when governments waste our money. We shouldn't pretend that paying for the things we need and use is somehow a bad thing.

Many Americans, and their politicians, seem trapped in a dangerous fantasyland.

And there is a real risk that the blind anti-tax fervour, fed by some elements of the media, will catch hold in Canada. To some extent, it already has. The Campbell Liberals treated taxes as inherently bad. And at least some of the anti-HST sentiment comes from people who oppose all taxes.

The consequences of the American tax delusion are on display. Let's hope we learn from them.

Footnote: There are still serious questions about how taxes should be collected. The initial HST opposition, for example, came in large part because it was supposed to shift $1.9 billion in taxes from companies to families. That's been a trend in B.C.

Since 2001, the share of government revenues derived from direct corporate taxes and royalties of various kinds has fallen by more than 50 per cent.

Americans could learn from us on deficit

2011-07-31T12:51:00.000-07:00

Americans could fix their big deficit/debt crisis relatively painlessly.

All they have to do is pay the same level of taxes as Canadians do.

U.S. politicians are playing brinkmanship over raising the debt limit. Posturing and ideology have replaced any hint of intelligence or common sense. The risks to the U.S. and world economies are serious.

Basically, the problem is simple

The U.S. spends much more than it takes in. The Tea Party politicians pretend that it's feasible to cut spending by 40 per cent as a solution. It's not.

We manage with that level of taxation. Our economy is stronger than the U.S. economy. Our society, arguably, functions better. Creativity and entrepreneurship aren't strangled.

If the U.S. tax revenue was increased to the OECD average of 34.8 per cent of GDP, Americans have a balanced budget without cutting anything from spending.

Most of us grumble about paying taxes, especially when governments do goofy things with our money - like spending on fast ferries or stadium roofs or mismanaged convention centres.

It's not like the money disappears. Seniors get pensions and spend the money in their communities. The navy employees a few thousand people in Victoria, and buys services from scores of companies. We drive on the roads that our tax dollars pay for, and call the police when we need them.

It irks some that the payments are compulsory. I can boycott stores I don't like or decide not to eat out, but I have to send a cheque off to Revenue Canada. People without kids pay for schools. People who oppose the war in Afghanistan pay for bigger military budgets.

But that's the price of living in a democratic society. It's pretty good value.

Taxes pay for services we need. We can and should go wild when governments waste our money. We shouldn't pretend that paying for the things we need and use is somehow a bad thing.

American politicians seem trapped in fantasyland.

Let's hope we learn from their delusion.

Province undermining missing women inquiry

2011-07-29T15:19:00.001-07:00

It might be time to pull the plug on the public inquiry into missing and murdered women.

The Liberal government's support for the inquiry, headed by former attorney general Wally Oppal, has always been suspect. Even when police joined the widespread calls for an independent review, the government dragged its feet.

Now Premier Christy Clark and Attorney General Barry Penner are undermining the inquiry. They have overruled Oppal's decisions on what's required to make it an effective, thorough review of how Robert Pickton could prey on women for years.

Oppal heard applications from individuals and groups that wanted standing at the hearings - the right to review documents, question witnesses, provide evidence and respond to the testimony.

He narrowed the list to 13 groups, and recommended the government provide funding for their legal costs. He was only seeking funding for those groups who were needed to get answers and had "satisfied me that they would not be able to participate fully without financial support," Oppal said.

Penner said no, and Clark has supported the position despite Oppal's pleas for reconsideration. The government can't afford the legal costs, they say. The commission will have lawyers. Perhaps they can look after the interests of the groups. (The government will pay for one lawyer for the families of Pickton's victims.)

Five of the 13 groups have already pulled out of the inquiry, including the Native Women's Association of Canada and WISH, a drop-in centre for Downtown Eastside sex workers.

Penner's concerns about costs are understandable. Inquiries can become expensive.

Except his concern about costs extends only those representing the victims and other missing women. Those groups can be expected to have an interest in, and knowledge of, the factors - police and political indifference, racism, poverty, lack of social supports - that might have played a role in allowing Pickton to kill for years.

Police officers called before the inquiry will have publicly funded lawyers. Any politicians, past or present, who might be called to testify, or even mentioned in the course of the inquiry, will have taxpayer-funded lawyers. So will government employees.

But Clark isn't suggesting those people should rely on the commission's lawyers.

If the concern is costs, and Penner really believes that it's adequate to have the commission's lawyers ensure fairness and a thorough examination of the facts, then he should provide a level playing field. That means no public funding for anyone involved.

Penner won't do that. He is prepared to provide legal funding for those with power, but not for those without it. They are, like the missing women, second class.

It's not just the groups. Kim Rossmo is a former Vancouver police officer whose warnings that a serial killer was at work were ignored. He is a professor in Texas now and was to be an important witness at the inquiry.

But the government has also refused to pay for legal representation for Rossmo. Other officers will have taxpayer-paid lawyers to question him, review documents on their behalf and protect their interests. He is expected to pay for his own lawyer.

The inquiry's credibility is rapidly being eroded. On Friday, the Native Women's Association of Canada called for a federal inquiry.

"The government of B.C. has shut us out of the British Columbia Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, and now we have no confidence that it will be able to produce a fair and balanced report," president Jeannette Corbiere. "The decision of the B.C. government to restrict funding for counsel primarily to police and government agencies demonstrates how flawed and one sided this process has become."

This inquiry should be important. Scores of women disappeared; dozens were killed. The institutions that were supposed to protect all citizens failed them. Without an inquiry, we won't know what went wrong - and whether women continue to be killed.

But the government is undermining before work even starts.

Footnote: Penner also says the groups might be able to participate in less formal hearings that will be held in conjunction with the inquiry. But again, he has not explained why these groups should be denied full participation in the inquiry, as Oppal has recommended, while the legal representation to allow police and politicians to participate is fully funded.

Gap between rich and rest widening

2011-07-27T08:25:00.001-07:00

We've become a lot more unequal society in Canada, widening the gap between the rich and the rest. The top earners have increased their share of after-tax income in the last three decades, with the gap widening since 2000.

Middle and lower-income families saw their shares shrink.

The highest income quintile - the top 20 per cent of Canadians - shared 39 per cent of all income in 2009. The bottom 20 per cent split seven per cent of the total income.

This all didn't happen as the result of some unavoidable force of nature (or economics). Governments, for example, made changes that delivered a greater share of the overall income to the rich. Which meant a smaller share for everyone else.

And despite the shift's significance, there was not much public debate.

The Conference Board of Canada has just offered a useful look at the issue (see conferenceboard.ca), and raised important questions.

A few hard-core ideologues see the issue simply. But it's complex.

If you work too hard to reduce income inequality, the theory goes, you remove the rewards that encourage people to build businesses or climb the corporate ladder. The economy is weaker as a result.

If income inequality becomes too great, a society suffers other problems. There are economic ones - when success is only rewarded for a relative handful of winners, the incentive for most people to strive is reduced.

There are also moral issues. The idea of some people enjoying huge incomes while children live a few streets away in desperate poverty should be troubling.

And the Conference Board notes another risk. "To participate fully in society, individuals need a level of resources that is not too far below the norm in that community," it noted.

When people's incomes fall too far - when the gap becomes too great - they are excluded. Which means they have much less stake in accepting the laws and rules imposed by the society that has left them out.

Especially when the rebuff is so pointed. The Conference Board report cites a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study that tracked the incomes of the richest one per cent of Canadians, using tax return data. That group - 246,000 people whose average income was $405,000 - claimed almost one-third of all growth in incomes during the boom years from 1998 to 2007.

Market forces have played a role. Globalization meant manufacturing moved offshore to countries with lower labour costs; that reduced demand for workers and resulted in lower wages in countries like Canada. Highly skilled people, by contrast, are in greater demand.

But government policies have widened the income gap. Traditionally, governments have redistributed income to reduce the distance between the rich and the poor. Taxes are progressive, so the rich pay more. Transfer payments - disability assistance, unemployment insurance, pensions - boost the incomes of those at the bottom of the heap. Minimum wage laws and other regulations protect those with the least economic bargaining power.

The Conference Board found that between 1976 and 1994, the tax and transfer system increasingly reduced income inequality.

But since 1994, the trend reversed. Tax and transfer policies played a role in increasing the income gap. In 1990, for example, about 83 per cent of unemployed people were eligible for EI benefits; that was chopped to 48 per cent by 2009.

It's not all gloom. The high-income earners reaped the largest share of economic growth. But the Conference Board reports the average income level of the poorest group of people rose, "marginally," from $12,400 in 1976 to $14,500 in 2009 - about 17 per cent over 33 years. (The numbers are adjusted for inflation.)

But the highest-earning quintile saw a 26 per cent increase in average income. The income gap widened from $92,300 in 1976 to $117,500 in 2009.

A widening income gap isn't inevitable. The Conference Board found Canada had among the highest income gaps among peer countries, ranking 12th out of 17. Many of the more equal countries had equally strong economies.

This should be a central political and social issue for Canadians. The gap between those at the top of the income pyramid and the rest in the middle and bottom is widening. There should be, at least, a discussion of what that means and how much disparity Canadians are prepared to accept.

