Charlie case piles up doubts about children's ministry

VICTORIA - Jamie Charlie was three.
His sister, not yet two, had just been beaten to death in the home that was supposed to be a refuge. The man who did it, the father in the home, claimed that Jamie had pushed his sister down some stairs. The boy was set to grow up thinking he had killed her.
Except days later an autopsy found that the severe injuries couldn't have been produced by a fall. The RCMP was called, and the ministry of children and families. Both children had been placed in the home by a First Nations' agency working under the ministry's authority.
Then a criminal record check arrived, too late for Sherry. The man who killed her had a long record, including violent offences. When Jamie and Sherry were sent there, he was still on probation for assaulting his wife.
The ministry launched its first investigation. At the least there was a dark cloud over that Port Alberni household.
But two months later the next steps in Jamie's tough life were being decided in provincial court. Usma Family and Child Services, acting for the director of child protection, needed approval to apprehend him, and decide on where he should go.
And despite all the warning signs, the plan was to leave Jamie in the home where Sherry died - despite the suspicions, the history of violent crime and other concerns.
Worse, the judge didn't get the real story. The court was told only that Sherry had "passed away" in a "tragic accident." That was by then known to be untrue.
Victoria Times-Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines uncovered the information, the latest revelation in the discouraging saga of Sherry's death.
The ministry's first response was to suggest that this really wasn't a ministry problem; it was something for the First Nations' agency to deal with. Its social worker made the court appearance.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen quickly moved beyond that position. The agency acted on behalf of the director of child protection. The government remained responsible.
But four days after the news broke, the ministry said it had searched the files and didn't know about the court hearing, or Jamie's placement. "There are no records in any of the ministry files that anybody realized that this had happened," Hagen said.
That's a bad thing. A critical decision was made, and the ministry had no process for staying informed.
It's even more worrying that despite supposedly thorough investigations into Sherry's death - at the very time the court hearing took place, and over the last three years - the government never found out about the hearing. The court records existed; a call to the agency should have produced the information. Questions about why Jamie was left in the home have been raised publicly by his family, and the opposition.
Yet no one in the ministry had investigated effectively enough to find out about the court appearance, or the misleading information presented on behalf of the director. A reporter had to get at the facts.
It was significant information. Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley immediately asked for permission to launch an investigation into Jamie's placement. Attorney General Wally Oppal is expected to grant her request.
That, along with the coroner's inquest announced Tuesday, means eight investigations are under way into this death.
Less than two months ago Hagen was maintaining that a flawed internal review had provided the needed answers. "The director's review is a complete story from start to finish," he told the legislature.
Since then there have been more and more questions that the government can't answer, and more and more reviews into Sherry's death, and the ministry's work.
Things will go wrong in the ministry, and the results will sometimes be terrible. That's the nature of the work.
But the succession of revelations - each of which seems a surprise to the ministry - raises basic questions of competence, and undermines public confidence.
Footnote: The question now is how widespread these problems are. The decision to eliminate the Children's Commission, without having any effective replacement process for reviewing child deaths, has created the risk that children are falling through the cracks, and that lessons aren't being learned.

