VICTORIA - I am running out of ways to say how sad it is that we are so indifferent to the people who need us most.
The families on the edge, people who need a little help to cope, and the kids struggling to fall asleep in some new foster home, they all trust us to care.
That's mostly why we have a children and families' ministry, because we've decided that we won't let children's lives be wrecked. We - you and I - will make sure that somebody cares for a scared little boy when his family can't or won't.
It seems such a long time and so many columns about the mess we've made of this essential task.
I expected better from Gordon Campbell. The NDP government was hopeless.The children and families' ministry was underfunded and mismanaged, and the government ignored good advice and useful criticism.
But Campbell and the Liberals, they were inspiring with their principled, focused commitments in opposition.
The ministry had to have more money, Campbell said, in order to do what was needed. In fact Linda Reid, now junior minister for child care, wanted a needs-based budget. Figure out what it would cost to give people the help they needed, make the information public, and then make the hard choices, she said.
And Campbell and Reid were huge fans of the Children's Commission and the Child and Youth Advocate, the offices that provided effective, public oversight of the ministry. Reid grilled the NDP on a score of recommendations from Child and Youth Advocate Joyce Preston. Campbell demanded that every child death be reviewed, and the results reported, so no chance to improve our response was missed.
I believed him. Policies may change, but this was about principles, and they aren't shed like a cheap suit after a long hot day.
But the needs-based budget never happened. Instead of finding more money for the ministry, Campbell backed plans to cut its budget by 23 per cent. When that proved a fantasy, the cuts were reduced to 11 per cent.
Despite soaring revenues, and all the promises, provincial spending on children and families is about $160 million less now, in constant dollars, than it was before the Liberals were elected.
The Liberals also eliminated the Children's Commission and the Child and Youth Advocate.
And they halted independent reviews of children's deaths.
The Children's Commission used to review about 150 deaths per year, making scores of recommendations based on its findings.
Since the commission was eliminated in 2002, there has been one public report, by the coroner, on the death of a child in care, and two by the ministry.
If the Children's Commission still existed, the government would have been spared its fumbles and stumbles last week over the death of Sherry Charlie. An independent review would have been automatic.
Instead the government looked secretive, and inept. Attorney General Wally Oppal, who instructed Children and Youth Officer Jane Morley to investigate the ministry's review of Sherry's death, acknowledged he hadn't read the original report before deciding what questions that Morley should answer.
Instead of giving Morley a free hand, the government tried to restrict her review. Under pressure, Oppal amended the terms of reference to offer her slightly more freedom.
But still not enough. Morley rightly swept aside the government's instructions, and has launched her own sweeping review. (The Ombudsman and the coroner's officer are also reviewing Sherry's death. Scores of others have received no such attention.)
The ministry faces huge challenges every day, and terrible choices. Things will inevitably go badly wrong sometimes, no matter how well the system work, and people perform.
That's why we have to demand commitment, and openness, from government. We need to learn when things go wrong, or right. We have to know if we're giving the ministry the resources needed.
Government, the ministry, may do the work. But caring for the children and families is ultimately our responsibility.
Footnote: Morley has proposed an all-party legislative committee on children and youth, just as there are on education, health and finance. Campbell hasn't yet responded to the idea. He should seize on it as a chance to show that the issues matter to his government.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Government fumbles again in toddler's death
VICTORIA - A train wreck of a scrum with Attorney General Wally Oppal smashed any confidence that the Liberals are responding competently to the death of Sherry Charlie.
In the space of 10 minutes Oppal betrayed a lack of knowledge about his job, and the toddler's death - even though he claimed to be taking the lead in the government's latest response.
It was painful, and sad, to see that this is the best the government can do in a case that has dragged on for more than three years. Oppal stepped up Wednesday to expand the mandate for Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley's review of the government's initial investigation. On Tuesday, Children and Families' Minister Stan Hagen had announced that Morley would be stepping in. His announcement drew immediate criticism, because Morley's mandate was strictly limited. She could look at why it took almost three years to complete and release the report. And she could investigate why the ministry rewrote the terms of reference for the initial review to eliminate a question about its own role in the little girl's death.
But Morley was barred from examining the gaps in the initial investigation and identifying any shortcomings in the ministry's response.
Not needed, said Hagen. "I think the ministry has acted appropriately. We're not reviewing the review that was done."
The child and youth officer actually works for Oppal, who issues the formal instructions for reviews. He initially backed Hagen. "I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and recommendations," Oppal said Tuesday.
A day later, and things had changed. Oppal said he had listened to the debate in the legislature, and talked to others in government, and decided the review should be expanded.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.
But this isn't some issue that has just arisen on the edge of the government's agenda. A child died, the questions have been clear and the controversy growing. The response should have been carefully considered.
It wasn't, as Oppal revealed in a series of damaging answers.
He said Morley had already done one report on Sherry's death, apparently the one he thought he was asking her to review. She hasn't.
He acknowledged that he hasn't read the ministry report on her death that is at the centre of the controversy - the one that he is actually asking Morley to investigate. That raises the obvious question how he determined what the scope of the investigation should be. (The report is only 45 pages long.)
And Oppal revealed he doesn't understand some of the key issues tied in to this controversy, including the tole of the Child and Youth Officer.
"The idea that Ms. Morley is not independent is patent nonsense," he bristled. She's appointed by the legislature, he said.
Except she's not, as reporters had to explain to the attorney general.
The Child and Youth Advocate, eliminated by the Liberals, was an independent officer appointed by the legislature. The Child and Youth Officer isn't.
The Children's Commissioner, also eliminated by the Liberals, reviewed and reported publicly on all child deaths. The Child and Youth Officer takes instructions in such cases - as in this instance - from the attorney general.
She has not reported on a single death.
Since the opposition and most of the people involved in helping children in the province have called repeatedly for the restoration of the Children's Commission; you would expect Oppal to know and understand the distinctions.
It's reasonable to allow new politicians time to learn some of the skills.
But Oppal was taking the lead for the government on a major issue - the death of a child. Serious questions have been raised about the government's role in the case, and whether the push to reduce spending played a role, and about the
handling of the investigation.
Oppal's lack of knowledge, about the case and related issues in his own ministry, was painful.
The public has right to expect better.
And so do all the children and families who are counting on the ministry
Footnote: Oppal apologized for any misunderstanding Thursday, saying he wasn't used to answering so many questions. But he did not respond in the legislature when asked to apologize for not reading the report on Sherry's death.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
In the space of 10 minutes Oppal betrayed a lack of knowledge about his job, and the toddler's death - even though he claimed to be taking the lead in the government's latest response.
It was painful, and sad, to see that this is the best the government can do in a case that has dragged on for more than three years. Oppal stepped up Wednesday to expand the mandate for Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley's review of the government's initial investigation. On Tuesday, Children and Families' Minister Stan Hagen had announced that Morley would be stepping in. His announcement drew immediate criticism, because Morley's mandate was strictly limited. She could look at why it took almost three years to complete and release the report. And she could investigate why the ministry rewrote the terms of reference for the initial review to eliminate a question about its own role in the little girl's death.
But Morley was barred from examining the gaps in the initial investigation and identifying any shortcomings in the ministry's response.
Not needed, said Hagen. "I think the ministry has acted appropriately. We're not reviewing the review that was done."
The child and youth officer actually works for Oppal, who issues the formal instructions for reviews. He initially backed Hagen. "I'm completely satisfied that the terms of reference here are exhaustive, they're thorough, and they will provide the appropriate answers and recommendations," Oppal said Tuesday.
A day later, and things had changed. Oppal said he had listened to the debate in the legislature, and talked to others in government, and decided the review should be expanded.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.
But this isn't some issue that has just arisen on the edge of the government's agenda. A child died, the questions have been clear and the controversy growing. The response should have been carefully considered.
It wasn't, as Oppal revealed in a series of damaging answers.
He said Morley had already done one report on Sherry's death, apparently the one he thought he was asking her to review. She hasn't.
He acknowledged that he hasn't read the ministry report on her death that is at the centre of the controversy - the one that he is actually asking Morley to investigate. That raises the obvious question how he determined what the scope of the investigation should be. (The report is only 45 pages long.)
And Oppal revealed he doesn't understand some of the key issues tied in to this controversy, including the tole of the Child and Youth Officer.
"The idea that Ms. Morley is not independent is patent nonsense," he bristled. She's appointed by the legislature, he said.
Except she's not, as reporters had to explain to the attorney general.
The Child and Youth Advocate, eliminated by the Liberals, was an independent officer appointed by the legislature. The Child and Youth Officer isn't.
The Children's Commissioner, also eliminated by the Liberals, reviewed and reported publicly on all child deaths. The Child and Youth Officer takes instructions in such cases - as in this instance - from the attorney general.
She has not reported on a single death.
Since the opposition and most of the people involved in helping children in the province have called repeatedly for the restoration of the Children's Commission; you would expect Oppal to know and understand the distinctions.
It's reasonable to allow new politicians time to learn some of the skills.
But Oppal was taking the lead for the government on a major issue - the death of a child. Serious questions have been raised about the government's role in the case, and whether the push to reduce spending played a role, and about the
handling of the investigation.
Oppal's lack of knowledge, about the case and related issues in his own ministry, was painful.
The public has right to expect better.
And so do all the children and families who are counting on the ministry
Footnote: Oppal apologized for any misunderstanding Thursday, saying he wasn't used to answering so many questions. But he did not respond in the legislature when asked to apologize for not reading the report on Sherry's death.
willcocks@ultranet.ca
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Children’s ministry fails to counter cover-up charge in girl's death
VICTORIA - Did the government attempt to cover up its role in the sad case of Sherry Charlie, the toddler battered to death after she was failed by the children’s ministry?
That was the direct charge from the NDP Monday in Question Period.
And an hour later, down in the minister’s office, Stan Hagen and a top deputy, offered no convincing rebuttal.
Sherry was beaten to death three years ago, days after being placed in the care of relatives under a new ministry policy. The man who beat her, the father in the home, had a long and violent criminal record.
The ministry and the First Nations agency involved both failed Sherry, according to an internal review done for the children and families ministry.
The review was not released until almost three years after Sherry’s death, a delay that took it past the election campaign. The ministry first released a summary, which turned out to omit damaging information about its role. Only after two weeks of pressure did Hagen order the full report released.
On Monday New Democrat Adrian Dix leveled a new charge.
The review into Sherry’s death was originally supposed to look at five issues, he said, including the role of the ministry.
But then the ministry rewrote the terms of reference, eliminating the review of the government’s role, Dix said.
Inside the legislature Hagen said he’d investigate.
An hour later he confirmed that the charge was true. The ministry had rewritten the terms of reference for the review to head off an investigation of its own role.
That was wrong, said assistant deputy minister Jeremy Berland. “It’s clearly not an acceptable way to conduct a review,” he said. And he was “irritated” when he learned of the change to the original terms of reference, which he drafted.
And then things got terribly fuzzy.
Why was the change made?
We don’t know, said Berland and Hagen. There was no memo, explanatory note or rationale, a bizarre thing in a ministry that considers effective record-keeping vital. Former ADM David Young, who left government in 2003, just ordered up the change.
It’s an unacceptable answer.
Berland acknowledged, when questioned, that he has known about the change to the mandate for about 10 months. All he had to do was ask Young for an explanation.
Hagen said he doesn’t remember being told about the decision to shelter the ministry’s role from scrutiny. Berland said he told the minister, but maybe not clearly enough, whatever that means.
Berland couldn’t explain why the ministry didn’t reveal the problems with the review when it released the report. He defended the decision not to re-open the investigation, saying it had taken too long already and he thought most issues had been covered.
And both men denied political pressure had been involved - although they had no basis for making that claim.
It was a discouraging meeting.
This isn’t a review of expense account policies - a child died.
And there are real concerns that budget cut pressures and chaos in the ministry played a role in Sherry’s death. The ministry had rushed ahead - with inadequate preparation - on a new program to place children at risk with family and friends, instead of in foster care. Done correctly, that is better for children. It also was cheaper, and had to be implemented quickly to allow the ministry to achieve its planned spending cuts.
Yet the ministry blocked a full examination of those issues. And no one has taken the effort to find out why, or - until the NDP revealed the facts - to come clean with the public.
Expect many more questions.
But at the minimum the case shows that the ministry can not investigate its own performance. It failed to conduct a proper review of Sherry’s death, by Berland’s admission, and it is only by good fortune that the failure has come to light.
Surely it is time to reinstate the Children’s Commissioner to provide independent oversight.
Footnote: Hagen praised ministry staff in the legislature, but said the case involved errors by a social worker. A reading of the review suggests much broader problems in the system played a role in the failure to protect Sherry Charlie.
That was the direct charge from the NDP Monday in Question Period.
And an hour later, down in the minister’s office, Stan Hagen and a top deputy, offered no convincing rebuttal.
Sherry was beaten to death three years ago, days after being placed in the care of relatives under a new ministry policy. The man who beat her, the father in the home, had a long and violent criminal record.
The ministry and the First Nations agency involved both failed Sherry, according to an internal review done for the children and families ministry.
The review was not released until almost three years after Sherry’s death, a delay that took it past the election campaign. The ministry first released a summary, which turned out to omit damaging information about its role. Only after two weeks of pressure did Hagen order the full report released.
On Monday New Democrat Adrian Dix leveled a new charge.
The review into Sherry’s death was originally supposed to look at five issues, he said, including the role of the ministry.
But then the ministry rewrote the terms of reference, eliminating the review of the government’s role, Dix said.
Inside the legislature Hagen said he’d investigate.
An hour later he confirmed that the charge was true. The ministry had rewritten the terms of reference for the review to head off an investigation of its own role.
That was wrong, said assistant deputy minister Jeremy Berland. “It’s clearly not an acceptable way to conduct a review,” he said. And he was “irritated” when he learned of the change to the original terms of reference, which he drafted.
And then things got terribly fuzzy.
Why was the change made?
We don’t know, said Berland and Hagen. There was no memo, explanatory note or rationale, a bizarre thing in a ministry that considers effective record-keeping vital. Former ADM David Young, who left government in 2003, just ordered up the change.
It’s an unacceptable answer.
Berland acknowledged, when questioned, that he has known about the change to the mandate for about 10 months. All he had to do was ask Young for an explanation.
Hagen said he doesn’t remember being told about the decision to shelter the ministry’s role from scrutiny. Berland said he told the minister, but maybe not clearly enough, whatever that means.
Berland couldn’t explain why the ministry didn’t reveal the problems with the review when it released the report. He defended the decision not to re-open the investigation, saying it had taken too long already and he thought most issues had been covered.
And both men denied political pressure had been involved - although they had no basis for making that claim.
It was a discouraging meeting.
This isn’t a review of expense account policies - a child died.
And there are real concerns that budget cut pressures and chaos in the ministry played a role in Sherry’s death. The ministry had rushed ahead - with inadequate preparation - on a new program to place children at risk with family and friends, instead of in foster care. Done correctly, that is better for children. It also was cheaper, and had to be implemented quickly to allow the ministry to achieve its planned spending cuts.
Yet the ministry blocked a full examination of those issues. And no one has taken the effort to find out why, or - until the NDP revealed the facts - to come clean with the public.
Expect many more questions.
But at the minimum the case shows that the ministry can not investigate its own performance. It failed to conduct a proper review of Sherry’s death, by Berland’s admission, and it is only by good fortune that the failure has come to light.
Surely it is time to reinstate the Children’s Commissioner to provide independent oversight.
Footnote: Hagen praised ministry staff in the legislature, but said the case involved errors by a social worker. A reading of the review suggests much broader problems in the system played a role in the failure to protect Sherry Charlie.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Budget puts debt payment before service gains, tax cuts
VICTORIA - The Liberals launched their minibudget with the normal political spin, proudly proclaiming “Improved Support for Seniors at Heart of Budget Update.”
There was good news for seniors, with an extra $242 million earmarked over the next three years for income and housing supports and long-term care improvements. The main benefits will flow to those with the lowest incomes.
But there was better news for corporations, although it didn’t make the headlines in any press releases. They got another 11.5-per-cent tax cut, a benefit worth almost $360 million over the next three years.
The tax cut came out of the blue. It was never mentioned during the election campaign (but then the Liberals never mentioned plans to cut corporate and personal income taxes by 25 per cent during the 2001 campaign).
And the business community - while generally keen on paying less in taxes - hadn’t placed tax cuts high on its wish list, focusing instead on land use, labour and regulatory issues.
The theory is that lower taxes will encourage businesses to locate here. But even before the latest cut, B.C. had the third lowest tax rate in Canada, after Alberta and New Brunswick. The province was already competitive.
The other big budget commitment, like the tax cut, was not even hinted at in the election campaign.
The government budgeted $100 million this year for a First Nations New Relationships Fund, supporting its effort to build a more effective working relationship.
The Campbell government was already well advanced on its new relationship project during the election campaign, but kept the effort - which is worthwhile - under wraps. First Nations have been promised shared decision-making on land use issues, a chunk of the revenue from development and broad recognition as partners by the provincial government.
The $100 million is intended to help First Nations develop the skills and institutions needed to take on their expanded role. No one is sure what that means; the budget promises a plan by spring.
The biggest news in the budget may lie in what wasn’t there.
Taylor’s minibudget acknowledged that the budget introduced in February underestimated government revenues by about five per cent. That means the government had an extra $1.8 billion available to spend on programs, or to fund tax cuts. (That number is still far too conservatives, and understates the likely year-end surplus by some $500 million.)
But the Liberals only increased program spending by another $400 million in the minibudget, with new tax cuts consuming another $400 million.
The Liberals’ overwhelming priority remains paying down the debt., not cutting taxes or improving services. Last year 75 per cent of the surplus money went to debt repayment; the minibudget means a similar commitment is likely this year.