Globe: Firms with B.C. Liberal ties awarded secret contracts in pro-HST campaign

2011-07-26T17:26:00.000-07:00

The Liberals bypassed normal tendering processes and its pro-HST campaign secretly arranged deals with friendly companies and a former aide to Colin Hansen, who introduced the tax as finance minister, Sean Holman reports in The Globe and Mail today.

Campaign Research Ltd., which worked on George Abbott's leadership campaign got $167,800 to conduct those town hall telephone meetings on the tax.

Backbone Technology, which has worked for the Liberal party for 10 years, got $52,747 contract to do the HST website.

And Marc Andrew, Hansen's former aide, was paid more than $33,000 to provide "political advice" to Tom Syer, the head of the HST sales campaign, and help the independent panel that assessed the tax.

None of the contracts were tendered, the normal procedure for contracts worth more than $25,000.

Holman reports the government's response.

There is a simple test of the appropriateness of these contracts.

What would Christy Clark have said if the former NDP government had done the same thing? Would she have accepted the reasons for awarding $250,000 in contracts to friends of the government without competitive bids?

Or cried foul?

MLAs get thousands for 22 minutes work on committee

2011-07-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

MLAs Norm Letnick and Rob Fleming got an awful lot of extra money for almost no work last year.

Letnick, a Liberal from Kelowna-Lake Country, was paid $13,353 - on top of MLAs' base pay of $101,859 - to chair a legislative committee that met once, for 22 minutes. Fleming, a New Democrat from Victoria-Swan Lake, was paid $8,903 as deputy chair.

The two led the grandly named Select Standing Commitee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

The committee met once in the last fiscal year, rubber stamping two housecleaning bills for non-profits. It took less than half an hour.

Letnick and Fleming didn't set the pay. All MLAs approved the pay rates after a 2007 report on MLAs compensation. They took the money though.

They weren't alone. New Democrat Jenny Kwan was paid $4,437 as deputy chair of the legislative initiatives committee, which met twice, for three hours, to discuss the HST petition.

The legislative committee on children and youth met four times in the fiscal year. Chair Joan McIntyre was paid $13,353 for the work; deputy chair Maurine Karagianis, $8,206.

That was a more serious committee. There was work between meetings and a five-and-a-half hour session on poverty in Vancouver. But the chair was still paid more than $3,000 per meeting.

On one hand, you can't fault the MLAs. The pay scale was put in place by the legislature. Their parties backed them for the positions.

Letnick notes he had the second lowest travel expenses among Interior and Northern MLAs and worked long and diligently. "I work really hard to make sure I can defend everything that I have control over," he said.

Still, $13,353 is a lot of money for presiding over one meeting.

The pay didn't used to be so grand. Until 2007, MLAs got $6,000 for chairing a committee and $3,000 for serving as vice-chair.

The committee set up to review MLAs' compensation and expense allowances decided that wasn't enough.

The three-member panel's recommendation of a 29-per-cent increase in base pay, from $76,100 to $98,000, got most of the attention. But it also recommended big increases in the wide range of extra pay that sees just over half the MLAs in the legislature get a salary top-up. (The actual average pay rate is over $120,000.)

Compensation for committee chairs, for example, more than doubled, from $6,000 to $14,700; vice-chairs got an even larger increase, from $3,000 to $9,800. The committee didn't explain why the compensation should be tripled.

Parliamentary secretaries - helpers for ministers - were receiving an extra $6,000 a year. Now they are paid an extra $15,000. Caucus chairs got $6,000. Now they are paid more than $20,000.

And of course the extra pay for being premier doubled, from $45,000 to more than $90,000.

The increases, including a much more generous pension plan, were all recommended by an independent panel.

But the government picked the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor. Their average income, I'd wager, was well over $200,000. Their perspective on compensation would inevitably be skewed by their own experiences. Unlike past compensation committees, there was no one earning the average B.C. wage of abut $40,000.

The money, in the grand scheme of things, is small. MLAs work long hours and, in my experience, mostly seek office out of a real desire to improve life in their communities.

But the huge increases show a disconnect between the lives of British Columbians who are also working hard, taking on extra tasks and count themselves fortunate to get any pay raises. The $13,353 Letnick got for chairing one 20-minute meeting is 23 per cent more than a disabled person on assistance gets to live on for an entire year.

MLAs deserve fair pay. But it is troubling that a sense of entitlement seems to have taken hold, one that distances them from the realities of life for most British Columbians.

Footnote: For more than 20 years, the Washington state has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.

Corporate sponsors and special access to the premiers

2011-07-21T08:37:00.000-07:00

An editorial today in the Times Colonist:

The unseemly premiers

Convention organizers often seek sponsors willing to pay to curry favour with attendees.

But the country's premiers shouldn't be asking corporations to subsidize their meetings.

When provincial and territorial premiers meet in Vancouver this week, the events will be subsidized by business donors, commentator David Schreck notes.

The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, lobby group for that industry, is the platinum sponsor. Amgen, campaigning for public funding for an expensive cancer drug, is a gold sponsor, along with CN and the major beer companies.

Encana, a major player in Alberta and B.C. gas fields, and a beneficiary from government decisions on royalty rates, is a silver sponsor. So is the lobby group for research-based pharmaceutical companies and Borealis Infrastructure, a player in public-private partnerships.

Licia Corbella, in a column on this page on similar sponsorships for a federal-provincial energy ministers' conference in Alberta, notes the damage done.

The companies are spending money in the interests of shareholders. They must feel they will gain special access to the premiers, or favourable consideration in future. Even if they don't, the perception will exist.

Corporations who choose not to pay up will wonder if that will be held against them, by the politicians or the conference organizers.

And ordinary citizens, or businesses that can't pay, must worry that their concerns will come second to the interests of the corporations that donated.

HST a cash cow, and other news from the Public Accounts

2011-07-19T16:43:00.000-07:00

The HST as cash cow, the incredible shrinking deficit and three other interesting things from the Public Accounts, the final report on the province's financial performance in the last fiscal year.
First, the Public Accounts reveal that, government claims to the contrary, the HST represents a significant tax increases targeted at individuals and families.
The HST was in effect for the final nine months of the last fiscal year, which ended March 31. It pulled in $4.2 billion, or about $467 million a month.
In the previous year, the PST take was about $392 million a month.
So the HST provides government with an extra 19 per cent - roughly $900 million more a year than the PST, or about $210 per man, woman and child in the province. (That's slightly overstated - about $100 million of the increase is due to economic growth, based on the government's budget assumptions.)
That's on top of the HST impact of shifting some $2 billion in taxes off corporations and businesses and onto individuals and families.
Second, the government continues to introduce budgets - except for the 2009 election budget - with huge cushions. The budget forecast a deficit of $1.7 billion. The actual deficit, according to the public accounts, was $309 million. As recently as February, the government was still forecasting a $1.3-billion deficit.
Tax revenues were $780 million higher than expected, in large part because the government underestimated HST revenues in the budget. Crown corporations revenues were $181 million over budget, mainly because the government took $180 million more from B.C. Hydro revenues than it expected.
And spending was reined in. Overall, spending increased $903 million, or 2.3 per cent over the previous year. But that largely reflects health spending, up 4.1 per cent. Education spending - K to 12 and postsecondary - was up about one per cent. Other spending was effectively frozen, despite the huge pressures in areas like Community Living B.C.'s support for people with developmental disabilities.
Prudence is a virtue, of course; better to err on the side of caution and all that. And some room for unexpected occurrences has to be built into a $30-billion-plus budget.
But consistently coming in under budget by huge amounts cheats MLAs and the public.
A more accurate budget forecast might have resulted in different choices by the legislature. Perhaps, had MLAs known the deficit was to be $309 million, not $1.7 billion, they would have voted to spend more on support for schools or additional surgeries.
Or they might have decided there would be room for substantial across-the-board income tax cuts, given the relatively small deficit.
Those options were removed because of the inaccurate budget presented to the legislature.
Third, the Public Accounts report that the B.C. economy grew by four per cent in 2010, third strongest among the province. That's obviously good news and the increased economic activity played a role in the increased government revenues. But the report warns growth is expected to slow to two per cent this year.
And it noted the recovery didn't ease the unemployment rate. Full-time employment increased 1.1 per cent, and the number of people working full-time is still below 2007 and 2008 levels. Unemployment improved slightly, to 7.6 per cent - the highest level since 2003.
Finally, the accounts reported the province's total debt, despite recent deficits and infrastructure spending, increased by $3.3 billion, to $45.2 billion. Taxpayer-supported debt equals 15.7 per cent of GDP, a manageable level.
The NDP did highlight a big jump in long-term commitments that will bind future governments - and taxpayers - well into the future. The contracts, for everything from payments to private companies building hospitals to highway maintenance, increased from $53 billion to $80 billion in one year. More than half the commitments - $45 billion - bind B.C. Hydro to buy expensive electricity from private power companies.
Footnote: The Public Accounts - available online at www.fin.gov.bc.ca - also reports on MLA pay and expense claims.
The base pay for the fiscal year was $102,000. But 44 of the 85 MLAs qualified for additional payments because they were in cabinet, chaired committees or played various other roles.
The actual average pay for an MLA was a record $120,198.