Government should stay out of Terasen sale

VICTORIA - I can see why people are worked up about the takeover of Terasen Inc. by U.S.-based Kinder Morgan.
There are reasons to worry , and to feel betrayed. It was only two years ago, as Terasen successfully lobbied the government to lift Canadian ownership requirements, that CEO John Reid downplayed worries about a takeover. "Our head office is firmly planted here in Vancouver, British Columbia, and we have every intention of keeping it that way," he said then.
But still the government is right to keep its hands off the deal, and resist the call to use it as a weapon in the softwood battle.
First some history.
Terasen, known as BC Gas until two years ago, was a publicly owned natural gas distributor for 50 years.
In 1988 the Socreds decided to privatize the utility. But the Vander Zalm government was worried that foreign ownership, or control by any small group of owners, would hurt B.C.'s interests. So it passed a law limiting foreign ownership to 20 per cent of shares, and barring anyone from owning enough stock to exercise control.
The law lasted for 15 years, until the Liberal government repealed it in 2003. There was no real debate or discussion. The two-person NDP opposition was focused on bigger BC Hydro issues in the same piece of legislation; Liberal MLAs asked no questions.
The Liberals said the change was needed because government shouldn't be setting ownership rules for a private company. The new freedom would make it easier for Terasen to raise money through stock issues, it said.
They are not bad arguments, but it might have been a tough sell if people were paying attention. More than 6,000 British Columbians have written letters opposing the Kinder deal.
Terasen is big in the pipeline business, moving oil from Alberta into B.C. and to five U.S. states. (It does not actually produce any oil or gas.)
But the corporation's core business is delivering natural gas to about 880,000 B.C. households and businesses. It's a monopoly, regulated by the BC Utilities Commission, and the company's performance and rates are important to more than half of British Columbians.
They have some right to be concerned. Gas distribution in B.C. was hugely important to Terasen. To Kinder Morgan, it is just another profit centre. Terasen, as one of B.C.'s largest corporations, was conscious of its image and reputation. Kinder Morgan will be much less interested.
But the time for such concerns is past.
The law was changed. Kinder Morgan made an offer to buy the company, obeying all the rules, and the shareholders have accepted. The deal is worth about $700 million in gains to Terasen shareholders. (About half the shares are held by pension and mutual funds and other institutions.) It would be wrong to leap in now.
The sale still has to be approved by the BC Utilities Commission, which will look at whether it is in the public interest. A federal review is also under way. British Columbians will have to count on those reviews establish that their interests can be protected.
The New Democrats, with Corky Evans in the lead, have been calling on the government to stall the sale as a pressure tactic in the softwood dispute. Richard Kinder, the acquisitive CEO, is a friend and supporter of George Bush. Holding up the sale for 90 days could encourage Kinder to tell Bush that energy matters more than softwood, they argue.
It's appealing, but not the right action. The delay would penalize Terasen shareholders for something they nothing to do with, and send a message that B.C. is a risky place to do business.
Especially because a 90-day freeze is unlikely to have any impact, leading to pressure for a longer and longer delay.
Basically, this is just another corporate takeover, changing one group of self-interested shareholders for another.
And that's really not the government's business.
Footnote: The sale means Vancouver loses another corporate head office. On a per capita basis, B.C. already trails four provinces - including Manitoba - in the number of head offices located here. It's a significant problem. Corporate head offices provide increased business and career opportunities, and tend to offer more support for community projects of all kinds.