Debt repayment makes sense, as one part of a balanced approach to the finances of the province - or a family.
But the government, by making it the top priority, is running counter to the wishes of British Columbians. A legislative committee on the budget held consultations last year, and reported that the public wanted most of any surplus funds spent to improve health care and other services.
That’s reasonable. B.C.’s debt is relatively small, and easily manageable. Paying it down makes sense, but not at the expense of useful tax cuts, or improved health care. Most people balance their eagerness to pay down their mortgage against the needs of their family today.
The needs exist. A small share of the money going to debt repayment could allow hundreds of hip and knee replacements, or a reduction in MSP premiums, or more money to prepare for the long-term impact of the pine beetle.
The government had decided that paying down the debt is more useful than a grater commitment to any of those.
The budget now goes before the legislature, for the first real scrutiny any government financial plan has received since the Liberals questioned the Dosanjh government’s 2000 budget.
That alone is something to celebrate.
Footnote: The budget includes no money for a teachers’ pay increase. But while the government says it hasn’t worked out a pay mandate for the next round of contract talks with government workers, which start later this year, the budget numbers suggest something like two, two and two is planned. Expect some serious conflicts.
There was good news for seniors, with an extra $242 million earmarked over the next three years for income and housing supports and long-term care improvements. The main benefits will flow to those with the lowest incomes.
But there was better news for corporations, although it didn’t make the headlines in any press releases. They got another 11.5-per-cent tax cut, a benefit worth almost $360 million over the next three years.
The tax cut came out of the blue. It was never mentioned during the election campaign (but then the Liberals never mentioned plans to cut corporate and personal income taxes by 25 per cent during the 2001 campaign).
And the business community - while generally keen on paying less in taxes - hadn’t placed tax cuts high on its wish list, focusing instead on land use, labour and regulatory issues.
The theory is that lower taxes will encourage businesses to locate here. But even before the latest cut, B.C. had the third lowest tax rate in Canada, after Alberta and New Brunswick. The province was already competitive.
The other big budget commitment, like the tax cut, was not even hinted at in the election campaign.
The government budgeted $100 million this year for a First Nations New Relationships Fund, supporting its effort to build a more effective working relationship.
The Campbell government was already well advanced on its new relationship project during the election campaign, but kept the effort - which is worthwhile - under wraps. First Nations have been promised shared decision-making on land use issues, a chunk of the revenue from development and broad recognition as partners by the provincial government.
The $100 million is intended to help First Nations develop the skills and institutions needed to take on their expanded role. No one is sure what that means; the budget promises a plan by spring.
The biggest news in the budget may lie in what wasn’t there.
Taylor’s minibudget acknowledged that the budget introduced in February underestimated government revenues by about five per cent. That means the government had an extra $1.8 billion available to spend on programs, or to fund tax cuts. (That number is still far too conservatives, and understates the likely year-end surplus by some $500 million.)
But the Liberals only increased program spending by another $400 million in the minibudget, with new tax cuts consuming another $400 million.
The Liberals’ overwhelming priority remains paying down the debt., not cutting taxes or improving services. Last year 75 per cent of the surplus money went to debt repayment; the minibudget means a similar commitment is likely this year.
Debt repayment makes sense, as one part of a balanced approach to the finances of the province - or a family.
But the government, by making it the top priority, is running counter to the wishes of British Columbians. A legislative committee on the budget held consultations last year, and reported that the public wanted most of any surplus funds spent to improve health care and other services.
That’s reasonable. B.C.’s debt is relatively small, and easily manageable. Paying it down makes sense, but not at the expense of useful tax cuts, or improved health care. Most people balance their eagerness to pay down their mortgage against the needs of their family today.
The needs exist. A small share of the money going to debt repayment could allow hundreds of hip and knee replacements, or a reduction in MSP premiums, or more money to prepare for the long-term impact of the pine beetle.
The government had decided that paying down the debt is more useful than a grater commitment to any of those.
The budget now goes before the legislature, for the first real scrutiny any government financial plan has received since the Liberals questioned the Dosanjh government’s 2000 budget.
That alone is something to celebrate.
Footnote: The budget includes no money for a teachers’ pay increase. But while the government says it hasn’t worked out a pay mandate for the next round of contract talks with government workers, which start later this year, the budget numbers suggest something like two, two and two is planned. Expect some serious conflicts.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Christy Clark takes a risk with run for mayor's job
VICTORIA - That was a short retirement for Christy Clark, who is on the brink of stepping back into politics with a risky bid to become Vancouver's mayor.
Clark quit as children and families minister last year, and didn't run in the May election. She said it was important to spend more time with her son, then three.
That's understandable. And demanding as the mayor's job is, being a cabinet minister is more disruptive to family life. Ministers have to be in Victoria for much of the year, and travel around the province. The mayor gets to sleep in her own bed.
It's a little harder to see how being mayor is less disruptive to family life than being an MLA, the job Clark gave up four months ago. The legislature sits for a few months a year, and even then backbenchers generally only have to spend three nights a week over here.
Still, things change.
Clark is a career politician; she's never had a job outside politics and is happy to be seen as a future premier, or MP from B.C. (Her husband, Mark Marrisen, is a key federal Liberal wheel in the province.)
So it's fair to look at her interest in the mayor's job in that context.
It's been a stepping stone for others. Mike Harcourt and Gordon Campbell both went from the top elected job in Vancouver to the premier's office.
And, if all goes well, the timing works nicely for any future plans. Clark's first term - if she wins - would end in 2008. If Campbell isn't going to run in the next provincial election, scheduled for 2009, she would be positioned to jump into a leadership race.
If he decides to stay on - and isn't pushed out - Clark has the option of a second term as mayor, presiding over the Olympics, before considering a bid to become Liberal leader.
But there are a few problems with those tidy scenarios.
First Clark has to win the nomination for the Non Partisan Association. (Non-partisan in the sense that it brings together federal Liberals and Conservatives in a rightish coalition.) She'll be up against veteran councillor Sam Sullivan, who has his own strong base.
Clark can probably take the nomination. The contest is about selling memberships in the party, and she can tap an excelent organization.
Then she has to beat Jim Green, the left's candidate, a veteran councillor who will be backed popular ex-mayor Larry Campbell. Green has already characterized her as a parachute candidate - she lives outside the city in neighbouring Burnaby - and said she would be Gordon Campbell's ally in City Hall.
Even an election victory doesn't end the problems. The mayor's job is only a career launching pad if you are popular and successful. The job often calls for skills at building consensus, and dealing with a lot of small problems.
Clark is a great politician and organizer, personally appealing and clever. She was an excellent opposition MLA.
But her track record as education minister, and in children and families, was less impressive. She alienated teachers, trustees and parents as education minister, a warning of trouble ahead in the often fractious world of civic politics.
And despite a lot of activity and announcements, it's hard to point to any significant achievements in either education or children and families. (Though Clark can take credit for at least restoring stability to the children's ministry when she took over after Gordon Hogg.)
It's also hard - despite her nine years in the legislature - to say exactly what Clark stands for, and what big issues and ideas drive her participation in political life.
The mayor's job could be a chance for her to answer all those kinds of doubts, and show her ability to take on whatever comes next.
And it can be, as we've seen, a launch pad for future political opportunities.
But we've also seen lots of films of things blowing up on launch pads.
Footnote: All this talk about the next premier could create problems for Gordon Campbell. Once people begin talking about your replacement, the contenders start thinking about what they need to be ready for the race. It's a process that can promote damaging divisions within a party.
Clark quit as children and families minister last year, and didn't run in the May election. She said it was important to spend more time with her son, then three.
That's understandable. And demanding as the mayor's job is, being a cabinet minister is more disruptive to family life. Ministers have to be in Victoria for much of the year, and travel around the province. The mayor gets to sleep in her own bed.
It's a little harder to see how being mayor is less disruptive to family life than being an MLA, the job Clark gave up four months ago. The legislature sits for a few months a year, and even then backbenchers generally only have to spend three nights a week over here.
Still, things change.
Clark is a career politician; she's never had a job outside politics and is happy to be seen as a future premier, or MP from B.C. (Her husband, Mark Marrisen, is a key federal Liberal wheel in the province.)
So it's fair to look at her interest in the mayor's job in that context.
It's been a stepping stone for others. Mike Harcourt and Gordon Campbell both went from the top elected job in Vancouver to the premier's office.
And, if all goes well, the timing works nicely for any future plans. Clark's first term - if she wins - would end in 2008. If Campbell isn't going to run in the next provincial election, scheduled for 2009, she would be positioned to jump into a leadership race.
If he decides to stay on - and isn't pushed out - Clark has the option of a second term as mayor, presiding over the Olympics, before considering a bid to become Liberal leader.
But there are a few problems with those tidy scenarios.
First Clark has to win the nomination for the Non Partisan Association. (Non-partisan in the sense that it brings together federal Liberals and Conservatives in a rightish coalition.) She'll be up against veteran councillor Sam Sullivan, who has his own strong base.
Clark can probably take the nomination. The contest is about selling memberships in the party, and she can tap an excelent organization.
Then she has to beat Jim Green, the left's candidate, a veteran councillor who will be backed popular ex-mayor Larry Campbell. Green has already characterized her as a parachute candidate - she lives outside the city in neighbouring Burnaby - and said she would be Gordon Campbell's ally in City Hall.
Even an election victory doesn't end the problems. The mayor's job is only a career launching pad if you are popular and successful. The job often calls for skills at building consensus, and dealing with a lot of small problems.
Clark is a great politician and organizer, personally appealing and clever. She was an excellent opposition MLA.
But her track record as education minister, and in children and families, was less impressive. She alienated teachers, trustees and parents as education minister, a warning of trouble ahead in the often fractious world of civic politics.
And despite a lot of activity and announcements, it's hard to point to any significant achievements in either education or children and families. (Though Clark can take credit for at least restoring stability to the children's ministry when she took over after Gordon Hogg.)
It's also hard - despite her nine years in the legislature - to say exactly what Clark stands for, and what big issues and ideas drive her participation in political life.
The mayor's job could be a chance for her to answer all those kinds of doubts, and show her ability to take on whatever comes next.
And it can be, as we've seen, a launch pad for future political opportunities.
But we've also seen lots of films of things blowing up on launch pads.
Footnote: All this talk about the next premier could create problems for Gordon Campbell. Once people begin talking about your replacement, the contenders start thinking about what they need to be ready for the race. It's a process that can promote damaging divisions within a party.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Katrina a preview of our lives after the ‘Big One’
VICTORIA - Take a long look at those pictures from New Orleans of weeping, lost people trying to figure out what’s left for them.
It could just as easily be Victoria, or Vancouver.
I’ve been watching the news, and like many people wondering why the richest nation on Earth has been doing such a poor job of responding to a foreseeable natural disaster.
Everyone knew that Katrina was coming, and that it was a fierce storm. They had days to prepare.
More importantly, everyone has known for decades that at some point a really big hurricane was going to sweep in off the gulf.
But knowing isn’t enough to make people act, to take the long-term steps needed to be ready for the feared big one, or to have the short-term relief plans in place.
I sat outside a pleasant bar in Algiers a few years ago, across the river from New Orleans. It was right beside the Mississippi, but there were no views of the water, or the ships and barges shuffling past. The river was being held back by a 10-metre berm that ran as far you could see. It’s surface was far above our heads as we sat and drank the local beer.
It was slightly unnerving, even on a sunny day. A hole in the levee and all the water in the river would spill into the country - and keep flowing until everything for a huge distance was under metres.
That’s what happened.
The levee system’s failure is no big surprise. The dikes were supposed to be able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane - though experts questioned even that prediction.
But it was a certainty that some day, a more powerful storm would hit.
And Katrina did.
Just as one of these decades a big earthquake - or a small earthquake, dangerously close - will strike along B.C.’s coast.
Most of the people in New Orleans literally couldn’t imagine the destruction of their city by a storm. Neither could the government officials responsible for preparation.
Just s we can’t imagine seeing large parts of Victoria or Vancouver devastated by an earthquake.
But the worst case scenarios for B.C. are as frightening as anything coming from New Orleans. Imagine, says the experts, a situation in which transportation was impossible and power and water services non-existent for hundreds of thousands of people.
Figure thousands homeless - perhaps in a cold, rainy January - and food supplies running out. And accept the reality that the scale of the disaster would swamp our ability to respond quickly and effectively. We don’t have the ability to set up tent cities in every park, or feed the people who may have to live there for months.
In short, imagine something much like New Orleans, without the water but with the rest of the dislocation, suffering and fear.
It is difficult for any government - and for most individuals - to balance today’s pressing needs against the importance of preparing for a disaster that may be a century away.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which maintains the system tat protected New Orleans, has been asking for more money to fix problems. Its 2004 funding request to improve levees around Lake Pontchartrain was cut by 80 per cent. The government had other priorities.
Here in B.C., the government faces similar pressures. Improving schools’ ability to withstand earthquakes would cost about $1.5 billion. The government is committed to spending an extra $80 a year for the next three years on the problem, and hopes to complete the upgrades by 2020.
Too slow, critics say. But it’s tough to justify tax increases, or cuts to the health budget, to pay for faster progress on earthquake protection.
And it’s tough to gripe about government delays when most of us have done little personally to prepare.
Katrina’s an awful reminder that even remote threats deserve attention when their consequences are so terrible.
Footnote: Another lesson in the perils of procrastination. Paul Martin delayed calling George Bush to talk about the softwood dispute for weeks. The call was finally scheduled for Thursday, and Bush had understandably no interest in anything beyond Canada’s willingness to help in the Katrina aftermath.
It could just as easily be Victoria, or Vancouver.
I’ve been watching the news, and like many people wondering why the richest nation on Earth has been doing such a poor job of responding to a foreseeable natural disaster.
Everyone knew that Katrina was coming, and that it was a fierce storm. They had days to prepare.
More importantly, everyone has known for decades that at some point a really big hurricane was going to sweep in off the gulf.
But knowing isn’t enough to make people act, to take the long-term steps needed to be ready for the feared big one, or to have the short-term relief plans in place.
I sat outside a pleasant bar in Algiers a few years ago, across the river from New Orleans. It was right beside the Mississippi, but there were no views of the water, or the ships and barges shuffling past. The river was being held back by a 10-metre berm that ran as far you could see. It’s surface was far above our heads as we sat and drank the local beer.
It was slightly unnerving, even on a sunny day. A hole in the levee and all the water in the river would spill into the country - and keep flowing until everything for a huge distance was under metres.
That’s what happened.
The levee system’s failure is no big surprise. The dikes were supposed to be able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane - though experts questioned even that prediction.
But it was a certainty that some day, a more powerful storm would hit.
And Katrina did.
Just as one of these decades a big earthquake - or a small earthquake, dangerously close - will strike along B.C.’s coast.
Most of the people in New Orleans literally couldn’t imagine the destruction of their city by a storm. Neither could the government officials responsible for preparation.
Just s we can’t imagine seeing large parts of Victoria or Vancouver devastated by an earthquake.
But the worst case scenarios for B.C. are as frightening as anything coming from New Orleans. Imagine, says the experts, a situation in which transportation was impossible and power and water services non-existent for hundreds of thousands of people.
Figure thousands homeless - perhaps in a cold, rainy January - and food supplies running out. And accept the reality that the scale of the disaster would swamp our ability to respond quickly and effectively. We don’t have the ability to set up tent cities in every park, or feed the people who may have to live there for months.
In short, imagine something much like New Orleans, without the water but with the rest of the dislocation, suffering and fear.
It is difficult for any government - and for most individuals - to balance today’s pressing needs against the importance of preparing for a disaster that may be a century away.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which maintains the system tat protected New Orleans, has been asking for more money to fix problems. Its 2004 funding request to improve levees around Lake Pontchartrain was cut by 80 per cent. The government had other priorities.
Here in B.C., the government faces similar pressures. Improving schools’ ability to withstand earthquakes would cost about $1.5 billion. The government is committed to spending an extra $80 a year for the next three years on the problem, and hopes to complete the upgrades by 2020.
Too slow, critics say. But it’s tough to justify tax increases, or cuts to the health budget, to pay for faster progress on earthquake protection.
And it’s tough to gripe about government delays when most of us have done little personally to prepare.
Katrina’s an awful reminder that even remote threats deserve attention when their consequences are so terrible.
Footnote: Another lesson in the perils of procrastination. Paul Martin delayed calling George Bush to talk about the softwood dispute for weeks. The call was finally scheduled for Thursday, and Bush had understandably no interest in anything beyond Canada’s willingness to help in the Katrina aftermath.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
School strike escape plan sitting unused on the shelf
VICTORIA - Expect trouble in schools this fall, unless the teachers' union and government are willing to try an already mapped out escape route.
The BC Teachers' Federation loathes the Liberal government, wants pay raises and is adamant about negotiating issues like class size.
The Liberal government loathes the BCTF, expects teachers to take a two-year wage freeze and says elected officials must decide issues like class size.
Teachers will take a strike vote Sept. 20-22, which will be overwhelmingly positive. The Labour Relations Board will then set essential service levels - perhaps a three-day school week - and eventually teachers will start job action. Parents will freak, and the government will pass legislation ordering teachers back to work and imposing a contract.
Surely it's time to try a better way, especially as the parties have a realistic alternative.
Last December Don Wright, a former deputy minister, prepared a report on teachers' bargaining for the government. Wright concluded that the current system doesn't work because it's built on a lie. Everyone, including the Liberals, pretend teachers have a right to strike. Really, no government will allow more than a brief school disruption before imposing a contract.
So there's little incentive to bargain. If the union thinks an NDP government might be sympathetic, it waits for an imposed deal; employers do the same when the Liberals are in power.