So who's managing the government's HST sales job? It's a secret

2011-07-18T08:36:00.000-07:00

Sean Holman filed an FOI to find out who was working in the government's HST sales office and managing the multimillion ad campaign to convince people to vote to keep the tax.
But the government wouldn't reveal the names of anyone, including a "special adviser" from outside government.
See his piece here.

Clark’s stumbles raise political questions

2011-07-14T10:26:00.000-07:00

So how’s Christy Clark doing, after four months as premier? That’s a big question for the Liberals. If Clark is doing well, they can afford to delay an election. If not, a fall election is in the cards.
Only a few people know how effective Clark has been in getting the right things done in government - MLAs, deputy ministers, and those affected by government decisions.
Most of us form opinions on what we read about her performance, or see on the news, or our vague sense of what she’s done.
And the media narrative seems to be turning a bit negative.
Clark started well, but that was easy. She just had to not be Gordon Campbell.
So Clark raised the minimum wage - a good and overdue step. She fired both the minister and the top manager in the children and families ministry. She ordered a review of B.C. Hydro’s politically ordered, expensive plans. And she floated a proposal to save the HST, acknowledging the Liberals had been planning to gouge families and benefit corporations.
And she was likable, donning a Canucks’ jersey and just being darn enthusiastic. Clark is a an excellent politician. She sounds good, if you don’t listen too hard.
But the tide seemed to shift last month.
First, Clark sent an unclear message after the Stanley Cup riots. She was hardline initially. “If you are responsible, we will hold you responsible. Your family, friends and employers will know," she said. "We will ensure we have the resources to do this. You will not be able to hide behind your hoodie or your bandana." Get ready for a jail cell, Clark said.
Then she backtracked. The target was a “core” group of instigators, not young people who just got caught “when they were most likely to make a colossal, irreparable mistake.”
Then Clark floated weird ideas for Senate reform in her first official Ottawa visit.
B.C. is shortchanged in the Senate. The province, with 4.5 million people, is represented by six senators. New Brunswick, with 750,000 people, has 10. But fixing the imbalance requires a change to the constitution, virtually impossible given the amending formula and the opposition of provinces that would lose seats.
In Ottawa, Clark said her first choice is abolition. But she had lawyers looking at whether senators could be added for B.C. without changing the constitution, she said.
That’s a nonstarter, experts agree. Adding senators is clearly a constitutional change.
Later, Clark said she had floated a different idea with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He should leave Senate seats vacant in Atlantic Canada and Quebec so B.C. and other under-represented provinces would have more clout.
The ideas was widely derided as goofy and legally dubious. What prime minister would rile voters in five provinces by deliberately failing to appoint the senators they were entitled to under the constitution?
This week, Clark stumbled on a plan to use a gas tax increase to help pay for a new transit line in the Lower Mainland. Mayors had negotiated the plan and Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom said the province backed it.
But in a press conference Monday, Clark suggested she might veto the gas tax.
“When British Columbians say that they’re not really excited about paying more gas taxes, I get that,” Clark said. “Because my focus as premier is about how do we make life more affordable for people rather than less affordable.”
By Wednesday, Lekstrom was smoothing the waters and assuring the mayors it was all a misunderstanding.
On one hand, it’s welcome to have a politician willing to stray from carefully crafted and often meaningless talking points. Voters might find some candour, even thinking out loud, welcome.
But the risk is that Clark will be seen as a policy lightweight given to speaking and acting without sufficient thought, and at risk of making big mistakes.
In politics, unfortunately, it’s tough to shake that kind of image once it takes hold.
Footnote: The HST referendum remains the big election factor. If the HST is dumped, the next question will be how many of the former PST exemptions will be cancelled as the government looks to increase revenue. Those decisions could rekindle all the original anti-HST anger and more.

A child's death, a nation's shame

2011-07-14T08:49:00.000-07:00

The Times Colonist looked at the shooting death of a five-year-old boy on an Alberta reserve today. The statistical portrait of reserve life was striking and horrifying.

"Consider the numbers. Ethan Yellowbird was a member of the Samson nation. His grandfather is chief. According to the 2006 census, about 3,300 people lived on the reserve. The median age was 20; 37 per cent of the population was under 15.

There were 765 families on the reserve - couples, with or without children, and single parents. And 345 of them, or 45 per cent, were single-parent families. That's more than three times the rate for the rest of the province.

The median family income was $19,776, compared with the Alberta median of $73,823.

The unemployment rate was 27 per cent. Thirty-four per cent of residents over 15 had a high school education or better, compared with 76 per cent of Albertans.

The numbers offer a limited portrait of a struggling community - poor, undereducated and underemployed.

And the large numbers of young people growing up without hope of a better future suggest decades of struggle ahead."

You can read the rest here.

Gambling grant review long overdue

2011-07-12T16:07:00.001-07:00

Governments love charities as props whenever they want to expand gambling.
They use them to legitimize what is, overall, a destructive industry. As Gordon Campbell said, before he launched the biggest gambling expansion in B.C.'s history, the only way governments make money from gambling is by creating losers. The B.C. government shouldn't be creating a province of losers, he said.
Governments - Socred, NDP, Liberal - always used the fact that charities get a share of gambling revenues to justify new ways of plucking the public's wallets.
Once the plan is in place, they begin to forget about the charities and grab more and more cash for their own revenues.
There are periodic backlashes. One of the biggest came in 2009, when the government chopped grants to non-profits around the province by 23 per cent. The pool of money went from $156 million to $120 million without warning, consultation or, apparently, a whole lot of thought.
When Christy Clark took over as premier, she added $15 million to last year's grants. But this year, it's once again cut to $120 million.
Clark announced a review of the gambling grants Tuesday, to be headed by Skip Triplett, a consultant and former college president. He's supposed to consult around the province and report by Oct. 31 on better ways of doing the grants.
He is to look at everything - the levels of funding, the criteria, the application process.
The review is overdue. Charities have been getting pushed around on gambling revenue since at least the 1970s. They originally sold lottery tickets in the province, earning commission on the sales that supported their activities. The government pushed them out to make more money.
They ran casinos and bingos, but were shoved out of those activities as well, with the promise that their revenues would be protected. That sparked a lot of fighting when the promise was broken. In 1997, the association representing non-profits that had been involved in gambling signed an agreement with government guaranteeing them 33 per cent of gambling revenues.
If the deal had been kept, charities would be getting about $400 million a year today, not $120 million.
But the Liberals said they wouldn't honour the written agreement.
This year, the government expects to make about $1.2 billion from gambling - lotteries, casinos and online betting. (Which works out to an astonishing $265 in gambling losses for every man, woman and child in the province.)
Non-profits will get $120 million from gambling grants. Communities that have casinos and gambling centres will share $82 million, an incentive to encourage them to accept businesses unpopular with many residents.
And the government will keep the rest - about $1 billion.
The grants are vital to most of the approximately 6,000 organizations that get some funding under the program. School parent advisory councils get $20 per student, for example. Ski patrols, community youth programs, patient support groups, arts organizations - the list is long. The average grant is about $20,000.
The money is never their sole source of income. They fundraise on top of the contributions. But the grants provide a critical support.
There are always grants that could be questioned, by at least some people. But a closer look generally finds the groups are doing useful work.
The review could be useful as well, though many of the needed improvements to the program are obvious. The funding is almost always year-to-year, for example. Multi-year agreements - assuming outcomes are met - would allow much better planning.
The grant criteria are subject to arbitrary changes at any time. When the government chopped grants in 2009, for example, it took particular aim at grants to arts organizations.
The review should be helpful. The grants are part of the justification for expanding gambling. They make a significant difference in communities across the province. It's past time for a proper policy.
Footnote: It's puzzling that MLAs couldn't have done much of this work. The legislature rarely sits and they are supposed to be aware of the opinions of people in their constituencies. At a minimum, they could have reduced the need for provincewide consultations.