New U.S. passport rule could clobber B.C. tourism

VICTORIA - Tourism Minister Olga Illich is right to be fighting new U.S. border security measures that threaten the tourist industry.
B.C. has run into a nasty alignment of three big tourism problems, all certain to keep American visitors away. Two of the three - painful gas prices and a strong Canadian dollar - are beyond the province's control.
But there is at least hope that B.C., working with the other provinces and U.S. border states, can stall an American plan to make passports mandatory for all travelers. "We've been taking every opportunity to get into their faces and say we're unhappy about this," says Illich.
The new law will mean that a family heading up from Bellingham for a weekend in Vancouver won't be admitted back into the U.S. without passports. Since two out of three Americans don't have a passport, that's a big problem. A family of four is not going to spend $400 on passports just to come to B.C. for a week’s holiday.
And since the U.S. is by far the most important external market for B.C. tourism, providing three out of four foreign visitors.
B.C. has allies. All the provinces and Ottawa are opposing the passport requirement. And because the rule would also apply to Canadians visiting the U.S., most border states have joined the fight, fearing a loss of Canadian visitors.
But time is running out. The rule is set to apply to travelers coming by air and sea - a significant group for Victoria - by the end of next year, and to all travelers by Dec. 31, 2007.
The Canadian Tourism Commission reports that the new rules are already scaring away visitors who are confused about the passport requirement, keeping more than 50,000 potential tourists away from B.C. this year.
The threat comes at a bad time.
American visits to Canada fell to their lowest level in 25 years in August. Visits to B.C. are down 2.9 per cent so far this year.
Soaring gas prices are already taking a toll on tourism. BC Stats estimates that each one-cent increase in gas prices results in the loss of 3,600 same-day and 2,400 overnight visitors a year. American gas prices, pushed up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, are up 60 cents from a year ago, costing the province some 360,000 visits. The impact is greatest in smaller centres, dependent on car travelers.
A hotel room that cost $90 Canadian would have translated into the bargain rate of $60 U.S. at the beginning of 2003. This month, the same room would have cost an American traveler more than $75 in his own currency. Across the board - meals, attractions - the cost of a break in the Okanagan, or on the Island, is up 25 per cent just because of the exchange rate.
B.C. has just released its submission to the U.S. Homeland Security Department on the passport issue, which reinforces the threat.
The brief warns that convention organizers are already looking at striking B.C. from their list of potential sites because not all delegates will want to get passports.
And the province’s chances of building on the 2010 Olympics to increase tourism and trade would be hurt, B.C.argues in the brief.
It’s hard to judge the chances of success in this campaign. The U.S. last month ignored complains and began requiring many visitors from France and Italy to have a visa because those countries’ passports aren’t considered secure.
But pressure for easing the passport requirement is building within the U.S., and there appears to be some softening in the homeland security position. Security secretary Michael Chertoff says the government is looking at cheaper, easier-to-get - but still secure - ID cards as an alternative. Some states are considering adding more security information to drivers’ licences to make them an acceptable substitute.
It’s a battle worth hundreds of millions of dollars - and thousands of jobs - for British Columbia.
Footnote: The province’s brief warns that damage from the passport regulation will go beydnd tourism. The requirement will clog borders and hurt trade between the two countries, B.C, warns, and make it more difficult for businesses to seize opportunities on the other side of the border. A coalition of U.S. Chambers of Commerce is fighting the change on the same ground.

Everything you need to know about Gomery in three minutes

VICTORIA - OK, you’re busy and easily depressed in these darkening fall days, and so have skipped much of the Gomery coverage.
Here, in 650 words, is what you need to know, starting with the basic findings.
First, you were ripped off. Tax dollars you paid in good faith were wasted, stolen and directed to the Liberal Party and its friends. The Martin government has acknowledged $57 million was siphoned off through fraud, but much of the $330 million spent in the sponsorship scandal was squandered on dubious projects of little value.
Second, Gomery clears Paul Martin and the current cabinet. The program was secretive and run from Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s office. Martin, despite his cabinet posts and political network in Quebec and across the country, was out of the loop.
Third, Gomery blames Chretien and his circle. Chretien’s office ran the program without proper oversight, and his friend Jacques Corriveau siphoned $8 million from various contracts, kicking back some of the money to the Liberal Party. “The prime minister and his chief of staff arrogated to themselves the direction of a virtually secret program of discretionary spending to selected beneficiaries,” Gomery found.
Fourth, the whole program was based on the notion that the interests of the government and the Liberal Party were one and the same. Fighting separatist sentiment in Quebec - using tax dollars - meant strengthening the Liberal party, not the Canadian government.
Those are the important findings. The details are sordid and discouraging, the cast large and disreputable, and the lack of honesty before the inquiry appalling. But you knew most of that.
The question left is what happens now.
Martin and company want you to forget about it. That was the old gang, and they are the new, improved Liberal Party.
That seems a tough sell. Martin have moved quickly to set up the Gomery Inquiry and end the sponsorship program once he was in power. But newspaper stories about the scandal, which should have sparked his interest, started appearing in 2000. He didn’t act for three years.
Despite the leadership change, Canadians have reason to be skeptical about what the Liberals have learned. One underlying theme in the evidence was the divine right of Liberals. The people involved were convinced that the party had the right and responsibility to govern, and a duty to win elections even if it meant fund-raising fraud.
And they were convinced that they had a right to rewards for their good work, at the taxpayer’s expense - an inflated contract here, a gift from a supplier there. Being a Liberal party brought an entitlement.
It’s hard to see that those fundamental beliefs have been altered. Martin appoints Francis Fox to the Senate; Pierre Pettigrew flies his chauffeur off to Europe; friendly law firms get government work across the country. David Dingwall is rewarded with a patronage appointment to the Mint, and snappishly reminds MPs that he is “entitled to his entitlements.”
Voters are left with a tough choice in the coming election.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper will try and argue that re-electing a Liberal government is condoning corruption. If there are no consequences for what Gomery called a depressing story of waste, greed and misconduct, then voters would be saying they accept that level of behaviour.
It should be a strong argument. But the Conservatives’ remarkable failure to connect with the priorities of Canadians means that it may well be ignored.
Except in Quebec. It is not much of a stretch for Bloc Quebecois supporters to argue that the Liberals cheated and attempted to steal two federal elections in Quebec. The sponsorship program used tax dollars to support the party, and funneled cash directly to the campaign effort. It has the feel of the kind of fraud seen in psuedo-democracies in the Third World.
Liberals seemed cheerful at the Gomery findings this week. Canadians should just be depressed.
Footnote: Chretien’s decision to demand a review of the findings in federal court is a body blow to Martin. Chretien not only will keep the issue alive as the election nears, but argue that the sponsorship waste was just business as usual in Ottawa, a damaging message for the Martin campaign.