Wright proposed giving the two parties a set time to negotiate. If they were unsuccessful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's position. That should encourage reason; neither side would want to look like the problem. (Ideally, Wright said, the parties would agree on a commissioner; if not they could each submit names to an independent third party, who would pick one.)
The commissioner would then try to help the parties reach a deal. If that didn't work, the employer and union would both submit final positions on all the outstanding issues. The commissioner would pick one set in its entirety to form the basis of the new contract.
It's called final offer selection, and it's seen as a way to promote compromise. Take too extreme a position, and you lose everything. (Normal arbitration can encourage parties to stay far apart, hoping the arbitrator will split the difference in settling the dispute.)
Both sides can find fault with the idea.
Teachers are unhappy that Wright's proposal wouldn't let them bargain class size, support levels and other issues the Liberals stripped from their contracts through legislation.
Those issues do affect working conditions, which are normally negotiable, and teachers say they gave up past wage increases in return for smaller class sizes. But ultimately the issues are also about the best way of providing education, and that's a matter for elected officials.
Wright proposed a separate process that would bring teachers, school districts and the province together "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a compromise worth trying.
The government fears the commissioner would impose a deal that that would be too costly, or break the wage pattern that calls for no increase in the first two years of the teacher's contract.
That's a risk. Wright recommended that the commissioner have only two terms of reference in imposing a deal - the need for competitive pay and job conditions to ensure that good teachers want to work here, and the state of the economy and the government's finances. That leaves a lot of room.
Teachers also simply don't trust the government. The Liberals have ignored agreements they don't like. Why go to dispute resolution if only decisions that go against you will be recognized by the government?
But practically, the BCTF has nothing to lose. The realistic choices are a legislated agreement, on the government's terms, or a chance at the new approach. There's no downside.
It seems a perfect chance to try for a better way of resolving school labour disputes, one that really does put children first.
Footnote: The government hasn't ruled out trying the Wright way. A first step could be to appoint a commissioner early this fall to begin the process, preparing the public report on the parties' positions. That would encourage a move towards realistic, practical proposals from both sides.
The BC Teachers' Federation loathes the Liberal government, wants pay raises and is adamant about negotiating issues like class size.
The Liberal government loathes the BCTF, expects teachers to take a two-year wage freeze and says elected officials must decide issues like class size.
Teachers will take a strike vote Sept. 20-22, which will be overwhelmingly positive. The Labour Relations Board will then set essential service levels - perhaps a three-day school week - and eventually teachers will start job action. Parents will freak, and the government will pass legislation ordering teachers back to work and imposing a contract.
Surely it's time to try a better way, especially as the parties have a realistic alternative.
Last December Don Wright, a former deputy minister, prepared a report on teachers' bargaining for the government. Wright concluded that the current system doesn't work because it's built on a lie. Everyone, including the Liberals, pretend teachers have a right to strike. Really, no government will allow more than a brief school disruption before imposing a contract.
So there's little incentive to bargain. If the union thinks an NDP government might be sympathetic, it waits for an imposed deal; employers do the same when the Liberals are in power.
Wright proposed giving the two parties a set time to negotiate. If they were unsuccessful, a commissioner would be appointed to report publicly on each side's position. That should encourage reason; neither side would want to look like the problem. (Ideally, Wright said, the parties would agree on a commissioner; if not they could each submit names to an independent third party, who would pick one.)
The commissioner would then try to help the parties reach a deal. If that didn't work, the employer and union would both submit final positions on all the outstanding issues. The commissioner would pick one set in its entirety to form the basis of the new contract.
It's called final offer selection, and it's seen as a way to promote compromise. Take too extreme a position, and you lose everything. (Normal arbitration can encourage parties to stay far apart, hoping the arbitrator will split the difference in settling the dispute.)
Both sides can find fault with the idea.
Teachers are unhappy that Wright's proposal wouldn't let them bargain class size, support levels and other issues the Liberals stripped from their contracts through legislation.
Those issues do affect working conditions, which are normally negotiable, and teachers say they gave up past wage increases in return for smaller class sizes. But ultimately the issues are also about the best way of providing education, and that's a matter for elected officials.
Wright proposed a separate process that would bring teachers, school districts and the province together "to seek agreement on cost effective approaches to improving working and learning conditions." It's a compromise worth trying.
The government fears the commissioner would impose a deal that that would be too costly, or break the wage pattern that calls for no increase in the first two years of the teacher's contract.
That's a risk. Wright recommended that the commissioner have only two terms of reference in imposing a deal - the need for competitive pay and job conditions to ensure that good teachers want to work here, and the state of the economy and the government's finances. That leaves a lot of room.
Teachers also simply don't trust the government. The Liberals have ignored agreements they don't like. Why go to dispute resolution if only decisions that go against you will be recognized by the government?
But practically, the BCTF has nothing to lose. The realistic choices are a legislated agreement, on the government's terms, or a chance at the new approach. There's no downside.
It seems a perfect chance to try for a better way of resolving school labour disputes, one that really does put children first.
Footnote: The government hasn't ruled out trying the Wright way. A first step could be to appoint a commissioner early this fall to begin the process, preparing the public report on the parties' positions. That would encourage a move towards realistic, practical proposals from both sides.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Time for controls on third party advertising
VICTORIA - Of course it matters if businesses and unions spend a lot of money to influence election results.
The political parties think so. The Liberals say the NDP is nestled in the deep pockets of big labour. The New Democrats say the corporations have bought special treatment from the Campbell government.
There's been a lot of controversy and concern around third-party advertising this time around. The financial reports just filed with Elections BC show an explosion in spending this year. In 2001, third parties - people who wanted to influence the election outcome, but didn't want to give money to a party - spent $315,000.
Four years later, they came up with more than $4 million. That's 50 times the amount the Green Party raised for the campaign, and closing in on the NDP's $6 million. By the next election, they could be spending as much as the parties.
And the reported spending is likely a gross underestimate. Third-party campaigners have to report spending during the 28-day election campaign, but not any efforts outside those four weeks. If a union, or business, spends $1 million in the 10 days before the campaign starts, that can stay a secret.
Unions were the big third-party spenders during the election campaign, putting more than $3 million into an effort to persuade people to vote NDP. The BC Teachers' Federation spent about $1.5 million, including more than $600,000 sent out to local unions to spend in their communities.
Business groups spent more than $1 million to help the Liberals, with the Independent Contractors and Businesses Assocation, the lobby group for non-union construction firms, spending more than $600,000.
All this spending is on top of the money unions and business contributed directly to the parties. Do the totals, and the Liberals end up with about $9 million in direct and indirect support from business. The NDP got more than $5 million worth of help from unions.
The Liberals have been pointing with grim alarm to the unions' third party efforts. But the Campbell government cleared the way for the spending spree by removed the limits on third party advertising. And it remains the only party not calling for spending limits.
The right to participate directly in election campaigns should be protected. Individuals or groups may want to spend money to raise local issues, or support individual candidates. They may believe that they can spend the money more effectively on their own than by handing cash over to a party. Political parties shouldn't be the only voices heard during a campaign.
But practically, that right should be limited.
We have agreed that there is a real risk that democracy will be undermined if those with the most money dominate the discussion and the battle for votes. That's why we set spending limits for candidates and parties. Allowing unlimited spending by others in support of parties makes those limits meaningless.
And we rightly fear that politicians will feel indebted, or pressured, if their chances of election rest on support from business or union lobby groups. Their influence - by favoring candidates, or withholding their support - can quickly become enormous (Politicians reinforce those fears with their warnings about the corrosive effects of big donations on their opponents.)
The conflict between the right of third parties to participate in campaigns and the need to protect the system has now been resolved by the courts. The BC Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that a law restricting third party spending to $5,000 was an unwarranted limit on free speech. But last year the Supreme Court of Canada found that third party spending limits are acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal law limits their campaign spending to $168,900.
The last provincial campaign made the risks clear. Reasonable spending limits and more effective disclosure rules are needed, and the current problems reinforce the urgency of political finance reform in B.C.
Footnote: I reported in an earlier column that the Liberals' financial disclosure forms reported the transfer of $145,000 to Lorne Mayencourt's campaign, the third highest total among candidates. Mayencourt notes that all that money was raised in the riding during the past four years, sent to the party, and then returned this year.
The political parties think so. The Liberals say the NDP is nestled in the deep pockets of big labour. The New Democrats say the corporations have bought special treatment from the Campbell government.
There's been a lot of controversy and concern around third-party advertising this time around. The financial reports just filed with Elections BC show an explosion in spending this year. In 2001, third parties - people who wanted to influence the election outcome, but didn't want to give money to a party - spent $315,000.
Four years later, they came up with more than $4 million. That's 50 times the amount the Green Party raised for the campaign, and closing in on the NDP's $6 million. By the next election, they could be spending as much as the parties.
And the reported spending is likely a gross underestimate. Third-party campaigners have to report spending during the 28-day election campaign, but not any efforts outside those four weeks. If a union, or business, spends $1 million in the 10 days before the campaign starts, that can stay a secret.
Unions were the big third-party spenders during the election campaign, putting more than $3 million into an effort to persuade people to vote NDP. The BC Teachers' Federation spent about $1.5 million, including more than $600,000 sent out to local unions to spend in their communities.
Business groups spent more than $1 million to help the Liberals, with the Independent Contractors and Businesses Assocation, the lobby group for non-union construction firms, spending more than $600,000.
All this spending is on top of the money unions and business contributed directly to the parties. Do the totals, and the Liberals end up with about $9 million in direct and indirect support from business. The NDP got more than $5 million worth of help from unions.
The Liberals have been pointing with grim alarm to the unions' third party efforts. But the Campbell government cleared the way for the spending spree by removed the limits on third party advertising. And it remains the only party not calling for spending limits.
The right to participate directly in election campaigns should be protected. Individuals or groups may want to spend money to raise local issues, or support individual candidates. They may believe that they can spend the money more effectively on their own than by handing cash over to a party. Political parties shouldn't be the only voices heard during a campaign.
But practically, that right should be limited.
We have agreed that there is a real risk that democracy will be undermined if those with the most money dominate the discussion and the battle for votes. That's why we set spending limits for candidates and parties. Allowing unlimited spending by others in support of parties makes those limits meaningless.
And we rightly fear that politicians will feel indebted, or pressured, if their chances of election rest on support from business or union lobby groups. Their influence - by favoring candidates, or withholding their support - can quickly become enormous (Politicians reinforce those fears with their warnings about the corrosive effects of big donations on their opponents.)
The conflict between the right of third parties to participate in campaigns and the need to protect the system has now been resolved by the courts. The BC Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that a law restricting third party spending to $5,000 was an unwarranted limit on free speech. But last year the Supreme Court of Canada found that third party spending limits are acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal law limits their campaign spending to $168,900.
The last provincial campaign made the risks clear. Reasonable spending limits and more effective disclosure rules are needed, and the current problems reinforce the urgency of political finance reform in B.C.
Footnote: I reported in an earlier column that the Liberals' financial disclosure forms reported the transfer of $145,000 to Lorne Mayencourt's campaign, the third highest total among candidates. Mayencourt notes that all that money was raised in the riding during the past four years, sent to the party, and then returned this year.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Robertson’s ’assassinate Chavez’ talk a symptom
VICTORIA - It’s tempting to make fun of Pat Robertson and his assassination fantasies, to write him off as a nutty novelty act on the American political-religious scene.
Robertson made the news again with his proposal - on his popular television show - that the U.S. should just go ahead and kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The democratically elected Chavez is a bad guy, Robertson said, and America needs Venezuela’s oil. Invasions cost too much, so George Bush should just send some folks off to kill Chavez.
Robertson recanted in an elaborate two-step. First he denied saying Chavez should be assassinated, a doomed effort since people could watch the videotape of him saying just that. Then Robertson acknowledged calling for the killing, and said he was wrong. He was just frustrated that the U.S. wasn’t taking the Chavez threat seriously, Robertson said, accusing Chavez of a brace of offences, including making common cause with Carlos the Jackal, a surprise since the terrorist has been a French prison for a decade.
It’s the latest in a long line of weird and creepy statements from Robertson, who is apparently in personal touch with his own cranky God. He has a long list of enemies, from liberals to pro-lifers to Supreme Court justices who are more dangerous to America than “a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
Gays and their friends are on God’s hit list, Robertson says. When Disney World wouldn’t cancel a Gay Pride Month, he predicted some serious smiting. "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor," he told his TV audience.
It all sounds looney, in a hateful kind of way, the rantings you would expect from a disgruntled lonely guy down in the local coffee shop.
But about 860,000 Americans tune in each day to The 700 Club, Robertson’s flagship TV show, more than CNN attracts in prime time. Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network has more than 1,000 employees, and its news talk shows get the top politicians in Washington as regular guests. (The 700 Club is broadcast in Canada on the Miracle Channel.)
And despite Robertson’s nutty comments, he has political influence as a leader of the evangelical right. George Bush meets with Robertson, who takes credit for a major push to help Bush in both his election wins.
Robertson’s influence, some contend, is fading. But the White House’s cautious reaction to the ‘lets-kill-Chavez’ comments show an eagerness to keep him and his supporters on good terms. A State Department spokesman said the comments were "inappropriate," but didn’t say they were wrong, or stupid, or unhelpful. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield said the Pentagon doesn’t do assassinations, but he wouldn’t criticize the comments. "He's a private citizen,” Rumsfield said.”Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
But most of those private citizens don’t have access to the president, or a national TV audience.
It’s all helpful to Chavez, who has already claimed the U.S. wants him dead because of his leftist policies and alliance with Fidel Castro.
And in a small way, it’s probably unhelpful to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Many Canadians worry about the influence of social conservatives and the religious right on the party. This affair shows how large that influence has become in the U.S.
But mostly it’s another reminder of how dangerous people can be when they believe they have a direct and certain line to God. Osama Bin Laden finds justification for blowing up civilians, something the Koran forbids. Robertson finds grounds for killing leaders of other countries. Their certainty that they are right makes them dangerous.
Faith is a wonderful and powerful thing. It naturally shapes the way people live their lives.
But when it’s used to justify compelling others to live the same way, it becomes a menace, as Robertson has again shown.
Footnote: Robertson’s retreat was half-hearted. OK, he says, it was wrong to advocate assassination. But he went on to note German protestants found it acceptable to try and kill Hitler. “There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions,” Robertson concluded. “There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action.”
Robertson made the news again with his proposal - on his popular television show - that the U.S. should just go ahead and kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The democratically elected Chavez is a bad guy, Robertson said, and America needs Venezuela’s oil. Invasions cost too much, so George Bush should just send some folks off to kill Chavez.
Robertson recanted in an elaborate two-step. First he denied saying Chavez should be assassinated, a doomed effort since people could watch the videotape of him saying just that. Then Robertson acknowledged calling for the killing, and said he was wrong. He was just frustrated that the U.S. wasn’t taking the Chavez threat seriously, Robertson said, accusing Chavez of a brace of offences, including making common cause with Carlos the Jackal, a surprise since the terrorist has been a French prison for a decade.
It’s the latest in a long line of weird and creepy statements from Robertson, who is apparently in personal touch with his own cranky God. He has a long list of enemies, from liberals to pro-lifers to Supreme Court justices who are more dangerous to America than “a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
Gays and their friends are on God’s hit list, Robertson says. When Disney World wouldn’t cancel a Gay Pride Month, he predicted some serious smiting. "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes. It'll bring about terrorist bombs. It'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor," he told his TV audience.
It all sounds looney, in a hateful kind of way, the rantings you would expect from a disgruntled lonely guy down in the local coffee shop.
But about 860,000 Americans tune in each day to The 700 Club, Robertson’s flagship TV show, more than CNN attracts in prime time. Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network has more than 1,000 employees, and its news talk shows get the top politicians in Washington as regular guests. (The 700 Club is broadcast in Canada on the Miracle Channel.)
And despite Robertson’s nutty comments, he has political influence as a leader of the evangelical right. George Bush meets with Robertson, who takes credit for a major push to help Bush in both his election wins.
Robertson’s influence, some contend, is fading. But the White House’s cautious reaction to the ‘lets-kill-Chavez’ comments show an eagerness to keep him and his supporters on good terms. A State Department spokesman said the comments were "inappropriate," but didn’t say they were wrong, or stupid, or unhelpful. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield said the Pentagon doesn’t do assassinations, but he wouldn’t criticize the comments. "He's a private citizen,” Rumsfield said.”Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
But most of those private citizens don’t have access to the president, or a national TV audience.
It’s all helpful to Chavez, who has already claimed the U.S. wants him dead because of his leftist policies and alliance with Fidel Castro.
And in a small way, it’s probably unhelpful to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Many Canadians worry about the influence of social conservatives and the religious right on the party. This affair shows how large that influence has become in the U.S.
But mostly it’s another reminder of how dangerous people can be when they believe they have a direct and certain line to God. Osama Bin Laden finds justification for blowing up civilians, something the Koran forbids. Robertson finds grounds for killing leaders of other countries. Their certainty that they are right makes them dangerous.
Faith is a wonderful and powerful thing. It naturally shapes the way people live their lives.
But when it’s used to justify compelling others to live the same way, it becomes a menace, as Robertson has again shown.
Footnote: Robertson’s retreat was half-hearted. OK, he says, it was wrong to advocate assassination. But he went on to note German protestants found it acceptable to try and kill Hitler. “There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions,” Robertson concluded. “There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action.”
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Ottawa too slow to raise pressure on softwood
VICTORIA - B.C.'s forest industry has a right to be steamed at the way our governments have handled the softwood dispute.
The federal government, and even the province, haven't done enough for the industry and the communities that depend on it. And both have been slow to acknowledge the need to pressure the U.S.