Scathing report raise environmental protection concerns

2011-07-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

British Columbians should be shocked by a scathing auditor general's report exposing major flaws in the environmental review process for major projects.
The report is devastating and contradicts past government claims about a rigorous reviews and careful monitoring. And the failures should surely have been obvious if anyone in government had been paying attention.
The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office is responsible for reviewing and approving major developments - mines, dams, new resort communities and the like. Right now, it has more than $30 billion worth of projects under review.
It can reject proposals, in theory. But that has only happened once, while 115 projects have been approved.
But when the office issues an environmental assessment certificate, it does include commitments the developer is legally required to meet to minimize environmental damage. The office tries to ensure that the impact of projects is mitigated by these measures.
Auditor general John Doyle looked at that aspect of the office's operations. It was a dismaying exercise.
The Environmental Assessment Office doesn't know if the conditions it imposes in approving projects are "measurable and enforceable," the audit said. The wording is often weak - companies are ordered to "try" to avoid damage, for example. As a result, the developers can't be held to account for violating the legal conditions of their permits.
And anyway, the auditor general found, the office makes no real effort to check on whether the commitments are being obeyed on the ground.
There was a pilot program that saw inspectors actually visit development sites, to see if the rules were being followed and if they were achieving the desired environmental goals. But the program was cancelled.
The assessment office relies on compliance reports from the companies. But some companies don't send them in and there is no formal system for tracking the reports or specific problems.
Doyle also found the Environmental Assessment Office fails to provide enough information to the public to allow accountability.
None of this is to suggest companies or developers are setting out to do environmental damage. And other government agencies, in some cases, are also checking environmental performance.
But it's simply reality that some operators will cut corners and take shortcuts. Some measures will prove ineffective and could be adjusted - if the office was actually visiting the sites.
Without an effective assessment and monitoring process, needless, lasting damage could be done.
The report is bad news for Premier Christy Clark. Like Gordon Campbell, she has insisted the province's process is tough and effective. And both have argued that it shouldn't be necessary for major projects to go through both federal and provincial reviews.
That's a tough sell when the province's efforts are questionable at best.
The provincial assessment process was already being questioned. It approved the Prosperity mine southwest of Williams Lake, judging the environmental damage - which included turning a lake into a tailings dump - as acceptable given the economic benefits.
But a federal review came to the opposite conclusion, and the Harper government said no to the mine. (The company subsequently decided it didn't need to destroy the lake after all, but the project still has not been approved.)
Clark lobbied Stephen Harper to reverse the decision, presumably citing the B.C. environmental review. His refusal looks wise at this point.
B.C. is resource-rich and development - whether of new pipelines, mines, resort towns or run-of-river power projects - brings jobs and economic growth. There has been a significant boom, particularly in the oil and gas sector.
But governments have insisted they are doing an effective job of protecting the environment by imposing strict conditions on companies to ensure damage is minimized.
That's not happening.
The auditor general has offered a damaging critique of a cornerstone of environmental protection. It's up to Clark to respond with an effective plan and funding.
Footnote: Environment Minister Terry Lake wouldn't respond to the report; he said he wants to meet Doyle first. That's baffling. The government gets auditor's reports well in advance so its response can be included in the published version. The minister should have been ready.

Auntie Nan

2011-07-06T19:39:00.000-07:00

Auntie Nan, the wife of my dad's brother Eric, died just short of her 96th birthday, dignity intact.
That's her on the left.

Ontario voters get better democracy than we do

2011-07-01T13:53:00.001-07:00

Premier Christy Clark is supposedly looking at a fall election. If this were Ontario, voters would be casting much more informed ballots.
And B.C. governments would be much less likely to present bogus pre-election budgets.
An Ontario election is already scheduled for Oct. 6; the province has fixed election dates. The parties are in the long unofficial campaign; the public is trying to sort out their claims and promises.
Voters just got big help with this task, thanks to an Ontario accountability law introduced eight years ago.
The Ontario government is required to present a report on the state of the province's finances and its plans for the next three years before the election. That includes economic assumptions and spending and revenue plans.
The auditor general must review the plans and report publicly on whether they are sound, highlighting any potential problem areas. (The review found the Liberal government's cost-cutting plans weren't realistic.)
If a similar law had been in place in B.C., the outcome might well have been different in two of the last four elections.
The Liberals, not the NDP, might have won the closely fought 1996 election. The New Democrats launched their campaign that year after tabling a pre-election budget projecting an $87 million surplus for the current year and a $16 million surplus for the year that had just ended.
After the election, the real numbers showed deficits of more than $350 million in each year. A subsequent auditor general's report damned the government's budget preparation and said it had unreasonably inflated revenue projections.
And the NDP might well have won the 2009 election. The Liberals' pre-election budget projected a $495 million deficit, a number Gordon Campbell insisted was accurate right through the campaign. The real deficit turned out to be $2.8 billion. Voters might have been much less keen on a government that had sunk the province so deeply into red ink.
The sad part is that B.C. should have just such a law. The 1996 budget scandal triggered a report by the auditor general and an independent review of the budget process. Neither went far enough to head off the wildly inaccurate - and politically advantageous - 2009 pre-election budget.
Which leaves voters in a bad spot.
Clark will decide on when to call an election based on political advantage. The fixed election date law was supposed to end that practice, but it's reasonable for a new premier, facing a two-year wait until the next election, to seek a mandate earlier.
So if Clark thinks the Liberals have greater chances of winning this fall than they would next year, then she'll call an an election. That assessment will be based on polling and the results of the HST referendum - if the tax is hammered, a vote would be less likely.
And the Clark strategists are watching to see if NDP leader Adrian Dix is gaining ground and if Conservative leader John Cummins is attracting enough support to split the traditional Liberal vote.
An election this fall would be fought on the basis of this year's February budget. But it's not credible, particularly in years two and three of the plan. Most ministries had their budgets cut this year; those impacts are just being felt. And the budgets, under the plan, are frozen for the next two years, despite growing population and increased demand. Without deep service cuts, the budget won't be balanced by 2013/14 as planned.
And a spring election, following another pre-election budget, would offer voters no greater certainty about budget credibility.
The best choice for voters? A commitment to match Ontario's commitment to openness and accountability by ensuring an indendent report on the credibility of pre-election budgets.
And a vote in the fall of 2012, when voters have had chance to see the performance of Dix and Clark in dealing with the issues.
Footnote: The federal government provides a similar, even broader independent review. The parliamentary budget officer reports to MPs - and the public - on the credibility of budget plans and the assumptions underlying major projects, like the purchase of fighter jets. The office has expressed concerns about the government's ability to meet its targets for spending cuts based on its current plans.

America’s Apple economy widens the winner-loser gap

2011-07-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

That's the headline on an interesting piece in the Globe today.
The column by Chrystia Freeland looks at a study on the economic impact of the iPod. The study found that, in 2006, the dandy device produced 41,000 jobs.
But, despite Apple's California roots, 27,000 of them were outside the U.S. and 14,000 were inside.
The foreign jobs making the iPod paid an average $12,000 a year; the American jobs an average $53,000.
That's one issue. Though it's worth noting that $12,000 is pretty good pay in most of the countries where these people worked, and that if they were paid $53,000 — or if the jobs stayed in the states — an iPod would cost $950 and no one would buy them.
More striking was the winner and loser gap in America.
The study found about 6,100 of the jobs in the U.S. went to 'engineers and professionals,' paid an average $90,000.
The remaining 7,800 jobs were in retail, support services, shipping and the like — and the average wage was $28,000.
Thus the winner-loser gap.
This is a big change. A generation ago, engineers might have been earning the equivalent of $90,000. But non-engineers were working in auto plants, mines, the forest industry or officers, and making the equivalent of $40,000 to $60,000.
Those jobs have gone, or been devalued. A smaller group of workers has commanded much more of the wage pool.
There has been little discussion of whether this is desirable, or right, and what long-term effects it will have.
And an odd assumption that it represents some force of nature, rather than a series of policy choices.

Government failed girl found in home with her dead mother

2011-06-28T16:39:00.000-07:00

Anyone paying attention - especially people being paid to do just that - could have seen things were going to end badly for the 15-year-old girl with Down's syndrome and her mom.
And things did end badly. The girl spent days alone in a dirty trailer with her mother's decomposing body last fall. She was filthy, emaciated and covered in an angry rash when found - and frightened.
When neighbours came to her rescue, she couldn't hear them. Her hearing aids had stopped working at some point in the past. No one had noticed. She had lived in needless silence.
B.C. Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond reported on the case this week. It is grim reading.
The desperate family's downward spiral occurred over years. There was ample evidence of deteriorating conditions for both mother and daughter. For almost four years, the Ministry of Children and Families had been warned the child was being abused and neglected. Investigations were incomplete and inadequate, failing to take the modest steps needed to get at the truth of the family's collapse.
As all this happened, the government was supposed to be providing children with special needs and their families help with assessment, planning and services. That didn't happen either.
Lord knows the child needed support. She was sickly and weak, needed leg braces and hearing aids and glasses. At 15, she had the intellectual functioning of a pre-schooler.
She was also a warm and loving child, lo9ved in turn by her mother.
In a family with money and savvy, she might have fared well.
But her mother was poor. When her car broke down, she had to give up the two jobs she was working. She was on income assistance – a life of poverty - and sometimes collected cans and bottles to get by. She couldn't afford a phone.
And she battled her own issues with illness, physical and mental, and, apparently, with alcohol.
Families of children with special needs are supposed to be getting support to make sure services are there. But the government shuffled responsibility to Community Living BC from the children's ministry in 2005, then decided that was a bad idea and shuffled them back in 2009. Supports were inadequate, caseloads overwhelming and children fell through gaping cracks.
And all children are supposed to be protected from harm by the ministry of children and families. That's impossible, of course. But in this case, the report found, there were complaints about the home and warning signs of obvious risk. At the least, this family needed support; it's likely the child should have been apprehended.
Instead, things got worse and worse.
Turpel-Lafond also found this case was not just an aberration, or the result of individual failures. "Is this a unique circumstance, a cruel anomaly?" she said. "Tragically, it is not."
One of the government workers responsible for supporting the child had a caseload of 200 families. There is simply no way to do the work properly under those conditions.
The government cut off the mother's income assistance in the month of her death, although it knew she was supporting a disabled child, without visiting the home or warning the children's ministry.
In short, the systems that were supposed to protect children and support those with special needs were structured to fail.
Children's Minister Mary McNeil promised action on the report's recommendations. But the public has heard that before. Only three years ago, Turpel-Lafond outlined the problems with supports for children with special needs. Nothing happened.
There's one simple test of the government's commitment. The report called on the government to assess the services, resources and support required for children with special needs, the province's current commitment and the actions that would be taken to close the gap.
Until that's done and released, it would be foolish to accept yet more promises of improvement.
Footnote: The ministry's initial position was that the case did not involve a "serious injury" so it did not have to report it to the representative. An internal ministry review found "all of the required standards were complied with" in its dealings with the family.
Which confirms that the problems are built into the current system.