Government stirs the teachers’ pot with pay ploy

VICTORIA - It seems destructive for either side to come off a bitter illegal strike and immediately start poking at the other.
But that’s what Education Minister Shirley Bond has done in the days since the teachers’ strike ended.
Bond was quick to offer the news that she was considering keeping schools open through spring break, or into the summer, to make up time lost to the strike.
It could be a reasonable option, if there the time lost couldn’t be made up in less disruptive ways. But so far, school districts across the province have said they can manage without major disruptions to the existing schedule. Grade 12 students may needs some extra class time, and provincial exams could usefully be delayed, but extra school days aren’t needed.
Bond’s speculation just alarmed parents and angered teachers, who saw it as having more to do with punishing them than helping students.
Then things got worse. School districts were told not to ease the impact of 10 days of lost pay on teachers and opt for a punitive approach.
Many school districts were looking at ways of making sure the pay deductions didn’t inflict unnecessary hardship on teachers. Deducting the money in one month would mean a teacher would lose 50 per cent of her salary for that period, a big hit; spreading it over two months would mean a 25-per-cent cut in each month.
But a letter from education deputy minister Emery Dosdall to school superintendents seemed to rule out that flexibility.
“It is the expectation that all payroll adjustments will be made on the October payroll statements," he wrote. And as insurance, districts would have to send in monthly salary reports so the ministry could check up on them.
Bond bailed on the requirement quickly, in part because some districts - like Victoria - reminded her that they were the employers, and the ones who decide how to pay people.
All a misunderstanding, said Bond. "Let's be clear, we didn't insist. We simply laid out the process we expected school districts to consider.” (It is a rule of thumb that anytime anyone starts a sentence with ‘let’s be clear,’ things are about to get murkier.)
Except that when the ministry learned North Vancouver trustees planned to ignore the memo and spread the deductions out over two months, the district got a call from the ministry saying it expected to be obeyed.
Even if you accept the dubious claim that this was just some sort of idea the ministry was throwing out for school districts to think about, the principle remains the same.
Bond’s ministry had a chance to allow a solution that helped teachers and carried no real hardship for the government or school districts beyond some lost interest.
Instead it opted to try and force a punitive response. Successfully, in some cases. Vancouver school trustees deducted the pay in one chunk, based on what they saw as the ministry’s directive.
It’s difficult for both sides to let anger go after something like a strike.
But poking at the old wounds, or imposing unnecessary hardship on the other side is destructive.
And in this case, there is no time for that kind of pettiness.
The Education Round Table is supposed to setting a new co-operative tone; that’s not going to work unless both sides quit picking at it each other.
The BC Teachers’ Federation and the government will be back in some form of bargaining within months, since the imposed contract expires next June.
And the ministry is planning a substantial expansion of its role, taking on responsibility for areas like early learning and community libraries.
Managing all these changes is going to take co-operation, not more of the same old squabbles.
Footnote: The expanded ministry role is likely to be set out in legislation this spring. Dosdall told trustees last week that adding responsibilities like literacy to the ministry and expanding the role of schools as community centres demand a new look at the role of school boards, according to Penny Tees of the BC School Trustees’ Association.