There's no easy solutions. But it's been clear for a year that Canada's approach to the dispute - supported by the B.C. government - has not been working. Only now has federal Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Ottawa might change tactics and retaliate. Prime Minister Paul Martin may even call George Bush to talk about the issue.
Ottawa was reacting to the U.S. announcement that it will simply ignore what was supposed to be the definitive NAFTA ruling on the dispute. The NAFTA panel dismissed the Americans' case, and said the 21-per-cent duty should be lifted, and the $5 billion already collected returned to Canadian companies.
Get lost, the U.S. government said. We don't like the decision, so we're going to ignore it. What are you going to about it?
That's been the question for some time now. Resolving the dispute through legal appeals under NAFTA or the World Trade Organization has looked increasingly unlikely. The Americans are willing to ignore the judgments.
That leaves a negotiated settlement.
But a deal reached now would be bad for Canada, which has no bargaining power. For three years the U.S. government has collected the duties with no real response from Canada, politically or economically. Both the B.C. and federal governments rejected trade retaliation. Legal efforts have failed. So have lobbying campaigns, and attempts to involve U.S. consumers, who are paying more for homes because of the duties.
The Americans can leave the duties in place indefinitely without fear. Any deal would be on their terms.
Unless Canada and B.C. are able to increase the pressure on the U.S., politically and economically.
Trade wars are risky and destructive. Canada exports about $300 billion worth of goods and services a year to the U.S. American companies only sell about $200 billion into Canada. An escalating trade battle would be much more damaging here.
And retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports will cost consumers, who will pay more for the affected goods.
But there's no realistic alternative.
The U.S. government has been tough on softwood because the American lumber producers are effective lobbyists with political muscle.
Canada has to impose duties that encourage other U.S. industries with political clout to demand Washington find a solution. The U.S. wine industry is already struggling; a 20-per-cent duty on exports to Canada would see them pushing for a quick end to the trade dispute. (Though it may also see B.C. wines facing more barriers to U.S. markets in retaliation.)
The federal government has been slow to take any action, and B.C. has been quiescent and equally reluctant to act. Former forests minister Mike de Jong said the government might tell the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying California wine, a $60-million gesture. Nothing happened.
Ottawa has also been slow to provide aid for affected workers and communities, or for companies facing both reduced cash flow and the need for capital investment to increase their efficiency.
Now, three years after the dispute began, the Ontario government has succeeded in getting Ottawa's attention where B.C. failed. The federal government is considering an industry aid program, after Ontario announced its own plan and called for a similar federal effort.
The aid program is likely too late for Interior companies, which have already invested to increase their efficiency, though it may help Coastal operators. But it also raises new risks. Provincial incentives in Ontario, and not in B.C., could put pulp mills in that province, for example, first in line for investment.
But aid plans aren't the answer. A more effective push to resolve the dispute holds the best hope for a real solution.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell will get a few minutes to raise the softwood issue when he meets U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney next month at a Calgary fundraising dinner for the Fraser Institute, a rightish policy centre. (You can sit with the premier for a $10,000 donation to the institute.) Cheney is also touring Alberta's oilsands.
The federal government, and even the province, haven't done enough for the industry and the communities that depend on it. And both have been slow to acknowledge the need to pressure the U.S.
There's no easy solutions. But it's been clear for a year that Canada's approach to the dispute - supported by the B.C. government - has not been working. Only now has federal Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Ottawa might change tactics and retaliate. Prime Minister Paul Martin may even call George Bush to talk about the issue.
Ottawa was reacting to the U.S. announcement that it will simply ignore what was supposed to be the definitive NAFTA ruling on the dispute. The NAFTA panel dismissed the Americans' case, and said the 21-per-cent duty should be lifted, and the $5 billion already collected returned to Canadian companies.
Get lost, the U.S. government said. We don't like the decision, so we're going to ignore it. What are you going to about it?
That's been the question for some time now. Resolving the dispute through legal appeals under NAFTA or the World Trade Organization has looked increasingly unlikely. The Americans are willing to ignore the judgments.
That leaves a negotiated settlement.
But a deal reached now would be bad for Canada, which has no bargaining power. For three years the U.S. government has collected the duties with no real response from Canada, politically or economically. Both the B.C. and federal governments rejected trade retaliation. Legal efforts have failed. So have lobbying campaigns, and attempts to involve U.S. consumers, who are paying more for homes because of the duties.
The Americans can leave the duties in place indefinitely without fear. Any deal would be on their terms.
Unless Canada and B.C. are able to increase the pressure on the U.S., politically and economically.
Trade wars are risky and destructive. Canada exports about $300 billion worth of goods and services a year to the U.S. American companies only sell about $200 billion into Canada. An escalating trade battle would be much more damaging here.
And retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports will cost consumers, who will pay more for the affected goods.
But there's no realistic alternative.
The U.S. government has been tough on softwood because the American lumber producers are effective lobbyists with political muscle.
Canada has to impose duties that encourage other U.S. industries with political clout to demand Washington find a solution. The U.S. wine industry is already struggling; a 20-per-cent duty on exports to Canada would see them pushing for a quick end to the trade dispute. (Though it may also see B.C. wines facing more barriers to U.S. markets in retaliation.)
The federal government has been slow to take any action, and B.C. has been quiescent and equally reluctant to act. Former forests minister Mike de Jong said the government might tell the Liquor Distribution Branch to quit buying California wine, a $60-million gesture. Nothing happened.
Ottawa has also been slow to provide aid for affected workers and communities, or for companies facing both reduced cash flow and the need for capital investment to increase their efficiency.
Now, three years after the dispute began, the Ontario government has succeeded in getting Ottawa's attention where B.C. failed. The federal government is considering an industry aid program, after Ontario announced its own plan and called for a similar federal effort.
The aid program is likely too late for Interior companies, which have already invested to increase their efficiency, though it may help Coastal operators. But it also raises new risks. Provincial incentives in Ontario, and not in B.C., could put pulp mills in that province, for example, first in line for investment.
But aid plans aren't the answer. A more effective push to resolve the dispute holds the best hope for a real solution.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell will get a few minutes to raise the softwood issue when he meets U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney next month at a Calgary fundraising dinner for the Fraser Institute, a rightish policy centre. (You can sit with the premier for a $10,000 donation to the institute.) Cheney is also touring Alberta's oilsands.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Weirdness and worry in the political finance reports
VICTORIA - First notes from the Elections BC reports on B.C.'s most expensive political campaign ever. (With a more thoughtful overview to come.)
- The buzz that the Liberals were spending huge amounts to try and save key candidates like former labour minister Graham Bruce turns out to be entirely accurate. The finance reports show that the Liberals sent $189,000 into his Cowichan riding in an unsuccessful effort to hold the seat. Only Gordon Campbell, with $157,000, Lorne Mayencourt, with $145,000, and Virgina Greene came close to getting such a big chunk of cash from the party. Greene and Bruce lost despite the money, but the big spending may have made the difference in Mayencourt's narrow win. (There are spending limits for candidates, but they only cover the 28 days of the campaign. It's wide open in the months before, when the lucky candidates got much of the money.)
- The reports also confirm that the Liberals had written off seats in southeastern B.C. Poor Wendy McMahon got just $21,000 to help fight her losing battle, while Blair Suffredine got $27,000. The average across all 79 ridings was $76,000.
- The First Dollar Alliance Society, based in Campbell River, registered as a third-party campaigner, raising $27,250 to promote the Liberals and local candidate Rod Visser. The biggest donor? Why the government of B.C., which contributed $17,500. But it's not like it looks, said Leanne Brunt. That money was for a conference of women from resource communities. The money spent on the pro-Liberal campaign came almost entirely from corporate donors. It still leaves the Alliance's grassroots claims looking a little tattered.
- The money trails behind the third party campaigns are twisting and tangled. Which side, for example, would you say the Comox Valley Association for Good Government is on? Liberal, as it turns out, and more than one-third of the $15,000 it raised to support Stan Hagen came from Great Canadian Railtours, a good Liberal donor with not much to do with the Comox Valley. Great Canadian gave another $57,000 directly to the Liberal campaign.
And then there's the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of BC, which raised $86,000 to oppose the Liberals. But dig in to the documents and you find $71,000 of that came from various union groups, including $45,000 from the BC Federation of Labour. That's on top of the BC Fed's own $114,000 third party campaign and the $412,000 it donated to the NDP.
- Unions spent more than $3 million on third party campaigns, a large amount but less than the Liberals had predicted during the campaign (and as recently as last week when they quoted a figure of $10 million in a press release).
- Cline Mining, the small corporation at the centre of a big B.C.-Montana fight over a planned coal mine near the U.S. border., came through for the Liberals with a $15,000 donation. Cline's right to develop the mine has been championed by the government, but it's still a generous gift from a company that lost almost $400,000 last year.
- It was once again not easy being Green. The party manage to raise $90,000, almost all from individual donations. It's a hopelessly small amount to fund a provincial campaign. The Green's biggest budget expense - brochures - cost less than the $15,000 victory celebration party in Gordon Campbell's riding.
- The Greens were able to get their financial reports in by the deadline, but Adriane Carr had to get an extension for filing her candidates' financial statements. So did 11 NDP candidates, including five who were elected - Ronin Austin, Mike Farnworth, Sue Hammell, Harry Lali and Diane Thorne.
- The most efficient campaigner among the leaders filing returns was Marc Emery, who reported campaign expenses of $100 and got 374 votes, for a cost of 27 cents for vote won. Carole James, who spent $55,000 and got 16,081 votes spent $3.40 per vote. Campbell's $177,000 in spending and lower vote total meant he had to spend more than $14 per vote.
Footnote: The pressure for political finance reform is mounting. The NDP and Greens already support a ban on union and corporate donations, and the New Democrats are now open to better controls on third party spending. The Liberals stand alone in defending the status quo.
- The buzz that the Liberals were spending huge amounts to try and save key candidates like former labour minister Graham Bruce turns out to be entirely accurate. The finance reports show that the Liberals sent $189,000 into his Cowichan riding in an unsuccessful effort to hold the seat. Only Gordon Campbell, with $157,000, Lorne Mayencourt, with $145,000, and Virgina Greene came close to getting such a big chunk of cash from the party. Greene and Bruce lost despite the money, but the big spending may have made the difference in Mayencourt's narrow win. (There are spending limits for candidates, but they only cover the 28 days of the campaign. It's wide open in the months before, when the lucky candidates got much of the money.)
- The reports also confirm that the Liberals had written off seats in southeastern B.C. Poor Wendy McMahon got just $21,000 to help fight her losing battle, while Blair Suffredine got $27,000. The average across all 79 ridings was $76,000.
- The First Dollar Alliance Society, based in Campbell River, registered as a third-party campaigner, raising $27,250 to promote the Liberals and local candidate Rod Visser. The biggest donor? Why the government of B.C., which contributed $17,500. But it's not like it looks, said Leanne Brunt. That money was for a conference of women from resource communities. The money spent on the pro-Liberal campaign came almost entirely from corporate donors. It still leaves the Alliance's grassroots claims looking a little tattered.
- The money trails behind the third party campaigns are twisting and tangled. Which side, for example, would you say the Comox Valley Association for Good Government is on? Liberal, as it turns out, and more than one-third of the $15,000 it raised to support Stan Hagen came from Great Canadian Railtours, a good Liberal donor with not much to do with the Comox Valley. Great Canadian gave another $57,000 directly to the Liberal campaign.
And then there's the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of BC, which raised $86,000 to oppose the Liberals. But dig in to the documents and you find $71,000 of that came from various union groups, including $45,000 from the BC Federation of Labour. That's on top of the BC Fed's own $114,000 third party campaign and the $412,000 it donated to the NDP.
- Unions spent more than $3 million on third party campaigns, a large amount but less than the Liberals had predicted during the campaign (and as recently as last week when they quoted a figure of $10 million in a press release).
- Cline Mining, the small corporation at the centre of a big B.C.-Montana fight over a planned coal mine near the U.S. border., came through for the Liberals with a $15,000 donation. Cline's right to develop the mine has been championed by the government, but it's still a generous gift from a company that lost almost $400,000 last year.
- It was once again not easy being Green. The party manage to raise $90,000, almost all from individual donations. It's a hopelessly small amount to fund a provincial campaign. The Green's biggest budget expense - brochures - cost less than the $15,000 victory celebration party in Gordon Campbell's riding.
- The Greens were able to get their financial reports in by the deadline, but Adriane Carr had to get an extension for filing her candidates' financial statements. So did 11 NDP candidates, including five who were elected - Ronin Austin, Mike Farnworth, Sue Hammell, Harry Lali and Diane Thorne.
- The most efficient campaigner among the leaders filing returns was Marc Emery, who reported campaign expenses of $100 and got 374 votes, for a cost of 27 cents for vote won. Carole James, who spent $55,000 and got 16,081 votes spent $3.40 per vote. Campbell's $177,000 in spending and lower vote total meant he had to spend more than $14 per vote.
Footnote: The pressure for political finance reform is mounting. The NDP and Greens already support a ban on union and corporate donations, and the New Democrats are now open to better controls on third party spending. The Liberals stand alone in defending the status quo.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Benefits outweigh risks in new deal for First Nations
VICTORIA - Give the Liberals' credit for a bold, somewhat risky, effort to forge a "New Relationship" with First Nations.
The five-page framework for sweeping change has been circulating through First Nations and industry for months, but has just become officially available on the government's web site.
It shows how far the Campbell government has moved since the days of the now ignored treaty referendum.
The New Relationship document promises government-to-government negotiations with First Nations. It commits the province to shared decision-making on land and resource management in areas claimed as traditional territories, and promises a share of the revenue and economic benefits. The government agrees to accept a broad definition of aboriginal title.
And the pact acknowledges that “the historical Aboriginal-Crown relationship in British Columbia has given rise to the present socio-economic disparity between First Nations and other British Columbians.”
The agreement even says that the government will work “to ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations.”
That's the kind of promise that's making industry nervous.
The big resource industry groups welcome anything that increases certainty about who owns the land and what the rules are. But they're worried, for example, about just what First Nations laws they're going to have to obey, and where those laws are written down.
And they wonder if the new revenue-sharing commitment means that the government will just cut First Nations in on a piece of the existing royalties and lease charges, or whether industry will be asked to come up with more money.
The worries have increased because this agreement was negotiated between the premier's office and the First Nations' groups. Nobody asked industry, or municipalities, MLAs, or even cabinet ministers, about how this would affect them.
That's not the only cause for concern. Premier Gordon Campbell talks about the relationship in terms of reconciliation and the overall state of life in the province. The government can't achieve its goals for health and education and the economy without a radical improvement in the lives of aboriginal people, he says.
But Ed John of the First Nations Summit, hardly a radical, says the new relationship means big changes on the ground, and an end to an era in which resource companies grew rich at the expense of First Nations.
It's always risky when two parties have such different understandings and expectations of an agreement. Someone is going to be disappointed, and perhaps angry.
Still, this is a positive step.
The Liberal government has moved a long way. In 2001, Campbell eliminated the aboriginal affairs ministry, placing the responsibility under the attorney general. (A mistake - the attorney general represents the province's legal interests. Hard-line positions are necessary in legal battles, but destructive in terms of building relationships.)
Now Tom Christensen is the new minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, reflecting the new relationship themes. The province is working with First Nations on new institutions to develop the government-to-government agreements on land use and revenue-sharing, and has promised funding to support the process.
There are risks in all this, but bigger potential rewards.
Treaty-making is proving to be slow, difficult and expensive. The resulting lack of certainty about land use has been a major drag on the B.C. economy.
And the lives of aboriginal people, as a whole, are a disgrace. Being born Indian means that it is much more likely that you will be poor, under-educated and sickly. The odds that you will end up in jail, or a suicide, are sharply higher. It's the kind of social disparity Canadians are quick to condemn in other countries.
It's time every child had a chance to make the most of the future.
The new relationship could be a start.
Footnote: The impetus for much of this work was last fall's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the province had a duty to consult First Nations before making decisions affecting lands they claimed. The level of consultation required would vary with circumstances, the court ordered, and it recommended some sort of dispute resolution method to avoid more court cases. That lead to the much broader effort.
The five-page framework for sweeping change has been circulating through First Nations and industry for months, but has just become officially available on the government's web site.
It shows how far the Campbell government has moved since the days of the now ignored treaty referendum.
The New Relationship document promises government-to-government negotiations with First Nations. It commits the province to shared decision-making on land and resource management in areas claimed as traditional territories, and promises a share of the revenue and economic benefits. The government agrees to accept a broad definition of aboriginal title.
And the pact acknowledges that “the historical Aboriginal-Crown relationship in British Columbia has given rise to the present socio-economic disparity between First Nations and other British Columbians.”
The agreement even says that the government will work “to ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations.”
That's the kind of promise that's making industry nervous.
The big resource industry groups welcome anything that increases certainty about who owns the land and what the rules are. But they're worried, for example, about just what First Nations laws they're going to have to obey, and where those laws are written down.
And they wonder if the new revenue-sharing commitment means that the government will just cut First Nations in on a piece of the existing royalties and lease charges, or whether industry will be asked to come up with more money.
The worries have increased because this agreement was negotiated between the premier's office and the First Nations' groups. Nobody asked industry, or municipalities, MLAs, or even cabinet ministers, about how this would affect them.
That's not the only cause for concern. Premier Gordon Campbell talks about the relationship in terms of reconciliation and the overall state of life in the province. The government can't achieve its goals for health and education and the economy without a radical improvement in the lives of aboriginal people, he says.
But Ed John of the First Nations Summit, hardly a radical, says the new relationship means big changes on the ground, and an end to an era in which resource companies grew rich at the expense of First Nations.