Money to fight for BC Rail-scandal secrecy, not for Oppal inquiry

2011-06-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

So Attorney General Barry Penner has money in his budget to pay lawyers to go to court and fight the release of documents in the B.C. Rail scandal to NDP MLA Leonard Krog. (They failed, not surprisingly since the documents had already been released to reporters during the trial.)

But he doesn't have money to provide the legal support Wally Oppal says is needed to get answers at the missing and murdered women inquiry.

(For why Penner is wrong on the inquiry funding, read this. For more on the B.C. Rail scandal secrecy, read this.

Auditor fights secrecy on Basi-Virk $6-million payment

2011-06-24T12:56:00.001-07:00

Add another question to the mess that is the B.C. Rail scandal.
Why did the provincial government, in handing over $6 million to pay Dave Basi and Bob Virk's legal fees, agree to - or ask for - a secrecy clause so sweeping that it's impossible for the province's auditor general to do his job?
Auditor general John Doyle has been forced to go to B.C. Supreme Court in a bid to get the government to hand over documents about the deal.
Doyle says he needs the information to fulfill his obligations to ensure money was spent legally and properly reported. He's seeking "the approvals, expenditures, records and documents supporting the expenditures" made to cover "the provision of public funds to Basi and Virk," according to the petition to the court.
The government has refused to provide the information. It signed a confidentiality agreement with Basi and Virk, so everything has to stay secret, it says. The auditor general and the public can't know anything about how the decision to spend the $6 million was made.
The government would waive privilege and the confidentiality agreement for the purposes of the audit, it said in a statement. But Basi, Virk and their lawyers haven't.
The legal funding violated government policy. Politicians and government employees are promised funding for lawyers if they end up in work-related legal proceedings. But if they are found guilty of wrongdoing, the legal bills become their responsibility. The government had even registered a mortgage on Basi's home to ensure it could collect at least some of the money.
Basi and Virk admitted guilt in a plea bargain after the government promised it would cover their legal fees. But the government paid the $6 million anyway.
And, it turns out, struck a deal that ensured the details would be kept secret.
Why? The government was handing over $6 million. It had every right to say no to secrecy, but didn't.
The perception is, inevitably, that there was something to hide.
Doyle wants to know details of the payment to cover legal fees for Basi and Virk. The public should too.
The $6 million promise, remember, came after the trial had begun. It was a powerful incentive for Basi and Virk to plead guilty to corruption charges. If they didn't, and were found guilty, they risked losing everything - homes, any savings. The smart move was to accept the plea deal, with the multimillion-dollar sweetener.
And the plea bargain ended the trial, which had already proved embarrassing for the Liberal government. Doyle's review would be welcome.
Premier Christy Clark maintains there is no need to seek further answers in the B.C. Rail scandal.
But many questions remain.
Basi and Virk admitted taking bribes from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, and Brian Kieran, a lobbyist and former journalist. The men were lobbyists for one of the bidders for B.C. Rail.
But they were never charged.
In statements to obtain search warrants - not tested in court - police swore Bornman told them he started paying bribes to Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001. The money was to pay "his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters," Bornman told police.
That suggests other well-connected people were paying for preferential "assistance" in other areas. The government seems uninterested in establishing the facts.
A police search found that Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark's brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents "improperly disclosed" by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But it's never been explained why Basi and Virk shared the material or what Clark did with it. (Christy Clark is now lobbying the federal government to help the same company win a shipbuilding contract.)
The government has consistently ignored important questions raised by the B.C. Rail scandal. The auditor general is standing up for the public interest.
Footnote: Attorney General Barry Penner says it's up to Basi and Virk to decide whether to share the information. But he has refused to order a review of the $6 million deal - including the secrecy clause. The government is reviewing its policies on paying for lawyers.

Google tramples sex workers' rights

2011-06-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

Google censorship isn't just in China. The company refuses to allow a group seeking rights for sex workers to advertise, while it sells ads to a group campaigning to make the work illegal.
Read Jody Paterson here.

CLBC's soaring management salaries and service cuts

2011-06-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

Jody Paterson reports here that top managers at CLBC have seen compensation jump more than 55 per cent over four years while services to developmentally disabled clients and their families are cut.

And she looks at the folly of those cuts in a column here.

Six lessons from a highly predictable riot

2011-06-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

It's bizarre that the authorities in Vancouver claim to be surprised by the Stanley Cup riot.
I was on a 9 a.m. ferry from Victoria to Vancouver that day. Within about 30 minutes, it was clear trouble was likely.
The ferry was crowded with young people, mostly male, wearing Canuck's sweaters. They weren't criminals or 'anarchists' (which always suggests a bearded, skinny guy with a round bomb).
They were young fans, ready for a day of drinking and a hockey party. Some of the guys led the passengers in 'Go Canucks go" chants. They had jobs or were in college or university.
One young man in a Luongo jersey told friends he'd been over for Game 5. You had to line up to get into a bar at 2 p.m., he warned them. And you had to keep drinking or you'd lose the table. (Which, he said, was not a problem.)
"Ferry jammed with young people in Canucks' jerseys," I tweeted. "Vancouver police should be biggest cheerers for Canuck win." (Yes, I'm on Twitter.)
I'm no security expert. But it was clear that there would be trouble if the Canucks lost.
My ferry fellow travellers might not set a car on fire or loot a store. But some would watch and cheer, or taunt police, perhaps get in drunken fights if they felt wronged.
People have been drawing an extraordinary range of messages from the riots.
I'd settle for six conclusions.
First, that a proportion of young men are capable of stupid and dangerous behaviour. Destruction and violence please them. The trait must serve some genetic purpose, or it did in the past, but it is a great nuisance today.
It's not a question of intelligence, upbringing, thwarted opportunity or philosophy. Look at Nathan Kotylak, the 17-year-old caught trying to set a police car on fire. His dad is a surgeon. He's a water polo star, set to head off on a university scholarship, a potential Olympian. That's not some loser anarchist wannabe in a hoodie. (And we should also acknowledge that it can be exhilarating to break the usual rules.)
Second, that alcohol remains our most destructive drug. The Canucks' fans on the morning ferry were the usual mix of people, great and not so great, but none of them would do you harm. Many would help if you needed it.
Unless they were drunk. Then, all bets would be off.
And the crowds watching the final game in Vancouver were drunk. People drinking in the street - tens of thousands - were joined by people pouring into the streets after spending six hours drinking in bars.
It was predictable that any incidents would quickly escalate.
Third, that mobs are dangerous. People who would never loot a store or confront police individually can be swept, sheep-like, into stupid and dangerous activities. That conclusion applies just as well to those - generally online - who urged vigilante justice against those involved in the riot. The herd mentality swept them along as well.
Fourth, that we need to at least consider whether our culture - the things our society celebrates - is increasing the risk of such violence and disruption. Hockey did not make people set fire to cars. But it's not unreasonable to wonder if commentators who celebrated violence and actions outside the game's rules legitimized similar acts on the streets. Or whether a steady diet of TV that makes stars of the selfish, stupid, rude and violent influences behaviour.
Fifth, that Vancouver blew it. The police presence was inadequate, several smaller public venues - ideally in open areas - would have been safer, and it's baffling that city staff and police were caught by surprise.
Sixth, that parents should recognize that some of the rioters were people like their own children (or sons, to be more accurate). It's a good chance to point out the perils of drunken gatherings.
We're never going to eliminate stupidity and violence. We can do a lot better than we did this week.
Footnote: Premier Christy Clark ordered a review and promised swift justice and public humiliation for rioters. That led Attorney General Barry Penner to reverse his decision to cut sheriff's hours, a cost-saving measure that had led to even longer delays and more dismissed charges in the courts.

De-spinning the HST numbers

2011-06-17T08:33:00.000-07:00

It’s not easy to sort the HST facts from the spinning by both sides in the tax debate.
Start with Finance Minister Kevin Falcon’s claim that going back to the PST would blow a $3 billion hole in B.C.’s fiscal plan over this year and the next three.
That’s a stretch. The analysis by the independent panel that reviewed the HST’s impact suggests a much smaller hit.
This column will be a heavy on numbers. But numbers matter.
The referendum will result in one of two options: A return to the old PST/GST taxes; or staying with the HST, with promised future rate reductions, some new rebates, corporate tax increases and cancellation of the plan to eliminate the small business tax.
Going back to the PST would bring some costs. The federal government took over sales tax administration when the HST was introduced; the province would have to spend $20 million to re-establish the PST collection office and about $35 million a year to keep it operating, the panel found.
Axing the tax could result in reduced economic growth, reducing provincial revenues by $80 million a year, it estimated.
And the panel noted the province would have to pay back $1.6 billion the federal government put up to encourage adoption of the new tax.
The panel — including former Alberta finance minister Jim DInning and ex-B.C. auditor general George Morfitt — judged the impact of that would be an extra $85 million a year in interest costs because of the increased provincial debt.
And, based on the panel’s analysis, the PST would deliver about $610 million a year less in tax revenue for government than the HST, even if reduced from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. (That, of course, means a saving for families.)
But the panel also noted that the government would save about $441 million a year because it could cancel the rebates and tax reductions brought into cushion the HST’s impact.
All in, based on the panel’s analysis, going back to the PST would cost the government about $362 million a year, mainly because families would pay less tax.
Falcon’s estimate is much higher. The main reason is that he concludes, based on preliminary advice from the province’s comptroller general, that the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid immediately and counted as an expense.
Accounting debates aside, the panel offers a more realistic view. Provincial taxpayers wouldn’t suddenly pony up $1.6 billion; they would pay the long-term interest costs.
The claims about impacts on families are just as muddled.
Christy Clark says the revised HST would see taxpayers pay less than under the PST.
That would eventually be true. But not until 2014. In the meantime, individuals and families would be paying more in sales taxes than under the PST.
Based on the panel’s analysis, individuals and families are paying an extra $1.3 billion in sales taxes this year because of the HST’s wider reach. (The portion of a typical families’ spending subject to provincial sales tax jumped by almost 60 per cent under the HST, the panel found.)
Even with the first rate reduction, from 12 to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012, families would still pay $690 million more in sales taxes in the next fiscal year under the HST. The following year, they would pay $430 million more than under the PST.
It’s not until the following fiscal year — 2014/15 — and another one-point cut in the rate, that families would pay less than they would have under the HST - about $330 million less. That amount would increase in future years.
So families would have spent an extra $2.5 billion in sales taxes over three years before they started seeing lower taxes than under the HST. (Rebates to low-income seniors and all families with children would reduce that by about $200 million.)
There are other reasons for voting to keep or kill the HST. But understanding the numbers is a a good starting point.
Footnote: A problem with any look at the numbers is that the government did not ask the independent panel to report on its estimates after announcing the HST rate cut and corporate tax increases. Given the government’s dismal record in providing accurate HST information, that raises serious doubts. Check hstinbc.ca for more on these numbers.

Falcon heads to New York to explain two years of chaos

2011-06-14T14:23:00.000-07:00

It's not surprising that Finance Minister Kevin Falcon went to New York to reassure big lenders about the province's books.
The last two years have been a fiscal gong show. The government's erratic policy stumbles are the kind of behaviour that makes lenders and bond rating agencies edgy.
Start with the government's botched deficit forecast in the 2009 campaign budget. The deficit, then premier Gordon Campbell vowed in the May election campaign, would not exceed $495 million.
Four months later, the government said the deficit would actually be $2.8 billion.
That's a spectacular failure, the kind that makes lenders wonder what else the government is messing up.
Then, of course, there is the HST. The Liberals ruled it out during the election campaign and then, two months later, announced the introduction of the new tax.
Leave aside the pros and cons for a moment. There is no debate that lenders and investors like stability in tax policy.
A surprise introduction of a major tax change, especially one that had been rejected months earlier, does not increase confidence. And especially when the government concedes it made the tax change without any economic analysis of its impact. (Falcon acknowledges cabinet ministers were heavily focused on the chance to get $1.6 billion from Ottawa to reduce the deficit problem.)
Then things got more erratic.
As public anger about the HST increased, Campbell went on television in November and announced a 15-per-cent income tax cut. That would knock about $1 billion a year off provincial revenues; there was no clear plan for dealing with the shortfall.
Again, a well-considered, affordable tax cut would likely find favour with rating agencies and lenders. This looked like an impulsive effort to shore up a failing government. That impression was confirmed a few weeks later, when Campbell quit and the Liberals said they weren't going ahead with the promised tax cut.
If you're watching this from a New York investment fund or bank, you are likely getting nervous about the competence and stability of the government.
How much more chaotic could things get?
Quite a bit more, it turned out. Because the government last month announced more surprise tax changes. The HST would be reduced in two steps if it survived the referendum, Premier Christy Clark said.
She had rejected that during her leadership campaign. It would be akin to bribing people with their own money and leave the province short of revenue for health care and other needed services, she said.
And the government would raise corporate taxes 20 per cent, said Clark, reversing past cuts - the most recent less than six months ago. (NDP leader Adrian Dix proposed the same increase during his campaign. George Abbott said the idea represented the "leading age of 18-century socialism." Mike de Jong said an increase would be "chasing jobs and investment away.")
You can debate all these individual changes, their benefits and costs.
But taken together, they paint a picture of an erratic, incompetent government that doesn't have a coherent tax policy.
Add to that the government's inability to provide accurate information on the HST. It claimed the tax would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020; a credible independent panel report commissioned by the government estimated 24,400. It said the tax was revenue-neutral; the panel found it was a tax increase; it said a middle-income family would pay $100 more a year under the HST; the panel said it would be five times that much.
No wonder Falcon needed to head to New York. The last two years of lurching, incoherent tax policy would likely alarm any lender or bond rating agency.
Clark should also be wondering if the last two years have alarmed B.C. voters as well. Because if so, a fall election could be highly risky for a party that has always claimed to offer stable, consistent administration.
Footnote: The latest Angus Reid poll found 56 per cent of decided voters would vote yes to get rid of the HST. It also found 40 per cent of those surveyed considered Clark credible on the tax; 35 per cent considered Dix credible; and 47 per cent thought Bill Vander Zalm credible (he's not). The media came in at 37 per cent (sigh).

I just like this obituary on 'the Lindbergh of hobbyists'

2011-06-11T18:20:00.000-07:00

From a Wall Street Journal obit:

"On a clear Saturday evening in early August of 2003, Maynard Hill stood on a hillside on Cape Spear, Newfoundland, started the motor on his model airplane and heaved it into a light wind.

Thirty-eight hours and nearly 1,900 miles later, the 11-pound plane with a six-foot wingspan landed in Ireland, the first radio-controlled model to make a trans-Atlantic crossing.

Mr. Hill, who died Tuesday at 85, was the dean of model airplane hobbyists and spent decades setting records for altitude, duration, speed and distance. His planes outflew those of the Soviets in competitions during the Cold War.

During the 1980s and 1990s, he developed unmanned aircraft for the armed forces, expendable models carrying radar-jamming equipment, cameras and antitank weaponry.

But despite decades spent convincing Pentagon brass to embrace his ideas, Mr. Hill was a poor fit with the gold-plated contractor's culture and dropped out of defense work.

'He didn't believe his planes should be used for war,' said his wife, Gay Hill."

The rest is here.

A patient's perspective on mental health emergency services

2011-06-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

The route to in-patient mental health care on Vancouver Island is through the Archie Courtnall Centre, or psychiatric emergency services. Patients can wait more than a week, sleeping in chairs, before a bed becomes available.
Tara Levis offers a patient's perspective.

"Psychiatric emergency services is nothing short of a nightmare. It is a holding cell for people at rock bottom, waiting for a transfer to the in-patient unit. It is a small room, overseen by a glassed-off nursing station, that at some points holds over a dozen people.

Claustrophobia sets in the minute I walk through the secured doors and if I'm not on edge to begin with, I most certainly am bordering on psychosis when the door shuts and I am confined at the mercy of an overburdened health-care system.

My personal items are examined with a fine-tooth comb and promptly locked away until further notice. I am allowed to keep a journal and a book. I want to cry when they take away my cellphone, my last connection to the outside world apart from the public phone they provide, which is always in use. The items on my person must be guarded at all times as theft is rampant in PES. Blink and my stuff would be gone, likely to be sold for cigarettes."

Read the rest, please, here.