It's always risky when two parties have such different understandings and expectations of an agreement. Someone is going to be disappointed, and perhaps angry.
Still, this is a positive step.
The Liberal government has moved a long way. In 2001, Campbell eliminated the aboriginal affairs ministry, placing the responsibility under the attorney general. (A mistake - the attorney general represents the province's legal interests. Hard-line positions are necessary in legal battles, but destructive in terms of building relationships.)
Now Tom Christensen is the new minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, reflecting the new relationship themes. The province is working with First Nations on new institutions to develop the government-to-government agreements on land use and revenue-sharing, and has promised funding to support the process.
There are risks in all this, but bigger potential rewards.
Treaty-making is proving to be slow, difficult and expensive. The resulting lack of certainty about land use has been a major drag on the B.C. economy.
And the lives of aboriginal people, as a whole, are a disgrace. Being born Indian means that it is much more likely that you will be poor, under-educated and sickly. The odds that you will end up in jail, or a suicide, are sharply higher. It's the kind of social disparity Canadians are quick to condemn in other countries.
It's time every child had a chance to make the most of the future.
The new relationship could be a start.
Footnote: The impetus for much of this work was last fall's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the province had a duty to consult First Nations before making decisions affecting lands they claimed. The level of consultation required would vary with circumstances, the court ordered, and it recommended some sort of dispute resolution method to avoid more court cases. That lead to the much broader effort.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Teachers' strike looking like part of students' fall
VICTORIA - There's going to be a nasty shock this fall for parents who thought electing a Liberal government meant no school strikes.
Barring big change the battle between the BC Teachers' Federation and the government will lead to some sort of strike or job action this fall.
The campaign rhetoric left some people thinking that school strikes had been banned by the Liberals.
Not so. The Campbell government did change the law in 2002 to make education an essential service. But that doesn't mean an end to strikes.
It simple ensures that before a strike or lockout the Labour Relations Board must set essential service levels, just as in a health care dispute. Lawyers for both sides will make creative arguments about what essential means when it comes to schools, and the board will set out ground rules.
Parents won't like the results. The board has to ensure people who rely on the services aren't unduly harmed. But it also is bound to promote collective bargaining, so it sets essential service levels low enough that strikes still mean pain and an incentive for negotiations. (In the last BC Ferries job action, service on some routes to the Island was cut in half under the approved plan.)
Schools won't be open five days a week. Several districts have already gone to four-day school weeks to save money. If the government considered that acceptable, it will have a tough time arguing five days are now essential.
Two or three-day weeks, half days, combined classes, cancelled optional subjects - expect some or all of those to be part of the approved plan.
None of which will please parents. The reality is that we rely on schools for child care as well as education. For working parents, finding substitute child care will be costly, inconvenient and sometimes impossible. Businesses will be hit with higher absenteeism, and too young children will be fending for themselves.
None of this will last long. The Liberals, like the NDP government, will bring in legislation to end the strike, and ultimately impose a contract.
But it will still be a big disruption, and one that will leave some voters feeling betrayed.
Unless the union and the government find a way put aside their mutual contempt and come up with a solution that puts students first. (The union officially bargains with the BC Public School Employers' Association, but the association doesn't have the ability to address the key issues.)
So far, neither side seems willing to take the needed steps. Instead, the union and the government are fighting over issues that should be swept away.
The Liberals are all fired up about politics in the classroom, fretting about a BC Appeal Court decision giving teachers a right to talk about issues like class size in parent-teacher interviews, if they are relevant to the child. The reality is that this a non-problem. How many parents have complained after their eight-minute chat with a teacher?
And the BCTF is suing Gordon Campbell for defamation for his campaign claim that the union and the NDP had a secret plan to engineer a school strike last spring. Campbell went too far, but the case should be settled with an apology.
Even with the distractions pushed aside, it will be tough to reach an agreement. The government says the teachers must accept 0 and 0 in the first two years of the new contract, citing the wage freeze imposed just after they signed their last contract, which gave them 7.5 per cent over three years. Teachers want raises in all three years.
And the union wants a chance to negotiate class size limits and other working conditions, all previously negotiated terms of their contracts that the Liberals removed through legislation. That's not going to happen.
Both sides say they want to avoid disruption in the schools. But neither is doing much to head off the coming crash.
Footnote: There is a solution. The Wright report on teachers' bargaining completed last year outlined an alternative approach which acknowledges that teachers don't have a real right to strike, and substitutes conciliation and a form of arbitration. A future column will look at the risks and benefits of giving it a try now.
Barring big change the battle between the BC Teachers' Federation and the government will lead to some sort of strike or job action this fall.
The campaign rhetoric left some people thinking that school strikes had been banned by the Liberals.
Not so. The Campbell government did change the law in 2002 to make education an essential service. But that doesn't mean an end to strikes.
It simple ensures that before a strike or lockout the Labour Relations Board must set essential service levels, just as in a health care dispute. Lawyers for both sides will make creative arguments about what essential means when it comes to schools, and the board will set out ground rules.
Parents won't like the results. The board has to ensure people who rely on the services aren't unduly harmed. But it also is bound to promote collective bargaining, so it sets essential service levels low enough that strikes still mean pain and an incentive for negotiations. (In the last BC Ferries job action, service on some routes to the Island was cut in half under the approved plan.)
Schools won't be open five days a week. Several districts have already gone to four-day school weeks to save money. If the government considered that acceptable, it will have a tough time arguing five days are now essential.
Two or three-day weeks, half days, combined classes, cancelled optional subjects - expect some or all of those to be part of the approved plan.
None of which will please parents. The reality is that we rely on schools for child care as well as education. For working parents, finding substitute child care will be costly, inconvenient and sometimes impossible. Businesses will be hit with higher absenteeism, and too young children will be fending for themselves.
None of this will last long. The Liberals, like the NDP government, will bring in legislation to end the strike, and ultimately impose a contract.
But it will still be a big disruption, and one that will leave some voters feeling betrayed.
Unless the union and the government find a way put aside their mutual contempt and come up with a solution that puts students first. (The union officially bargains with the BC Public School Employers' Association, but the association doesn't have the ability to address the key issues.)
So far, neither side seems willing to take the needed steps. Instead, the union and the government are fighting over issues that should be swept away.
The Liberals are all fired up about politics in the classroom, fretting about a BC Appeal Court decision giving teachers a right to talk about issues like class size in parent-teacher interviews, if they are relevant to the child. The reality is that this a non-problem. How many parents have complained after their eight-minute chat with a teacher?
And the BCTF is suing Gordon Campbell for defamation for his campaign claim that the union and the NDP had a secret plan to engineer a school strike last spring. Campbell went too far, but the case should be settled with an apology.
Even with the distractions pushed aside, it will be tough to reach an agreement. The government says the teachers must accept 0 and 0 in the first two years of the new contract, citing the wage freeze imposed just after they signed their last contract, which gave them 7.5 per cent over three years. Teachers want raises in all three years.
And the union wants a chance to negotiate class size limits and other working conditions, all previously negotiated terms of their contracts that the Liberals removed through legislation. That's not going to happen.
Both sides say they want to avoid disruption in the schools. But neither is doing much to head off the coming crash.
Footnote: There is a solution. The Wright report on teachers' bargaining completed last year outlined an alternative approach which acknowledges that teachers don't have a real right to strike, and substitutes conciliation and a form of arbitration. A future column will look at the risks and benefits of giving it a try now.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Time to take the big money out of politics
VICTORIA - It was wounding to find out just how dumb the Liberal big guys think I am.
The Liberals had to report that they raked in a huge amount in corporate donations to pay for their election campaign, a potential political problem.
So they cranked their spin machines up to warp drive and sent out a press release headlined "BC Liberals work to match NDP friends' war chest." The first two-thirds of the release railed about "the outlandish third-party spending from big labour" and the Liberals' plucky underdog efforts to raise money.
And then came the news. The Liberals raised $11.4 million between Jan. 1 and election day, almost $5 million more than they got in 2001. The NDP raised barely half as much, at just under $6 million.
OK, so the Liberals had a lot more money to spend. But there were still all those union campaigns, said party chief Kelly Reichert, and the Liberals worked "tooth-and-nail for donations at the grassroots level."
Maybe, if the grassroots you're talking about are found on the fairways of ritzy country clubs.
About 80 per cent of the Liberals' donations came from corporations and other businesses. Corporate donors paid a bigger share of the bills than they did in 2001.
The NDP were largely supported by individuals, getting less than one-third of their donations from unions.
But, Reichert thundered, the NDP's total doesn't include all the money unions spent on campaigns to defeat the Liberals. More than half the individuals and groups that registered as third party advertisers in this campaign were unions.
It is true that unions, like the BCGEU and BC Teachers' Federation, spent a lot of money ato boost the NDP's prospects. But then business groups spent a lot of money - though probably not as much - boosting the Liberals' prospects. My guess is that the Liberals and their supporters will probably still be the bigger spenders, although it could be close.
And that doesn't even take into account all of your money the Liberals spent on government ads that helped the party. The Liberals secretly went $7 million over the government advertising budget last year, with most of the extra spending going for those "Best Place on Earth" ads, with their striking resemblance to the Liberal campaign ads. If you're looking for unreported political spending, that's a place to start.
The Liberals' press release on their campaign fund-raising may have been an attempt to get out in front of the story, and to spin it in a positive way. The final campaign reports - including the lists of who gave how much - won't be available from Elections BC until Monday.
Instead they looked much like the Wizard of Oz in his palace, clutching at the curtain as Toto tugs on a corner, urging Dorothy and friends to pay no attention to the small man pulling the levers. And in the process the Liberals suggested that they had something they wanted to hide. (And ensured that the donation issue would make the news twice, this week and again when the full reports are out.)
The best lesson to be taken from all this is that the rules around political fund-raising and spending in B.C. need a major overhaul. The NDP and Greens have called for B.C. to ban both corporate and union donations, following the lead of Quebec, Manitoba and the federal government.
And the public is concerned that corporate and union donors expect special treatment, and that big money, not policies or public support, drives politics. (Almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government," according to a 2000 survey.)
Meanwhile the Liberals slam union donations; the NDP complains of corporate influence; the public grows more cynical.
Surely all parties agree that it's past time to reform a system that British Columbians, of all political stripes, agree is deeply flawed.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell has said he sees no need to change the current system. It is enough that donations are disclosed, he says, allowing the public to keep decide if big donors have special influence. But government decisions are often invisible, and few citizens will plow through the lists of thousands of donors.
The Liberals had to report that they raked in a huge amount in corporate donations to pay for their election campaign, a potential political problem.
So they cranked their spin machines up to warp drive and sent out a press release headlined "BC Liberals work to match NDP friends' war chest." The first two-thirds of the release railed about "the outlandish third-party spending from big labour" and the Liberals' plucky underdog efforts to raise money.
And then came the news. The Liberals raised $11.4 million between Jan. 1 and election day, almost $5 million more than they got in 2001. The NDP raised barely half as much, at just under $6 million.
OK, so the Liberals had a lot more money to spend. But there were still all those union campaigns, said party chief Kelly Reichert, and the Liberals worked "tooth-and-nail for donations at the grassroots level."
Maybe, if the grassroots you're talking about are found on the fairways of ritzy country clubs.
About 80 per cent of the Liberals' donations came from corporations and other businesses. Corporate donors paid a bigger share of the bills than they did in 2001.
The NDP were largely supported by individuals, getting less than one-third of their donations from unions.
But, Reichert thundered, the NDP's total doesn't include all the money unions spent on campaigns to defeat the Liberals. More than half the individuals and groups that registered as third party advertisers in this campaign were unions.
It is true that unions, like the BCGEU and BC Teachers' Federation, spent a lot of money ato boost the NDP's prospects. But then business groups spent a lot of money - though probably not as much - boosting the Liberals' prospects. My guess is that the Liberals and their supporters will probably still be the bigger spenders, although it could be close.
And that doesn't even take into account all of your money the Liberals spent on government ads that helped the party. The Liberals secretly went $7 million over the government advertising budget last year, with most of the extra spending going for those "Best Place on Earth" ads, with their striking resemblance to the Liberal campaign ads. If you're looking for unreported political spending, that's a place to start.
The Liberals' press release on their campaign fund-raising may have been an attempt to get out in front of the story, and to spin it in a positive way. The final campaign reports - including the lists of who gave how much - won't be available from Elections BC until Monday.
Instead they looked much like the Wizard of Oz in his palace, clutching at the curtain as Toto tugs on a corner, urging Dorothy and friends to pay no attention to the small man pulling the levers. And in the process the Liberals suggested that they had something they wanted to hide. (And ensured that the donation issue would make the news twice, this week and again when the full reports are out.)
The best lesson to be taken from all this is that the rules around political fund-raising and spending in B.C. need a major overhaul. The NDP and Greens have called for B.C. to ban both corporate and union donations, following the lead of Quebec, Manitoba and the federal government.
And the public is concerned that corporate and union donors expect special treatment, and that big money, not policies or public support, drives politics. (Almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government," according to a 2000 survey.)
Meanwhile the Liberals slam union donations; the NDP complains of corporate influence; the public grows more cynical.
Surely all parties agree that it's past time to reform a system that British Columbians, of all political stripes, agree is deeply flawed.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell has said he sees no need to change the current system. It is enough that donations are disclosed, he says, allowing the public to keep decide if big donors have special influence. But government decisions are often invisible, and few citizens will plow through the lists of thousands of donors.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Replacement worker ban still makes sense
VICTORIA - It's helpful to think of replacement workers in terms of nuclear war.
I grew up with images of mushroom clouds, calculating the likelihood that Russia would decide to make Buffalo a target - I lived in Toronto - and whether they were competent enough to annihilate that city without accidentally melting my suburb.
The Cold War weapons race was about deterrence through mutually assured destruction. As long as the U.S. and the Soviet Union each knew that the other had enough weapons of mass destruction to ensure a nightmarish retaliation for any attack, they would behave. Give either an advantage, the theory assumes, and they would bomb the other country back to mud, rocks and ruin.
Labour relations sometimes come to the same point.
Wise unions, and wise companies, recognize the benefits of co-operation. They negotiate agreements based on compromise and common interests.
But people aren't always wise. The only thing that force some unions and employers to reach agreements is the threat of mutually assured destruction, in the form of a strike or lockout.
Unions don't want members to give up thousands of dollars in lost wages; companies don't want to see profits vanish, and customers drift to competitors. So when contract talks get tough, they compromise. If the balance of terror is right, both sides give.
Which leads to the issue of replacement workers. B.C. and Quebec are the only provinces that bar companies from bringing in replacement workers if employees go on strike. In B.C., the only people who can try to keep the business going are the managers who normally work in the building. Practically, a strike means most businesses close until the dispute is resolved.
The BC Business Council has again said it's time to reverse the 1993 ban on replacement workers. The current rules give unions too great an ability to hurt companies in the event of a strike, the council argues. That pushes wages to uncompetitive levels, and discourages investment.
There's no right answer on the question.
I managed businesses, and would have welcomed the ability to use replacement workers. The one newspaper that closed on my watch might not have fallen, I expect, saving more than 100 jobs. The unions involved miscalculated the newspaper's resources, and its ability to survive a strike. The possibility of replacement workers might have encouraged a more cautious assessment of the risks.
But anecdote is not good foundation for policy. And there are companies who would treat the ability to use replacement workers as the latest mega-bomb to use against their employees.
It's risky to mess with the status quo in labour relations; changes have big consequences. When the Harcourt government eliminated the secret ballot vote on certification in 1992, unions suddenly doubled their growth rate.
The evidence suggests the current balance of power is about right. The business council cites a study that concludes a ban on replacement workers results in more, longer strikes, higher wages and reduced investment. But the study is based largely on the experience in Quebec, which has other issues of its own. (The council plans to release its own research on the issue this fall.)
The replacement worker ban doesn't appear to be distorting wages. The average weekly wage in B.C is $700, right on the national average, with Alberta and Ontario well ahead. And the province has been through a relatively peaceful period in labour relations.
The Liberals have come to the same assessment so far. And while they have trampled all over public sector unions, Campbell and company have been cautious when it comes to the broader labour relations framework.
New Labour Minister Mike de Jong, like predecessor Graham Bruce, says he's not interested in re-opening the replacement worker question.
It's a good position. Circumstances may change, or new facts may emerge. But so far the evidence is that the balance of terror - for the unions and companies that operate on that level - is about right.
Footnote: A key reason offered for the introduction of the ban, to prevent picket line violence, still applies. Any effort by Teck Cominco, for example, to operate its struck Trail smelter, would spark ugly battles. It's troubling that the rule of law would break down, but it is also a realistic concern.
I grew up with images of mushroom clouds, calculating the likelihood that Russia would decide to make Buffalo a target - I lived in Toronto - and whether they were competent enough to annihilate that city without accidentally melting my suburb.
The Cold War weapons race was about deterrence through mutually assured destruction. As long as the U.S. and the Soviet Union each knew that the other had enough weapons of mass destruction to ensure a nightmarish retaliation for any attack, they would behave. Give either an advantage, the theory assumes, and they would bomb the other country back to mud, rocks and ruin.
Labour relations sometimes come to the same point.
Wise unions, and wise companies, recognize the benefits of co-operation. They negotiate agreements based on compromise and common interests.
But people aren't always wise. The only thing that force some unions and employers to reach agreements is the threat of mutually assured destruction, in the form of a strike or lockout.
Unions don't want members to give up thousands of dollars in lost wages; companies don't want to see profits vanish, and customers drift to competitors. So when contract talks get tough, they compromise. If the balance of terror is right, both sides give.