Nurse-family initiative means better lives

2011-06-10T14:33:00.001-07:00

It's proven. Support disadvantaged women during pregnancy and through the first two years of their children's lives and you produce positive changes in their lives.
The B.C. government deserves full credit for being the first in Canada to launch a nurse-family partnership program that will see nurses work closely with first-time moms who need support.
Specially trained public health nurses will connect with women early in their pregnancies beginning next year. The nurses will visit once a week during pregnancy and in the infant's first months, with visits tapering to monthly by the time the child turns two.
It's not a new idea. The approach has been used in the U.S. for more than 30 years and results rigorously tracked. And they are impressive.
That's not surprising. Lots of women have great support networks when they become pregnant, and the skills and resources to solve any problems that do come up. They've learned useful lessons growing up they can apply to the challenges of pregnancy and child-rearing.
But others don't. They're poor, perhaps alone in the world or less well-educated. Some have more experience with bad parenting than with good examples.
The program targets those women, likely about 5,000 a year in this province.
The nurse visits to talk about healthy eating and living during pregnancy, planning for the birth, relationship issues -- really, anything the women wants to talk about. For women without real support or advice, the presence of one caring, competent person in their lives makes a huge difference.
The visits continue after the baby is born, with the same goals of providing support, skills and helping mothers make smart decisions and plans.
The benefits seem obvious.
But major long-term research on U.S. versions of the program, which in some cases followed the life course of the mothers and children for almost two decades, are shocking (in a good way).
Dr. Charlotte Waddell, director of the Children's Health Policy Centre in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, says nurse visits can mean dramatic improvements in life for mothers and children.
"Even if that's all you do, you can track the mother and child 15 or 20 years later and find that not only is the mom doing much better, but the kids stayed in school," she says. "They didn't get involved in crime, they were at less risk of substance abuse, and there was a significant reduction in conduct disorder."
On one level, it's stunning that a brief intervention -- less than three years -- in the lives of mother and child can set them on a course that helps determine, 19 years later, a teen will be less likely to be involved in crime.
But on another, it's not that surprising. The program sets in a motion a whole range of changes which cascade through the participants' lives.
The research found, for example, that mothers in the program tended to delay any subsequent pregnancies for a longer period than peers who did not have nurse-family support. That meant more time for their first child, and more opportunity to find work and maintain a stable life.
The research also found that mothers who had received the support were more likely to be economically self-sufficient and in stable relationships in future years.
Children were healthier and one study found a 48 per cent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect, and a 56 per cent reduction in emergency room visits during the child's second year of life. They also did better in school.
The B.C. program is part of a $23-million Health Start effort aimed at mothers and young children.
While governments are often not good at long-term efforts, particularly on social issues, this is an example of just how great the benefits can be.
Not just economically, although society can count on reduced future costs and greater contribution from those involved.
But we will, for a relatively small investment, be changing lives.
Footnote: The details will matter. Success depends, for example, on finding the right nurses to do the work and stability in the nurse-family relationship. It takes time to build trust and understanding; changes that disrupt the relationship undermine results.

HST adds $5 million to B.C. Ferries expenses

2011-06-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

From B.C. Ferries latest financial report:

"On July 1, 2010, the harmonized sales tax (HST) became effective, combining the existing 7% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal goods and services tax (GST) into a single tax of 12%. We expect this tax to add approximately $5 to $6 million annually to the cost of our operations. The HST will also increase the price to our customers for our food and certain retail offerings. Our vehicle and passenger tariffs which were exempt from GST will be exempt from HST."

Which means the HST will also result in higher ferry fares,

Liberals just won't face persistent poverty problem

2011-06-07T14:51:00.000-07:00

A Times Colonist editorial thought it "baffling" that the government has repeatedly refused to set out a plan to reduce poverty.
Any competent manager understands the need for plans, the editorial observed, and the Liberals have campaigned on claims of competence.
It's not baffling. I've been a manager. I was keen on plans for people who reported to me. If they set out their targets and what they would do to achieve them, I could look at results and assess their effectiveness.
The government wants to avoid that kind of accountability.
It's a shabby position. Especially for a government that, after a decade in power, has still left more than 500,000 people - and 87,000 children - living in poverty.
There has been progress in reducing the number of people whose lives are blighted by poverty.
But, objectively, not much. The B.C. Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell to provide reports on government effectiveness, tracks the poverty rate.
It has found B.C. has ranked tenth among provinces every year since the board was created in 2002. More people live in poverty here, year after year, than in any other province. Their numbers have been reduced, but not enough to move B.C. from last place.
B.C. has also had the highest rate of child poverty, according to StatsCan, for seven straight years. The number of children living in poverty has decreased, but, again, not fast enough to move B.C. from its ranking as the worst in Canada.
That's hard to reconcile with Gordon Campbell's claims about the best place on Earth, or Christy Clark's talk about families first.
This should be a fundamental issue for any government. Research has shown that growing up poor greatly increases the likelihood of a lifetime of problems. The Progress Board notes that "people with low income may experience more physical and mental health problems, rely more on charity, attain lower levels of education or have higher secondary school dropout rates."
Leaving aside the human cost and suffering, poverty loads costs on to future generations just as surely as large government deficits do.
The Campbell government repeatedly refused to accept the need for a plan to reduce poverty, and Premier Christy Clark has so far taken the same position. The Liberals say they are doing lots of things that reduce poverty, from policies to increase employment to tax cuts.
But it's striking that when the government decided climate change was an issue, it set legislated, specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and developed a plan to meet them.
As it's striking that, after 10 years, progress hasn't been enough to raise B.C. from its ranking as the most poverty-ridden province.
The editorial was right. "Any competent manager" knows a plan is the first step toward achieving goals.
In this case, it would start with an analysis of the current situation - the causes of poverty, the demographics, the policies that have been tried. It would look at anti-poverty efforts in other jurisdictions and learn from success and failures.
And then it would set targets and action plans with timelines, accountability and budgets. Progress would be assessed and the plan adjusted.
It's an obvious, necessary approach to dealing with any problem.
Such a review would identify easy first steps. About 37,000 children are in families living on disability or income assistance. There are among those living in poverty; a single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else. That's poverty. Addressing that - by letting parents earn some income without being cut off, or increasing rates for families - would cut child poverty by 40 per cent.
But the first step is a plan. And by refusing to accept the need - and the accountability for results - the government is ensuring too many British Columbians remain mired in destructive poverty.
Footnote: The New Democrats introduced the Poverty Reduction Act on the last day of the legislative session, which set out a reasonable approach to developing a poverty plan. The Liberals won't support it, but if Clark is serious about "families first," they should announce their own plan.

Would you buy this submarine?

2011-06-07T09:29:00.000-07:00

From today's Times Colonist, a photo of the HMCS Corner Brook, one of the four used British submarines Canada bought in 1998.
And the Corner Brook is actually supposed to be in good shape.
The submarine is in the news because it struck the ocean bottom in exercises this week, the latest chapter in a sad and costly bungled purchase, which I explored here.

Clerk's appointment violates democratic principles

2011-06-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

From a good Times Colonist editorial on the appointment of Craig James as clerk of the legislature.

"Our political system includes measures designed to keep a check on potential abuses by the party in power. A key principle is that some positions must be seen to be entirely non-partisan.

"Once again, the Liberal government has violated that principle.

"This week, the government imposed its candidate for clerk of the legislature, a lifetime appointment. The quaint title doesn't reflect the position's importance. The clerk, through advice to the Speaker, interprets the rules of the legislature for MLAs from all parties."

Read the rest here.

For background, here's the column I did on the same issue when James was appointed interim chief electoral officer by the Liberals - another post that's supposed to be made by all parties.

The clerk appointment highlights how wrong the Liberals were in putting James in the chief electoral officer role for 15 months. The officer is supposed to be completely independent and serves a fixed term of two elections plus one year.

But the inevitable perception is that James knew he was a candidate for the $250,000-a-year clerk job during his times as interim chief electoral officer. And that taints the public view of his true independence in making decisions on recall efforts, the HST initiatives and other issues.

Maybe we just don't need MLAs any more

2011-06-03T14:14:00.000-07:00

Do we really need MLAs?
They're nice enough people. But as the legislative session ended Thursday after just 24 sitting days, I wondered if we need to pay 85 people salaries starting at $100,000 a year to fill the seats in the red-carpeted chamber.
At least as it operates now.
It's not as if they changed anything in the 24 days. The government introduced its budget. The Liberal MLAs voted for every element of it; the NDP voted against.
There was debate on spending, but because the session was so short MLAs were reviewing and approving about $2.5 billion in spending a day. People spend more time choosing a new sofa.
Bills were passed, but the debates and votes were largely irrelevant. Once the governing party introduced the legislation, passage was a done deal.
There were some excellent private members' bills - legislation advanced by MLAs without official government support. But they went nowhere, as is the norm.
The opposition got the chance to raise issues in question period, which is 30 minutes each day. But maybe there's a cheaper, better way to accomplish that. Issues were raised in other debates, but who reads Hansard?
Really, the elected MLAs could have stayed home. A few performers could have read the expected lines from both sides of the house, MLAs could have given their proxies to the party leaders and nothing would be much different.
MLAs do other work, of course. But constituents' issues could he handled by a competent manager in each riding. And I am unconvinced that the views of a backbench member often have a great role in shaping party policy.
And if MLAs hadn't shown up, they would have been spared the embarrassment of thumping their desks on cue and shouting insults - or watching as their peers shouted - across the floor.
In fact, do we even need candidates to stand for election in 85 ridings, if their role is peripheral? Perhaps it would be more efficient to just let people vote for the parties in each riding, and give the leaders chits for each one they win. They could then use those to cast votes in the legislature.
Since the 2009 election, the legislature has sat for less than 120 days. That's not an indication that there is much pressing work to do.
It might seem radical to suggest MLAs' time in the legislature is largely irrelevant.
But Liberal House leader Rich Coleman apparently shares the view.
The New Democrats had suggested spending another two weeks to deal properly with the budget and the legislation.
But Coleman said no, the government would use closure to end debate on any outstanding business and force bills and budget through the legislature.
He could offer no reason for shutting down the legislature. It's not as if MLAs are exhausted after 24 days, or have somewhere else pressing to be.
Coleman is not out on some partisan limb here. The New Democrat governments of the 1990s showed no more respect for MLAs and the legislature. (Though they did have the legislature in session about 76 days a year, much more than the Liberals have done since 2001.)
I'm overstating the case. Debate can be useful and even, on occasion, bring improvements to bills. MLAs get a chance to raise issues of concern to constituents, or propose legislation. (Independent MLA Bob Simpson had several useful proposals.)
But those are the exceptions.
It's not supposed to be like this. Traditionally, voters would elect MLAs. Those who won the most seats would chose someone to be premier. The premier would owe allegiance to MLAs, who would have the support of voters. We've turned the relationship upside down. And as MLAs' roles have shrunk, the pay scale has risen.
Party leaders have little interest in giving up power. That means MLAs have to find some way to demand it - more Independent MLAs would be a start - or voters have to reward a party committed to real change.
Footnote: It was interesting to see the attention focused on the way Simpson and fellow Independent Vicki Huntington voted on the HST changes. (They both supported them, without saying they supported the tax.) Presumably, their votes mattered because they were the only two MLAs actually using their own judgment on the issue.