Which leads to the issue of replacement workers. B.C. and Quebec are the only provinces that bar companies from bringing in replacement workers if employees go on strike. In B.C., the only people who can try to keep the business going are the managers who normally work in the building. Practically, a strike means most businesses close until the dispute is resolved.
The BC Business Council has again said it's time to reverse the 1993 ban on replacement workers. The current rules give unions too great an ability to hurt companies in the event of a strike, the council argues. That pushes wages to uncompetitive levels, and discourages investment.
There's no right answer on the question.
I managed businesses, and would have welcomed the ability to use replacement workers. The one newspaper that closed on my watch might not have fallen, I expect, saving more than 100 jobs. The unions involved miscalculated the newspaper's resources, and its ability to survive a strike. The possibility of replacement workers might have encouraged a more cautious assessment of the risks.
But anecdote is not good foundation for policy. And there are companies who would treat the ability to use replacement workers as the latest mega-bomb to use against their employees.
It's risky to mess with the status quo in labour relations; changes have big consequences. When the Harcourt government eliminated the secret ballot vote on certification in 1992, unions suddenly doubled their growth rate.
The evidence suggests the current balance of power is about right. The business council cites a study that concludes a ban on replacement workers results in more, longer strikes, higher wages and reduced investment. But the study is based largely on the experience in Quebec, which has other issues of its own. (The council plans to release its own research on the issue this fall.)
The replacement worker ban doesn't appear to be distorting wages. The average weekly wage in B.C is $700, right on the national average, with Alberta and Ontario well ahead. And the province has been through a relatively peaceful period in labour relations.
The Liberals have come to the same assessment so far. And while they have trampled all over public sector unions, Campbell and company have been cautious when it comes to the broader labour relations framework.
New Labour Minister Mike de Jong, like predecessor Graham Bruce, says he's not interested in re-opening the replacement worker question.
It's a good position. Circumstances may change, or new facts may emerge. But so far the evidence is that the balance of terror - for the unions and companies that operate on that level - is about right.
Footnote: A key reason offered for the introduction of the ban, to prevent picket line violence, still applies. Any effort by Teck Cominco, for example, to operate its struck Trail smelter, would spark ugly battles. It's troubling that the rule of law would break down, but it is also a realistic concern.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Maximus problems show privatization risks
VICTORIA - You should be concerned that the private company hired to take over MSP and Pharmacare administration is already running into problems.
Maximus Inc. got the contract last year, a deal that will see the government pay the U.S. company $320 million over 10 years.
Now news has leaked out that the government has imposed penalties under the contract, because Maximus wasn’t coming close to meeting performance targets. The contract says calls should be answered in three minutes. People are waiting five times that long. New applications are supposed to processed in 20 days; more than a third took longer than 40 days. The good news is that the contract has penalty clauses, and the government has used them. (The amounts are secret, says Health Minister George Abbott. Apparently Maximus didn’t want the information known, and the government agreed to the secrecy.)
The bad news is that things have gone wrong so soon after the company’s April 1 take-over. The penalties involve service failures in April and June, when you would have expected Maximus to be pushing to show what good job it could do.
Some start-up pains are normal, the load has been heavier than expected and service was not great when the work was done in-house. Maximus says it will hire up to 40 extra people to clear the backlog, and Abbott is confident things will get better.
There is merit to the argument that it makes sense to contract out some work to specialized companies. They can spread the costs of developing computer systems over different clients, and - theoretically - become experts in the field.
The Liberal government has been keen on the idea, signing more than $1.5 billion worth of deals to contract out work once done by government employees, with more to come. They maintain the work will be done better, and cheaper.
The Maximus problems are a useful warning that things do not necessarily work out as planned. And the potential consequences are worrying.
Penalties are useful short-term weapons, and Maximus is no doubt keen to protect its reputation (despite, or perhaps because of, problems in other jurisdictions).
But ultimately the corporation needs to make money on this deal. Maximus took in $725 million last year, and made $48 million in profit. The B.C. contract is a significant piece of business for the corporation.
If penalties hurt the profitability of the B.C. operations, or the extra staff needed to meet the commitments cost too much, managers will be expected to fix the business problem. Since revenue is limited by the contract, the only option is to cut costs. (I speak from experience as a former corporate guy.)
And while the 27 performance standards in the contract are intended to protect service levels, operators will find shortcuts not covered by the contract.
When it comes to this deal, that's an acceptable risk. Even if there are problems, the consequences are manageable.
But that's not true for all contracting out efforts.
Take the BC NurseLine service, currently slated for privatization, with Maximus considered the front-runner to win the $135-million, 10-year contract.
The NurseLine is valuable. Nurses are available around-the-clock on a toll-free line to answer health questions. They can reassure a worried parent, promote prevention and head off unnecessary emergency room visits. It provides better, cheaper healthy care, fielding about 700 calls a day.
The service has been managed by E-Comm, the non-profit agency that provides 911 services in southwestern B.C. Abbott says E-Comm turned down a government offer to continue the service, leading to the privatization plan.
But the consequences of performance problems are much more serious with NurseLine, and many other services. A corporate operator under pressure to cut costs could compromise the line's value in fundamental ways.
Privatization often makes sense. But not always.
And given the sensitivity of the issues with NurseLine and the problems with the existing Maximus contract, it's hard to see why the government is prepared to sign a 10-year contract with a private operator.
Footnote: It's puzzling that the government hasn't worked harder to expand NurseLine's use. Emergency rooms could all have phone banks to let visitors call the line as an alternative to waiting for service; non-urgent cases could be required to show they had called the service before receiving treatment.
Maximus Inc. got the contract last year, a deal that will see the government pay the U.S. company $320 million over 10 years.
Now news has leaked out that the government has imposed penalties under the contract, because Maximus wasn’t coming close to meeting performance targets. The contract says calls should be answered in three minutes. People are waiting five times that long. New applications are supposed to processed in 20 days; more than a third took longer than 40 days. The good news is that the contract has penalty clauses, and the government has used them. (The amounts are secret, says Health Minister George Abbott. Apparently Maximus didn’t want the information known, and the government agreed to the secrecy.)
The bad news is that things have gone wrong so soon after the company’s April 1 take-over. The penalties involve service failures in April and June, when you would have expected Maximus to be pushing to show what good job it could do.
Some start-up pains are normal, the load has been heavier than expected and service was not great when the work was done in-house. Maximus says it will hire up to 40 extra people to clear the backlog, and Abbott is confident things will get better.
There is merit to the argument that it makes sense to contract out some work to specialized companies. They can spread the costs of developing computer systems over different clients, and - theoretically - become experts in the field.
The Liberal government has been keen on the idea, signing more than $1.5 billion worth of deals to contract out work once done by government employees, with more to come. They maintain the work will be done better, and cheaper.
The Maximus problems are a useful warning that things do not necessarily work out as planned. And the potential consequences are worrying.
Penalties are useful short-term weapons, and Maximus is no doubt keen to protect its reputation (despite, or perhaps because of, problems in other jurisdictions).
But ultimately the corporation needs to make money on this deal. Maximus took in $725 million last year, and made $48 million in profit. The B.C. contract is a significant piece of business for the corporation.
If penalties hurt the profitability of the B.C. operations, or the extra staff needed to meet the commitments cost too much, managers will be expected to fix the business problem. Since revenue is limited by the contract, the only option is to cut costs. (I speak from experience as a former corporate guy.)
And while the 27 performance standards in the contract are intended to protect service levels, operators will find shortcuts not covered by the contract.
When it comes to this deal, that's an acceptable risk. Even if there are problems, the consequences are manageable.
But that's not true for all contracting out efforts.
Take the BC NurseLine service, currently slated for privatization, with Maximus considered the front-runner to win the $135-million, 10-year contract.
The NurseLine is valuable. Nurses are available around-the-clock on a toll-free line to answer health questions. They can reassure a worried parent, promote prevention and head off unnecessary emergency room visits. It provides better, cheaper healthy care, fielding about 700 calls a day.
The service has been managed by E-Comm, the non-profit agency that provides 911 services in southwestern B.C. Abbott says E-Comm turned down a government offer to continue the service, leading to the privatization plan.
But the consequences of performance problems are much more serious with NurseLine, and many other services. A corporate operator under pressure to cut costs could compromise the line's value in fundamental ways.
Privatization often makes sense. But not always.
And given the sensitivity of the issues with NurseLine and the problems with the existing Maximus contract, it's hard to see why the government is prepared to sign a 10-year contract with a private operator.
Footnote: It's puzzling that the government hasn't worked harder to expand NurseLine's use. Emergency rooms could all have phone banks to let visitors call the line as an alternative to waiting for service; non-urgent cases could be required to show they had called the service before receiving treatment.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Children and families failing, says the front line
VICTORIA - The people at the front end, locked in the daily struggle to help children, families and troubled teens, they say the government has messed things up.
Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley talked to them to prepare the "Asking Questions" review. It's not, she says, her report. The message is based on more than 100 interviews and meetings across the province with the people and agencies who do the work.
It's grim. Families who need help to avoid tragedy can't get it, because there's no money or time. Scared teens who want to kick their addictions are turned away, because there's no treatment programs. Young adults suffering from fetal alcohol effect are launched alone into the world at 18, to become criminals, addicts, prey. A little continued support and their lives would be saved (and taxpayers would be spared the far more costly consequences of their later disasters).
There are successes, and these people are proud of what do. But they say the wins come despite the government's role, which has been to drive budget cuts and a mismanaged re-organization.
This is a testing time for Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen.
The government line has maintained that everything is fine, the resources are in place and the situation is well in hand.
Now the people on the front line say that is not true.
“Service providers described a chronic lack of funds sufficient to provide quality, consistent, timely and necessary services,” Morley reports. “Many service providers expressed a belief that the government's agenda is simply to reduce spending, rather than ensuring that the needs and interests of children are met.”
Yes, these people - some ministry staff, some from contract agencies - have their own interests. But Morley says they spoke from the heart, and the message needs to be heard.
The reality is that the ministry budget is seven-per-cent lower this year than it was when the Liberals were elected. Figure even a small amount for inflation, and you find it would take $250 million in extra funding to get back to the former commitment.
Money spent is not a measure of effectiveness.
But the reforms that were supposed to allow the reduced spending have not, for the most part, been put in place.
Clients, workers and almost anyone else involved with the system have warned that the cuts were hurting children and families.
And now the people who do the terribly difficult work say we've cut the budget so much that people can't be helped. (The Liberals acknowledged that the ministry was underfunded before they made their cuts. In opposition Gordon Campbell said the budget was inadequate, and urged the NDP to increase it. )
The government could argue that better support and protection for children and families is not affordable, or a priority.
But there's an economic problem with that argument. The report raises the idea of a vicious circle. The government doesn't provide enough support to deal with problems when they're small, which leads to much greater future costs, further reducing the money available for prevention. There is nothing more expensive than responding to each new crisis, instead of dealing with the causes.
And there's a moral problem. These people - the young addict, the neglected child, the scared mother - have one thing in common. They need help that we can provide.
None of this should be about politics. The NDP mismanaged the children and families ministry badly, and so have the Liberals. The ministry has had eight ministers in the last nine years, including three different political masters in the Liberals' four years.
Right now, Hagen faces a challenge. He can dismiss the observations and analysis of the people doing the work, using whatever justification.
Or he acknowledge the serious problems, and explain what he will do to begin to deal with them.
Children and families across the province are waiting on the decision.
Footnote: Morley confessed to some nervousness in releasing the report, fearing that the negative assessment may encourage cynicism and reduce hope about the prospects for improvement. She concluded, rightly, that the problems have to be raised, and that the people on the front lines are the core strength of the system.
Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley talked to them to prepare the "Asking Questions" review. It's not, she says, her report. The message is based on more than 100 interviews and meetings across the province with the people and agencies who do the work.
It's grim. Families who need help to avoid tragedy can't get it, because there's no money or time. Scared teens who want to kick their addictions are turned away, because there's no treatment programs. Young adults suffering from fetal alcohol effect are launched alone into the world at 18, to become criminals, addicts, prey. A little continued support and their lives would be saved (and taxpayers would be spared the far more costly consequences of their later disasters).
There are successes, and these people are proud of what do. But they say the wins come despite the government's role, which has been to drive budget cuts and a mismanaged re-organization.
This is a testing time for Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen.
The government line has maintained that everything is fine, the resources are in place and the situation is well in hand.
Now the people on the front line say that is not true.
“Service providers described a chronic lack of funds sufficient to provide quality, consistent, timely and necessary services,” Morley reports. “Many service providers expressed a belief that the government's agenda is simply to reduce spending, rather than ensuring that the needs and interests of children are met.”
Yes, these people - some ministry staff, some from contract agencies - have their own interests. But Morley says they spoke from the heart, and the message needs to be heard.
The reality is that the ministry budget is seven-per-cent lower this year than it was when the Liberals were elected. Figure even a small amount for inflation, and you find it would take $250 million in extra funding to get back to the former commitment.
Money spent is not a measure of effectiveness.
But the reforms that were supposed to allow the reduced spending have not, for the most part, been put in place.
Clients, workers and almost anyone else involved with the system have warned that the cuts were hurting children and families.
And now the people who do the terribly difficult work say we've cut the budget so much that people can't be helped. (The Liberals acknowledged that the ministry was underfunded before they made their cuts. In opposition Gordon Campbell said the budget was inadequate, and urged the NDP to increase it. )
The government could argue that better support and protection for children and families is not affordable, or a priority.
But there's an economic problem with that argument. The report raises the idea of a vicious circle. The government doesn't provide enough support to deal with problems when they're small, which leads to much greater future costs, further reducing the money available for prevention. There is nothing more expensive than responding to each new crisis, instead of dealing with the causes.
And there's a moral problem. These people - the young addict, the neglected child, the scared mother - have one thing in common. They need help that we can provide.
None of this should be about politics. The NDP mismanaged the children and families ministry badly, and so have the Liberals. The ministry has had eight ministers in the last nine years, including three different political masters in the Liberals' four years.
Right now, Hagen faces a challenge. He can dismiss the observations and analysis of the people doing the work, using whatever justification.
Or he acknowledge the serious problems, and explain what he will do to begin to deal with them.
Children and families across the province are waiting on the decision.
Footnote: Morley confessed to some nervousness in releasing the report, fearing that the negative assessment may encourage cynicism and reduce hope about the prospects for improvement. She concluded, rightly, that the problems have to be raised, and that the people on the front lines are the core strength of the system.
Friday, August 05, 2005
More answers in the sad case of Sherry Charlie
VICTORIA - Two weeks after releasing a five-page summary of its review of the death of 19-month-old Sherry Charlie, the government changed course and made the full report public.
And the full version revealed significant omissions in the summary.
Sherry was battered to death almost three years ago, days after being placed in the care of relatives under a new ministry policy. The man who beat her, the father in the Port Alberni home, had a long and violent criminal record. He was on probation for assaulting his spouse. The children’s ministry had already investigated concerns about the well-being of other children in the home.
Sherry wasn't properly protected.
There's no shattering differences between the summary and the full report on most of the facts.
But the ministry's summary left out significant context about how this came to happen, and what needs to be done prevent similar cases.
The summary reported that Usma Nuu Chah Nulth Community Services, acting on the authority of the ministry, placed Sherry in the home of her uncle, the man convicted of manslaughter in her death. (The ministry believes - rightly - that placing a child with family is generally preferable to foster care with non-relatives.)
The agency had not done a criminal record check. It had done only one reference check. It had contacted the ministry to find out if there were any previous concerns about the home. There were, but the ministry didn't tell the agency about them.
The whole process was new to all concerned. The government had just proclaimed the sections of a six-year-old act that set up a separate, less involved procedure for placing children with family and friends as an alternative to foster care. Sherry was the first child the Nuu Chah Nulth Agency placed under the new policy.
The summary acknowledged problems. "The newness of the policy, the lack of training and the lack of clarity on the requirements contributed to some confusion in the agency," it said.
But the report adds useful detail. The six-page policy was faxed to the agency that summer, with no follow-up or training, and the language suggested the guidelines were optional.
And it adds context about the change. "It was introduced in 2002 as an element of MCFD's new strategic shift, placing more onus on communities (families, informal support networks) to care for children, to reduce the number of children in foster care by a specific percentage and, in the opinion of the review to reduce costs," the report says.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen disagrees with the report. Placing Sherry in foster care would have been less costly, he notes, since the federal government would have paid.
But the finding is consistent with other, similar concerns about the ministry's direction, and it is relevant. It should have been disclosed.
Just as the report's observations about the wider issues that led to the case should have been disclosed. The report notes sherry was from Ahousat, a small island community about 40 minutes from Port Alberni by boat.
"The resources available to social workers in small, isolated communities are often woefully inadequate; there are often waiting lists for alcohol and drug treatment programs, day care facilities are inadequate, family support programs do not address underlying social problems," says the full report. "The lack of resources and the isolation result in agencies having difficulty supervising the progress or lack of progress a family is making."
To me, that's important enough to make the summary.
Hagen has, to his credit, acted to deal with the obvious perceived conflict involved in having ministry staff summarize reports that may be critical of their actions. Future reports will simply be released in full, subject to editing for privacy issues.
But the three-year delay, the reluctant disclosure and the missing information are all troubling.
Things are going to go wrong sometimes in this ministry.
What the public, the children and families served, and the people on the front lines all deserve is quick, full disclosure, and fast action to fix any problems.
Footnote: Sherry's brother remained in the home for five months after her death on Sept. 4. The summary said "between September, 2002, and January, 2003, the agency and ministry received information that the coroner was suspicious about the explanation for the child’s death." The full report shows the ministry was told Sherry's death was suspicious on Sept. 17.
And the full version revealed significant omissions in the summary.
Sherry was battered to death almost three years ago, days after being placed in the care of relatives under a new ministry policy. The man who beat her, the father in the Port Alberni home, had a long and violent criminal record. He was on probation for assaulting his spouse. The children’s ministry had already investigated concerns about the well-being of other children in the home.
Sherry wasn't properly protected.
There's no shattering differences between the summary and the full report on most of the facts.
But the ministry's summary left out significant context about how this came to happen, and what needs to be done prevent similar cases.
The summary reported that Usma Nuu Chah Nulth Community Services, acting on the authority of the ministry, placed Sherry in the home of her uncle, the man convicted of manslaughter in her death. (The ministry believes - rightly - that placing a child with family is generally preferable to foster care with non-relatives.)
The agency had not done a criminal record check. It had done only one reference check. It had contacted the ministry to find out if there were any previous concerns about the home. There were, but the ministry didn't tell the agency about them.
The whole process was new to all concerned. The government had just proclaimed the sections of a six-year-old act that set up a separate, less involved procedure for placing children with family and friends as an alternative to foster care. Sherry was the first child the Nuu Chah Nulth Agency placed under the new policy.
The summary acknowledged problems. "The newness of the policy, the lack of training and the lack of clarity on the requirements contributed to some confusion in the agency," it said.
But the report adds useful detail. The six-page policy was faxed to the agency that summer, with no follow-up or training, and the language suggested the guidelines were optional.
And it adds context about the change. "It was introduced in 2002 as an element of MCFD's new strategic shift, placing more onus on communities (families, informal support networks) to care for children, to reduce the number of children in foster care by a specific percentage and, in the opinion of the review to reduce costs," the report says.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen disagrees with the report. Placing Sherry in foster care would have been less costly, he notes, since the federal government would have paid.
But the finding is consistent with other, similar concerns about the ministry's direction, and it is relevant. It should have been disclosed.
Just as the report's observations about the wider issues that led to the case should have been disclosed. The report notes sherry was from Ahousat, a small island community about 40 minutes from Port Alberni by boat.
"The resources available to social workers in small, isolated communities are often woefully inadequate; there are often waiting lists for alcohol and drug treatment programs, day care facilities are inadequate, family support programs do not address underlying social problems," says the full report. "The lack of resources and the isolation result in agencies having difficulty supervising the progress or lack of progress a family is making."
To me, that's important enough to make the summary.
Hagen has, to his credit, acted to deal with the obvious perceived conflict involved in having ministry staff summarize reports that may be critical of their actions. Future reports will simply be released in full, subject to editing for privacy issues.
But the three-year delay, the reluctant disclosure and the missing information are all troubling.
Things are going to go wrong sometimes in this ministry.
What the public, the children and families served, and the people on the front lines all deserve is quick, full disclosure, and fast action to fix any problems.
Footnote: Sherry's brother remained in the home for five months after her death on Sept. 4. The summary said "between September, 2002, and January, 2003, the agency and ministry received information that the coroner was suspicious about the explanation for the child’s death." The full report shows the ministry was told Sherry's death was suspicious on Sept. 17.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
U.S. war on drugs belongs on other side of the border
VICTORIA - Do the crime, do the time.
That's a fair starting point for looking at the plight of Marc Emery, Vancouver's high-profile marijuana activist. The Americans have come gunning for Emery - with the help of Canadian police and prosecutors - and want to take him across the border and lock him up for a long time.
Look a little harder at the issues, and the picture changes.
Emery has been running a big marijuana seed business, with a catalogue that reads like a brochure for an upscale wine shop. His business is effectively legal in Canada. The law banning the sale of seeds hasn't been enforced since 1968, and Emery has been selling at his store and through multi-page magazine ads without any police action.
But Emery has also been selling seeds to customers in the U.S., and the Americans have spent years - and a pile of money - building a case against him.
On one hand Emery apparently made the decision to send seeds into the U.S., despite the obvious risks. (None of this has been proven, but there haven't been a lot of denials.) Decisions, especially bad ones, have consequences.
But the case isn't quite so simple.
Start with the legal issues. Canada and the U.S. have extradition treaties that make it easy to yank people across the border to face charges. Prosecutors just have to show is that there is enough evidence to justify a trial - whether a conviction is likely or not - and the suspect is on his way.
But the treaties say that people can't be extradited for offences that aren't considered crimes in their own country.
That raises one likely argument. The law against selling seeds is on the books in Canada, but unenforced. Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to remove marijuana possession from the Criminal Code. Emery can make a good case that what he has been doing is no longer illegal in Canada, and he shouldn't face extradition. In Canada, there is no effective penalty for selling seeds. In the U.S., Emery and the two other people charged face a minimum term of 10 years, and the possibility of life behind bars. It's the kind of disparity that should raise doubts about the extradition request.
There are other questions.
While Canada has a legal obligation to respond to extradition applications once the U.S. has gathered the evidence, Canadian police and prosecutors still have the right to decide how much time they're prepared to devote to helping make the case.
When the U.S. police and prosecutors asked for help in investigating Emery, their Canadian counterparts could have politely declined.
That would have been a legitimate response. When DEA officers want to operate in Canada, they first need RCMP consent, and are shadowed by Canadian officers. It's time-consuming and diverts effort from other priorities. In the past Canadian police have just said no when the targets didn't justify the commitment.
Common sense says they should have said no this time, rather than spending almost a year working with American officers. After all, they hadn't considered the seed sales a priority for the last decade. The public, based on most polls, doesn't consider it important.
And there are a lot of crime problems that do need tackling, from meth labs to gang activity to violent assaults.
The U.S. government has been waging a costly, ineffective war on drugs for decades. The approach - trying to reduce supply, and lock up offenders - has accomplished nothing. Twenty years ago there were about 80,000 drug offenders in U.S. jails; now there are 400,000, at a cost of $16 billion a year.
Addiction, death, crime and prisoners have all increased. The Americans are, of course, free to choose their response to drug use, no matter how irrational.
But the Canadian government doesn't have to sign on as partners helping bring a ineffective, destructive war on drugs across the border.
Footnote: One reason for Canadian police co-operation with the DEA is their belief that if they don't agree, the U.S. officers will go ahead illegally. The BC Supreme Court tossed out an extradition request in 2002 because of DEA wrongdoing in Canada. "The illegal conduct is extremely offensive because of the violation of Canadian sovereignty without explanation or apology," the court found.
That's a fair starting point for looking at the plight of Marc Emery, Vancouver's high-profile marijuana activist. The Americans have come gunning for Emery - with the help of Canadian police and prosecutors - and want to take him across the border and lock him up for a long time.
Look a little harder at the issues, and the picture changes.
Emery has been running a big marijuana seed business, with a catalogue that reads like a brochure for an upscale wine shop. His business is effectively legal in Canada. The law banning the sale of seeds hasn't been enforced since 1968, and Emery has been selling at his store and through multi-page magazine ads without any police action.
But Emery has also been selling seeds to customers in the U.S., and the Americans have spent years - and a pile of money - building a case against him.
On one hand Emery apparently made the decision to send seeds into the U.S., despite the obvious risks. (None of this has been proven, but there haven't been a lot of denials.) Decisions, especially bad ones, have consequences.
But the case isn't quite so simple.
Start with the legal issues. Canada and the U.S. have extradition treaties that make it easy to yank people across the border to face charges. Prosecutors just have to show is that there is enough evidence to justify a trial - whether a conviction is likely or not - and the suspect is on his way.
But the treaties say that people can't be extradited for offences that aren't considered crimes in their own country.
That raises one likely argument. The law against selling seeds is on the books in Canada, but unenforced. Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to remove marijuana possession from the Criminal Code. Emery can make a good case that what he has been doing is no longer illegal in Canada, and he shouldn't face extradition. In Canada, there is no effective penalty for selling seeds. In the U.S., Emery and the two other people charged face a minimum term of 10 years, and the possibility of life behind bars. It's the kind of disparity that should raise doubts about the extradition request.
There are other questions.
While Canada has a legal obligation to respond to extradition applications once the U.S. has gathered the evidence, Canadian police and prosecutors still have the right to decide how much time they're prepared to devote to helping make the case.
When the U.S. police and prosecutors asked for help in investigating Emery, their Canadian counterparts could have politely declined.
That would have been a legitimate response. When DEA officers want to operate in Canada, they first need RCMP consent, and are shadowed by Canadian officers. It's time-consuming and diverts effort from other priorities. In the past Canadian police have just said no when the targets didn't justify the commitment.
Common sense says they should have said no this time, rather than spending almost a year working with American officers. After all, they hadn't considered the seed sales a priority for the last decade. The public, based on most polls, doesn't consider it important.
And there are a lot of crime problems that do need tackling, from meth labs to gang activity to violent assaults.
The U.S. government has been waging a costly, ineffective war on drugs for decades. The approach - trying to reduce supply, and lock up offenders - has accomplished nothing. Twenty years ago there were about 80,000 drug offenders in U.S. jails; now there are 400,000, at a cost of $16 billion a year.
Addiction, death, crime and prisoners have all increased. The Americans are, of course, free to choose their response to drug use, no matter how irrational.
But the Canadian government doesn't have to sign on as partners helping bring a ineffective, destructive war on drugs across the border.
Footnote: One reason for Canadian police co-operation with the DEA is their belief that if they don't agree, the U.S. officers will go ahead illegally. The BC Supreme Court tossed out an extradition request in 2002 because of DEA wrongdoing in Canada. "The illegal conduct is extremely offensive because of the violation of Canadian sovereignty without explanation or apology," the court found.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
A father’s advice, on the eve of war with Daneland
VICTORIA - Son, I know you’re ready to serve your country.
Art school is fine. Perhaps you’ll go back there some day.
But right now, it’s important to stand up to the Danish war machine, before they launch a sneak attack from Daneland and crush the non-existent inhabitants of Hans Island.
No, that’s not near Saltspring. Don’t you students watch the news?
Hans Island is in the north somewhere between Greenland and some Canadian cold place. Defence Minister Bill Graham angered the war-mongering, cheese-loving Danes when he flew over the island in a helicopter and, in a rare carefree moment, said ‘Hey, let’s land on that rock and take some pictures.
Provocation, the Danes whined, scoffing their fancy open-faced eel sandwiches. Eel sandwiches, son. These people are barbarians, who have never even grasped the concept that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.
Now the Danes are ready to do battle to try and take away an important Canadian rocky outcrop, which they falsely claim as their own.
Sure, Hans Island is nothing special. A flat rock in a cold ocean, about 100 metres wide and 3,000 metres long. Even birds aren’t dumb enough to live there, and based on that penguin movie they are not picky.
But darn it, son, Bill Graham says it belongs to us. And if we aren’t willing to support a man who has spent a lifetime travelling the world preaching the Gospel in overheated arenas, can we really be Canadians?
Yes, it’s a useless lump of rock today.
But wait a few centuries and global warming will turn Hans Rock into a strategic must-have, our government says. Cruise ships and oil tankers will be booting it through the Northwest Passage as if it was a police-free shortcut home from the bar on Friday night.
Hans Island could be our toll booth, or help us protect the environment, or something. And maybe there’s oil, or kryptonite, waiting to be discovered.
Anyway, that’s not the point, son. This is about sovereignty, and national pride.
Those Danes are laughing at us, an insult made more cruel because of their normal melancholy. They’re taking breaks from watching their beloved women’s handball games to sneer at our way of life, wandering around with their freakishly large dogs, munching their beloved Danish pastries, telling each other Canadian jokes.
They’ve been tormenting us for years, those Victor Borge loving lowlanders.
Consider Ole Kirk Christansen, his company supposedly making ironing boards, stepladders and wooden toys, flying under the radar. In 1955 Christansen struck, unleashing Lego. Three generations of Canadian parents have spent the best years of their lives on their knees each evening, picking up hundreds of tiny plastic blocks, inevitably missing the ones that will later stab into their heels.
The coming conflict won’t be easy, son. It took Germany less than four hours to conquer Denmark in 1940, but we aren’t Germany. Denmark has about twice as many tanks as Canada, and air and sea forces are evenly matched. (Although we outnumber them six to one in population.) We need to negotiate rules of engagement that allow some sort of time-out if anybody gets hurt or one of our submarines catches on fire.
I know what you’re thinking, son.
Is this really your fight? How come I’m talking so tough for somebody who never fought anyone? Where is Daneland? What don’t Graham and his Danish counterpart fight this out on the island, with an appropriate split of the pay-per-view money? What’s with all the question marks?
But ultimately this is simple. The enemy isn’t just trying to take our freedom, or extract some revenge because Aqua was a global one-hit wonder. (Though Barbie Girl was catchy.) No, they hate our freedom, and our liberty.
It’s tough to go to war.
It’s especially tough when the whole conflict would have been ignored if it wasn’t summer and the media desperately short of real news stories.
But life is cruel. Good luck, son. Bring us back some cheese.
Footnote: The Danes have a secret weapon - “hygge.” Hygge is a Danish term for a happy life, suggesting a "warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling of well-being," a life of good food, good company, wine, nice furniture, good music. The risk, of course, is that our brave young warriors may end up lounging on an oiled teak chaise, knocking back Aquavit and herring. Be strong, son.
Art school is fine. Perhaps you’ll go back there some day.
But right now, it’s important to stand up to the Danish war machine, before they launch a sneak attack from Daneland and crush the non-existent inhabitants of Hans Island.
No, that’s not near Saltspring. Don’t you students watch the news?
Hans Island is in the north somewhere between Greenland and some Canadian cold place. Defence Minister Bill Graham angered the war-mongering, cheese-loving Danes when he flew over the island in a helicopter and, in a rare carefree moment, said ‘Hey, let’s land on that rock and take some pictures.
Provocation, the Danes whined, scoffing their fancy open-faced eel sandwiches. Eel sandwiches, son. These people are barbarians, who have never even grasped the concept that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.
Now the Danes are ready to do battle to try and take away an important Canadian rocky outcrop, which they falsely claim as their own.
Sure, Hans Island is nothing special. A flat rock in a cold ocean, about 100 metres wide and 3,000 metres long. Even birds aren’t dumb enough to live there, and based on that penguin movie they are not picky.
But darn it, son, Bill Graham says it belongs to us. And if we aren’t willing to support a man who has spent a lifetime travelling the world preaching the Gospel in overheated arenas, can we really be Canadians?
Yes, it’s a useless lump of rock today.
But wait a few centuries and global warming will turn Hans Rock into a strategic must-have, our government says. Cruise ships and oil tankers will be booting it through the Northwest Passage as if it was a police-free shortcut home from the bar on Friday night.
Hans Island could be our toll booth, or help us protect the environment, or something. And maybe there’s oil, or kryptonite, waiting to be discovered.
Anyway, that’s not the point, son. This is about sovereignty, and national pride.
Those Danes are laughing at us, an insult made more cruel because of their normal melancholy. They’re taking breaks from watching their beloved women’s handball games to sneer at our way of life, wandering around with their freakishly large dogs, munching their beloved Danish pastries, telling each other Canadian jokes.
They’ve been tormenting us for years, those Victor Borge loving lowlanders.
Consider Ole Kirk Christansen, his company supposedly making ironing boards, stepladders and wooden toys, flying under the radar. In 1955 Christansen struck, unleashing Lego. Three generations of Canadian parents have spent the best years of their lives on their knees each evening, picking up hundreds of tiny plastic blocks, inevitably missing the ones that will later stab into their heels.
The coming conflict won’t be easy, son. It took Germany less than four hours to conquer Denmark in 1940, but we aren’t Germany. Denmark has about twice as many tanks as Canada, and air and sea forces are evenly matched. (Although we outnumber them six to one in population.) We need to negotiate rules of engagement that allow some sort of time-out if anybody gets hurt or one of our submarines catches on fire.
I know what you’re thinking, son.
Is this really your fight? How come I’m talking so tough for somebody who never fought anyone? Where is Daneland? What don’t Graham and his Danish counterpart fight this out on the island, with an appropriate split of the pay-per-view money? What’s with all the question marks?
But ultimately this is simple. The enemy isn’t just trying to take our freedom, or extract some revenge because Aqua was a global one-hit wonder. (Though Barbie Girl was catchy.) No, they hate our freedom, and our liberty.
It’s tough to go to war.
It’s especially tough when the whole conflict would have been ignored if it wasn’t summer and the media desperately short of real news stories.
But life is cruel. Good luck, son. Bring us back some cheese.
Footnote: The Danes have a secret weapon - “hygge.” Hygge is a Danish term for a happy life, suggesting a "warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling of well-being," a life of good food, good company, wine, nice furniture, good music. The risk, of course, is that our brave young warriors may end up lounging on an oiled teak chaise, knocking back Aquavit and herring. Be strong, son.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Here's what so bad - and good - about being a politician
VICTORIA - Almost 60 per cent of Canadians say there's no way they want their son or daughter to become prime minister.
And two-thirds don't want their children to go into politics at all.
The concern about being prime minister is understandable. It's a hard job.
I sat beside Jean Chretien at a dinner when he was about three years into his first term, as things were falling apart in the former Yugoslavia. It was a big problem, he said. If I send Canadian soldiers, some of them will be killed. If I don't send them, people will be massacred. Tough decision.
Chretien seemed like a decent, worried human being that night - even if things later went wrong. (I'm not a soft touch. A couple of encounters with Brian Mulroney just left me feeling like I needed a shower.)
The poll suggests a concern that goes beyond the workload and tough decisions. Elected office has become disreputable, like being a hung-over salesman in one of those used-car lots that opens on Thursday and is gone by the end of the weekend.
I write mostly about provincial politics, and the MLAs I've met have all been people who got involved because they wanted to make life better in their communities.They won the nomination because they were good organizers, and seen as smart, fair and able to bring people together. They won the election because a lot of people thought they would do the best job. Being an MLA pays $75,400; many of them took a pay cut, most abandoned careers and turned their lives upside down.