Only dead sex workers get our support

2011-06-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

From Jody Paterson's column:

"So we’ve got an inquiry into a B.C. mass murder headed up by a man tainted by his political connections, presiding over a process that shuts out almost everyone on the side of the victims.
"Yup, that sounds like a solid way to get at the truth about the Robert Pickton case.
"Only sex workers could draw straws this short. Then again, only sex workers would be left to go missing and murdered on our streets for so long in the first place. It’s baffling and heartbreaking, this misery we sustain in the name of 'morality.'"

It's worth reading the rest here.

Clark betrays participants in missing women's inquiry

2011-05-31T14:46:00.001-07:00

Christy Clark faced a serious issue in her first question period as premier.
Her response was empty. Attorney General Barry Penner was a more capable government spokesman.
The issue is the missing and murdered women's inquiry.
Commissioner Wally Oppal, a former Liberal attorney general, had to decide who had a right to participate in the inquiry - to question witnesses and play an active role.
Oppal ruled 13 groups had a legitimate interest. They included families of the women killed by Robert Pickton, a coalition of sex-worker groups, several aboriginal organizations and some agencies who worked with the Downtown Eastside people who were Pickton's prey.
And he said that to play their proper role, they would need public funding to help with legal costs.
The government rejected Oppal's recommendation. The families of the missing women would get funding for a shared lawyer. No one else would get public money.
Except, of course, police. They will have a battery of publicly funded lawyers to look after their interests when the botched investigation is examined. Crown prosecutors will have taxpayer-funded lawyers. So will the government and any politicians who might be called as witnesses or even referred to during the inquiry.
But the organizations supporting prostitutes, whose concerns about missing women were ignored, they're shut out. First Nations who want to ask questions to see if racism played in the role in the lack of urgency when women began disappearing, they're on their own.
Oppal said he had only recommended funding for those who had a role to play in getting answers and had "satisfied me that they would not be able to participate fully without financial support."
The government decided to exclude those groups from full participation. Police and politicians would have a battalion of lawyers to protect their interests. Natives, poor women, the disadvantaged - they would have no one.
And it made the decision despite having provided funding for groups with standing at the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, who died after being left in an alley by Vancouver police.
The NDP basically repeated a single question - would Clark and the government accept Oppal's judgment and fund some legal costs for all parties that should be part of the inquiry.
Clark expressed sympathy. She did a bizarre little riff about families first and the HST rate reduction and B.C. Ferries fares and ICBC, although what that had to do with murdered women was unclear.
But she never addressed the questions or Oppal's recommendations or the issue.
MLA Carole James noted the inquiry would not have been called without the efforts of some of the groups.
Clark responded that "the government said at the time that they would support an inquiry when the legal proceedings were complete. The government kept their promise."
That's not true. The Liberal government consistently refused to commit to an inquiry even when police called for one.
And she maintained the groups could participate even if they didn't have lawyers to represent them at the inquiry. Oppal disagrees.
And if Clark is serious, she could prove it by announcing no public funds will be spent on lawyers for politicians, police and prosecutors. But she won't.
Penner at least addressed the issue. It would cost too much to pay for the legal representation. There were parts of the inquiry where people who didn't have lawyers could be heard.
But he also failed to address the fact that insiders - police and prosecutors and politicians past and present - have unlimited public funding for legal representation.
The outsiders get nothing.
Inquiries do become costly as legal fees mount. But why not impose limits on all involved, while providing equitable funding?
Instead, the government decided that the powerful would have all the funding needed to protect their interests at the inquiry. The powerless could watch from the spectators' gallery.
And Clark never really defended the decision, or even showed that she understood its significance.
Footnote: One aspect of the question period was welcome. Because of the serious topic, MLAs on both sides refrained from the normal shouted insults, rants and cheap theatrics that degrade the legislature.
Sadly, some journalists seemed disappointed by the lack of rudeness and stupidity.

Mangling the facts on 'social entrepreneurs'

2011-05-30T14:54:00.000-07:00

I was intrigued when MLA Gordon Hogg stood up in the legislature to talk about "social entrepreneurs."

"Some of the world's leaders in social innovation live right here in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland was recently called by the Ottawa Citizen: 'The Silicon Valley of social innovation in Canada,'" Hogg said.

That would be a useful article to get a better handle on the government's push for social entrepreneurship, I thought.

Except the Ottawa Citizen never said any such thing.

The closest thing was a quote from Axiom News — a website paid by clients to share positive news. "Vancouver was praised as 'the social Silicon Valley' and other glowing accolades as the city played host to the first Canadian Social Innovation and Social Finance tour," said a report on the website.

Members' statements are written in advance; Hogg gets an extra $15,000 on top of the base $100,000 for the parliamentary secretary job; it seems reasonable to assume they would be accurate.

ICBC and the politicians

2011-05-29T18:16:00.000-07:00

From Craig McInnes in the Sun:

"On the flip side, the government also gets to decide what to do when ICBC is deemed to have collected more cash than it needs to meet claims. The B.C. government chose to take for itself $778 million over three years that was collected from motorists in premiums that were subsequently judged to be excessive.

In Manitoba, when the Public Utilities Board found recently that the public insurance company had over-estimated the amount it needed to charge to cover claims, it ordered the money to be returned to the people who paid it rather than be turned over to the government.

The refunds averaged $450 per customer, or about 45 per cent of the previous year's premiums."

You can and should read the rest here.

CLBC funding per-client chopped every year since its creation

2011-05-27T13:35:00.000-07:00

The cuts to supports for people with "developmental disabilities" - what we once called the mentally handicapped - are taking a terrible toll. And worse times are ahead.
According to Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation set up to provide services, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created six years ago.
In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. By 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.
If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006. (There is a small amount of additional money for a personalized supports initiative; it doesn't change the reality of the annual cuts.)
The result is damaging. People who have lived in group homes for years, happily and in a family-like setting, are being forced out as homes are closed to save money.
People who once had full lives - supported in jobs and social activities - are now spending all day alone. The supports that involved them in the community, helped them keep jobs and gave them rich lives have been pulled away.
Waiting lists for services are growing and, in many cases, services are just denied. No money, says CLBC.
CLBC says several factors, all predictable, are pushing up demand for services.
The corporation takes responsibility for supports when people turn 19. CLBC says parents, after seeing their children assisted through the school years, expect quality services to continue.
Too often, they don't. Teens who have been thriving with effective supports face disaster when they become adults.
Like Jonathan Martin of Burnaby. He has Down syndrome and autism. He's been supported as a youth and CLBC's own report says he needs continued support and access to day programs next month when he leaves high school. "There is a grave concern that Jonathan's independence and acquired skill would quickly decline after he finishes school and if day program is not available," the agency's report says, according to the Burnaby NewsLeader. "Constant supervision is required for huge safety concerns."
But CLBC says it has no money. Jonathan will go on a wait list, with no real chance of getting support.
At the other end of the age spectrum, CLBC reports that people with developmental disabilities are living longer and needing more support as they age.
At the same time, many aging family caregivers, usually parents, can no longer provide as much support and are turning to CLBC.
They are finding the support isn't there.
That is particularly cruel. All parents worry about their children. But most enter old age knowing that their sons and daughters are launched.
Imagine the anguish in fearing that your death or incapacity will leave your developmentally disabled adult child at risk of exploitation or neglect. Knowing that the efforts you made to help ensure a safe, productive, satisfying life could end in tragedy.
The B.C. Association for Community Living has supported CLBC since its creation and continues to applaud the efforts to provide individualized supports.
But executive director Faith Bodnar says underfunding has reached a critical point. "Insufficient funding to CLBC has meant reacting to crisis only and the real danger of relegating people to lives of isolation and subsistence as their supports and services are cut," she wrote this month. "For people with developmental disabilities and their families it has created uncertainty, desperation, vulnerability and real suffering as they experience cuts to services or are placed on waitlists without hope."
There are pragmatic reasons for providing these services.
But this is also a moral issue. These are vulnerable people who, with help, can live rich, satisfying lives. They have the right to that opportunity. We have the collective ability to give them the chance.
But the government, on our behalf, has decided that would cost too much.
Footnote: CLBC notes that part of the pressure from services comes from the province's "five great goals," set by the government in 2005. The third goal called for B.C. to "build the best system of supports fpr persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors." It turns out families believed the government was serious.