But then things fell apart.
Look at the way politicians talk about each other. Liberal cabinet ministers accuse New Democrat MLAs of wanting to drive everyone in the province on to welfare, and the New Democrats come up with equally outrageous slurs. (Stephen Harper and Paul Martin and their minions are even worse.)
If politicians treat each other with public contempt, braying their way through debates, is it any wonder that polls find that they are are held in low regard? If they say the people on the other side lack honesty, decency and compassion, why shouldn't people believe them?
I don't understand what happens to people who get elected.
They're reasonable, smart, forthright, people of integrity, respected in their communities because they listen, and can build consensus. And they get elected and lose their minds. If the premier says the sky is purple - or that the government hasn't expanded gambling - they agree.
And then there is my small role in all this. A likable Liberal asked recently - again - about why I was so hard on the government.
My columns are generally about things that have gone wrong. I figure that's your expectation as a reader. What matters to you are the problems that need to be fixed. You expect that services will be delivered competently; that's why you pay taxes. If things have gone wrong, you want to know. (I take heart from the fact that the same people now disgruntled about the columns were big fans back when the focus was on NDP missteps,)
I am possibly the last naive person working in the rather splendid legislature building. So my hope is that when the new crop of MLAs arrives in September, they'll behave in a way that reflects their personal values, and the qualities that led their fellow citizens to send them to Victoria.
That's all it would take. The next poll, in a year or two, would find a lot more parents keen on their children growing up to be politicians.
It can be a great job. We all have the chance to change a few lives.
But our elected representatives, MLAs and MPs, have the chance to change thousands, millions of lives.
Nothing in society should be more important, or more valued.
Footnote: The real issue may be around MLAs' divided loyalties, between the people in the riding who elected them, and the premier who has so much control over their ability to be effective. And the real solution may lie in the kind of electoral reform that 58 per cent of British Columbians supported in the May referendum. Campbell's response is expected within the next few months.
And two-thirds don't want their children to go into politics at all.
The concern about being prime minister is understandable. It's a hard job.
I sat beside Jean Chretien at a dinner when he was about three years into his first term, as things were falling apart in the former Yugoslavia. It was a big problem, he said. If I send Canadian soldiers, some of them will be killed. If I don't send them, people will be massacred. Tough decision.
Chretien seemed like a decent, worried human being that night - even if things later went wrong. (I'm not a soft touch. A couple of encounters with Brian Mulroney just left me feeling like I needed a shower.)
The poll suggests a concern that goes beyond the workload and tough decisions. Elected office has become disreputable, like being a hung-over salesman in one of those used-car lots that opens on Thursday and is gone by the end of the weekend.
I write mostly about provincial politics, and the MLAs I've met have all been people who got involved because they wanted to make life better in their communities.They won the nomination because they were good organizers, and seen as smart, fair and able to bring people together. They won the election because a lot of people thought they would do the best job. Being an MLA pays $75,400; many of them took a pay cut, most abandoned careers and turned their lives upside down.
But then things fell apart.
Look at the way politicians talk about each other. Liberal cabinet ministers accuse New Democrat MLAs of wanting to drive everyone in the province on to welfare, and the New Democrats come up with equally outrageous slurs. (Stephen Harper and Paul Martin and their minions are even worse.)
If politicians treat each other with public contempt, braying their way through debates, is it any wonder that polls find that they are are held in low regard? If they say the people on the other side lack honesty, decency and compassion, why shouldn't people believe them?
I don't understand what happens to people who get elected.
They're reasonable, smart, forthright, people of integrity, respected in their communities because they listen, and can build consensus. And they get elected and lose their minds. If the premier says the sky is purple - or that the government hasn't expanded gambling - they agree.
And then there is my small role in all this. A likable Liberal asked recently - again - about why I was so hard on the government.
My columns are generally about things that have gone wrong. I figure that's your expectation as a reader. What matters to you are the problems that need to be fixed. You expect that services will be delivered competently; that's why you pay taxes. If things have gone wrong, you want to know. (I take heart from the fact that the same people now disgruntled about the columns were big fans back when the focus was on NDP missteps,)
I am possibly the last naive person working in the rather splendid legislature building. So my hope is that when the new crop of MLAs arrives in September, they'll behave in a way that reflects their personal values, and the qualities that led their fellow citizens to send them to Victoria.
That's all it would take. The next poll, in a year or two, would find a lot more parents keen on their children growing up to be politicians.
It can be a great job. We all have the chance to change a few lives.
But our elected representatives, MLAs and MPs, have the chance to change thousands, millions of lives.
Nothing in society should be more important, or more valued.
Footnote: The real issue may be around MLAs' divided loyalties, between the people in the riding who elected them, and the premier who has so much control over their ability to be effective. And the real solution may lie in the kind of electoral reform that 58 per cent of British Columbians supported in the May referendum. Campbell's response is expected within the next few months.
Bingo hall slots rake in cash, promote addictions
VICTORIA - The B.C. government's push to create more losers is going well.
Gambling losers, that is.
The government has set out to increase both the number of gamblers, and their individual losses.
The numbers are just in on the latest tactic, locating addictive slot machines in community bingo halls around the province.
It's working. The BC Lottery Corp. reports that in the first four months after slots appeared in the Williams Lake bingo hall, people lost $2.4 million to the machines. Down in Kelowna, people lost $400,000 in three weeks after slots hit the bingo hall - $20,000 a day, or a forecast $7 million this year.
The lottery corporation is keen on slots in bingo halls. Slots and VLTs- the crack cocaine of gambling - are the same machines. The difference in location. And bingo halls, with liquor licences and restaurants, are a way to get the machines into more communities.
The local governments are wooed by a lottery corporation sales effort, and the promise of 10 per cent of the losses. And they're reminded that if they say no, BC Lotteries might put the slots in the next town down the road.
The communities are making the leap with little information on the social and economic damage. That $2.4 million that people lost in Williams Lake is money that they might have spent on local services and entertainment (or in some cases to buy groceries for their families). That economic benefit is gone, because the mini-casino business generates few jobs and sends most of the money down to Victoria.
Communities are left with the social costs - the lost jobs, broken families, crime. ("The people it hurts most are the ones we have a responsibility to protect, such as the poor, women and abused families," said Kamloops MLA Kevin Krueger in opposition. He's been quiet on the plan to put slots in small communities; the bingo hall in Kamloops added 50 slot machines in March.)
The public knows the risks. The government has just released a "baseline study" to begin tracking the effects of gambling in the Lower Mainland. (A little late, you might say.)
It surveyed residents, and found 55 per cent of people believed the harm from gambling outweighs any benefits; only 18 per cent said the benefits were worth the costs.
But governments are hooked, consciously choosing to trade a certain number of casualties for more money.
The B.C. government, through the lottery corporation, has a plan to lure more people into gambling. In 2003, 58 per cent of British Columbians gambled through the corporation. The government plans to recruit enough new gamblers to push that to 67 per cent 2007. That means about 360,000 more people lured into gambling, by ad campaigns, increasingly accessible slots and now Internet betting.
Lots of them will just lose a few dollars. But a new Canada West Foundation study found that 6.9 per cent of British Columbians are either problem gamblers, or at risk. That means that the government's gambling recruitment efforts could spell disaster for some 25,000 families. (The study also found that, despite increased funding , only Newfoundland spends less per capita on problem gambling treatment and prevention.)
All this will be damaging to individuals, and communities. That's why Campbell ran in 2001 on a promise to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
But the money counts more. So the government has pushed the number and availability of slots. There were 2,400 when the Liberals were elected, now there are 6,600. There were 10 locations with the machines. Now there are 21, with another half-dozen on their way this year.
It's allowed gambling on the Internet, and alcohol and ATMs in casinos and bingo halls.
All this is working. The government is on track to almost double its take to more than $1 billion a year.
The damaged and lost lives are just the price it has chosen to pay.
Footnote: B.C. has avoided the destructive trap of allowing VLTs, called the crack cocaine of gambling. But the only difference between a slot machine and a VLT is location - VLTs are slots in bars or stores. The machines are designed to be addictive, with those bells and lights and occasional payouts all aimed at keeping gamblers on their stools.
Gambling losers, that is.
The government has set out to increase both the number of gamblers, and their individual losses.
The numbers are just in on the latest tactic, locating addictive slot machines in community bingo halls around the province.
It's working. The BC Lottery Corp. reports that in the first four months after slots appeared in the Williams Lake bingo hall, people lost $2.4 million to the machines. Down in Kelowna, people lost $400,000 in three weeks after slots hit the bingo hall - $20,000 a day, or a forecast $7 million this year.
The lottery corporation is keen on slots in bingo halls. Slots and VLTs- the crack cocaine of gambling - are the same machines. The difference in location. And bingo halls, with liquor licences and restaurants, are a way to get the machines into more communities.
The local governments are wooed by a lottery corporation sales effort, and the promise of 10 per cent of the losses. And they're reminded that if they say no, BC Lotteries might put the slots in the next town down the road.
The communities are making the leap with little information on the social and economic damage. That $2.4 million that people lost in Williams Lake is money that they might have spent on local services and entertainment (or in some cases to buy groceries for their families). That economic benefit is gone, because the mini-casino business generates few jobs and sends most of the money down to Victoria.
Communities are left with the social costs - the lost jobs, broken families, crime. ("The people it hurts most are the ones we have a responsibility to protect, such as the poor, women and abused families," said Kamloops MLA Kevin Krueger in opposition. He's been quiet on the plan to put slots in small communities; the bingo hall in Kamloops added 50 slot machines in March.)
The public knows the risks. The government has just released a "baseline study" to begin tracking the effects of gambling in the Lower Mainland. (A little late, you might say.)
It surveyed residents, and found 55 per cent of people believed the harm from gambling outweighs any benefits; only 18 per cent said the benefits were worth the costs.
But governments are hooked, consciously choosing to trade a certain number of casualties for more money.
The B.C. government, through the lottery corporation, has a plan to lure more people into gambling. In 2003, 58 per cent of British Columbians gambled through the corporation. The government plans to recruit enough new gamblers to push that to 67 per cent 2007. That means about 360,000 more people lured into gambling, by ad campaigns, increasingly accessible slots and now Internet betting.
Lots of them will just lose a few dollars. But a new Canada West Foundation study found that 6.9 per cent of British Columbians are either problem gamblers, or at risk. That means that the government's gambling recruitment efforts could spell disaster for some 25,000 families. (The study also found that, despite increased funding , only Newfoundland spends less per capita on problem gambling treatment and prevention.)
All this will be damaging to individuals, and communities. That's why Campbell ran in 2001 on a promise to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
But the money counts more. So the government has pushed the number and availability of slots. There were 2,400 when the Liberals were elected, now there are 6,600. There were 10 locations with the machines. Now there are 21, with another half-dozen on their way this year.
It's allowed gambling on the Internet, and alcohol and ATMs in casinos and bingo halls.
All this is working. The government is on track to almost double its take to more than $1 billion a year.
The damaged and lost lives are just the price it has chosen to pay.
Footnote: B.C. has avoided the destructive trap of allowing VLTs, called the crack cocaine of gambling. But the only difference between a slot machine and a VLT is location - VLTs are slots in bars or stores. The machines are designed to be addictive, with those bells and lights and occasional payouts all aimed at keeping gamblers on their stools.
Monday, July 25, 2005
A child is dead, and three years later big questions remain
VICTORIA - Little Sherry Charlie shouldn’t have died.
The Port Alberni toddler was battered to death days after being placed in a foster home.
The man who beat her, the father in the home, had a long and violent criminal record. He was on probation for assaulting his spouse.
The children’s ministry knew there was a risk. It had already investigated concerns about the well-being of other children in the home.
But the ministry, and the First Nations agency that arranged the placement, both failed Sherry. And a little girl - 19 months old - died a terrible death.
Bad things happen. And in the difficult world of the ministry of children and families, some things will inevitably go very wrong.
When they do, the public needs quick, complete answers, to help avoid future errors. We are the ones responsible.
It took the government almost three years to release a report on her death. There were reasons for some delays. But taking three years to report on the death of a child is inexcusable.
When the report was finally released, the public got a five-page summary - prepared by the ministry - which left huge unanswered questions. The actual report, still secret, was almost 50 pages long.
The summary confirms that Sherry shouldn’t have died. It reveals that the ministry and Usma Nuu Chah Nulth Community and Human Services made major mistakes.
But while it offers up some facts, it does not provide needed answers.
The Nuu Chah Nulth agency, acting on the authority of the ministry, placed Sherry in the home of her uncle, the man convicted of manslaughter in her death. (The ministry believes - rightly - that placing a child with family is preferable to foster care with non-relatives.)
The agency had not done a criminal record check. It had done only one reference check before Sherry and her few possessions were dropped off at the home.
Why not more diligence? The summary doesn’t provide the needed answers. The agency may have violated ministry policies, the summary says. But it adds that the agency staff thought the policies were just guidelines.There was no training in the new rules. Nobody really knew what it all meant.
Why not? Was the ministry unclear? Were things happening too fast? Was there no money for training? Did the push to find family placements take priority over proper checks? Those questions aren’t answered in the skimpy summary.
When the First Nations agency did try to to get information, the ministry failed.
The agency asked the ministry to check its files to see if there were any issues with the prospective foster family.
There were. The ministry had information about past concerns in the same home. But it didn’t disclose them to the First Nations agency.
The summary says only that the failure was “inadvertent.” But why did it happen? Are ministry files incomplete? Was the worker too overloaded to check? Was training inadequate? No answers.
In the 15 days Sherry was in the home before she died, were there any follow-up visits to see how how was she doing? The ministry summary doesn’t say.
All this matters because we need to know if the problem has been fixed. If frontline workers are prevented from doing their job because budget cuts have left them with too many clients, and too few resources, we need to know. If training is inadequate, or systems don’t work, we need to know that.
Three years after Sherry’s death the only completed review has been done by the ministry - an obvious conflict of interest. The public still doesn’t have answers to basic questions.
The immediate solution is simple - release the full review, edited to protect individuals’ privacy rights.
The real answer is to bring back the Children’s Commission, eliminated by the Liberals, and restore effective independent review of the ministry.
Sherry didn’t have to die this way. At least let’s make her death mean something.
Footnote: The ministry contracted with Nicholas Simons, then employed with a First Nations service provider on the Sunshine Coast, to conduct the still-secret review. Simons is now the newly elected NDP MLA from the area, an indication of how long this has taken - and that the government can expect informed questions when the legislature resumes sitting in September.
The Port Alberni toddler was battered to death days after being placed in a foster home.
The man who beat her, the father in the home, had a long and violent criminal record. He was on probation for assaulting his spouse.
The children’s ministry knew there was a risk. It had already investigated concerns about the well-being of other children in the home.
But the ministry, and the First Nations agency that arranged the placement, both failed Sherry. And a little girl - 19 months old - died a terrible death.
Bad things happen. And in the difficult world of the ministry of children and families, some things will inevitably go very wrong.
When they do, the public needs quick, complete answers, to help avoid future errors. We are the ones responsible.
It took the government almost three years to release a report on her death. There were reasons for some delays. But taking three years to report on the death of a child is inexcusable.
When the report was finally released, the public got a five-page summary - prepared by the ministry - which left huge unanswered questions. The actual report, still secret, was almost 50 pages long.
The summary confirms that Sherry shouldn’t have died. It reveals that the ministry and Usma Nuu Chah Nulth Community and Human Services made major mistakes.
But while it offers up some facts, it does not provide needed answers.
The Nuu Chah Nulth agency, acting on the authority of the ministry, placed Sherry in the home of her uncle, the man convicted of manslaughter in her death. (The ministry believes - rightly - that placing a child with family is preferable to foster care with non-relatives.)
The agency had not done a criminal record check. It had done only one reference check before Sherry and her few possessions were dropped off at the home.
Why not more diligence? The summary doesn’t provide the needed answers. The agency may have violated ministry policies, the summary says. But it adds that the agency staff thought the policies were just guidelines.There was no training in the new rules. Nobody really knew what it all meant.
Why not? Was the ministry unclear? Were things happening too fast? Was there no money for training? Did the push to find family placements take priority over proper checks? Those questions aren’t answered in the skimpy summary.
When the First Nations agency did try to to get information, the ministry failed.
The agency asked the ministry to check its files to see if there were any issues with the prospective foster family.
There were. The ministry had information about past concerns in the same home. But it didn’t disclose them to the First Nations agency.
The summary says only that the failure was “inadvertent.” But why did it happen? Are ministry files incomplete? Was the worker too overloaded to check? Was training inadequate? No answers.
In the 15 days Sherry was in the home before she died, were there any follow-up visits to see how how was she doing? The ministry summary doesn’t say.
All this matters because we need to know if the problem has been fixed. If frontline workers are prevented from doing their job because budget cuts have left them with too many clients, and too few resources, we need to know. If training is inadequate, or systems don’t work, we need to know that.
Three years after Sherry’s death the only completed review has been done by the ministry - an obvious conflict of interest. The public still doesn’t have answers to basic questions.
The immediate solution is simple - release the full review, edited to protect individuals’ privacy rights.
The real answer is to bring back the Children’s Commission, eliminated by the Liberals, and restore effective independent review of the ministry.
Sherry didn’t have to die this way. At least let’s make her death mean something.
Footnote: The ministry contracted with Nicholas Simons, then employed with a First Nations service provider on the Sunshine Coast, to conduct the still-secret review. Simons is now the newly elected NDP MLA from the area, an indication of how long this has taken - and that the government can expect informed questions when the legislature resumes sitting in September.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