Perfect storm of public sector contract talks tests Libs

VICTORIA - Carole Taylor better get going fast on her plan to find better ways of bargaining public sector contracts.
By next June - seven months from now - almost everyone in the provincial public sector will be negotiating contracts, from teachers to doctors to clerks at ICBC.
That’s some 235,000 people, all expecting gains and catch-up increases to make up for the wage freeze in their last contracts.
And, of course, looking hungrily at the government’s billion-dollar surpluses.
The two-year wage freeze meant that almost all those people lost about four per cent in real wages. Just making that up would add about $600 million to the cost of government.
Negotiations are always challenging. These will be much more difficult.
For starters, many of the unions are unhappy about rough treatment during the Liberals’ first term. The broken promise to respect contracts, the failure to honour arbitration awards and the willingness to fire thousands of people so they could be replaced by cheaper employees all created illwill.
The teachers’ strike also heartened public sector unions. The unions managed an effective series of protests, and the teachers held the public’s support even after the strike was declared illegal.
Taylor, as finance minister, is responsible for the government’s position. She’s working on a bargaining mandate for negotiators now, setting out the limits for spending increases.
But Taylor says she also wants a new look at the whole negotiating process.
“What I’m thinking about is how we can do things differently - how can we move it off just straight dollars,” she said this week. “Are there other things that are important to peoples’ lives that they would be interested in, have we been imaginative about this, have we asked unions about what would be top of mind for them?”
Maybe there should be incentives for early settlement, or for longer term contracts, she said.
It’s the right approach. Setting a mandate and expecting it to apply across the board - even with some substantial tinkering - doesn’t allow for the best solutions.
But don’t expect too much change, too quickly.
The BCGEU contracts expire at the end of March, and the union is working on its position now. There’s not much time to establish this new relationship.
And there’s not much trust, and a lot of pent-up demand.
BCGEU head George Heyman said the union’s starting point is that members should get back what they lost due to the wage freeze or pay cuts, plus an increase. That means a catch-up of 4.1 per cent across the board, and up to 15 per cent for some employees who took cuts to keep their jobs. Employees are also worried about privatization and job security.
Factor in the reactionary nature of most unions, and and the chances of change shrink. The government may be willing to come up with larger increases for skilled workers in high demand; the union will almost certainly argue for an across-the-board increase.
Taylor and the government should learn from the teachers’ dispute.
The union - despite some extreme positions, chronic rigidity, an illegal strike and closed schools - had the public’s support. The government was the bad guy for most British Columbians.
Partly, that reflects fondness for individual teachers. But it also suggests a public view that the government tends to bully its unions, and treat employees unfairly.
Public sector negotiations can be much affected by that kind of public opinion. Governments can ultimately impose any contract terms they wish, as the Liberals have shown. What restrains them, ideally on top of respect for employees and understanding of the benefits of a positive workplace, is public opinion. Governments do not want to look like bullies, or spendthrifts.
There is always a chance for a positive, relatively painless outcome to negotiations, and Taylor’s interestin a new approach is encouraging.
But this huge set of negotiations faces big challenges, and missteps by either side could lead to serious damage.
Footnote: Doctors may provide the government with its first test. The BCMA is in talks now on an increase to doctors’ fee schedule. The medical association has an extra weapon - the ability to force the dispute to early arbitration. The government’s response will be seen as a signal of its approach to this round of bargaining.

Press release guidelines

1) Write a snappy, active headline
- No more than 10 words
- Summarizes story, but also pitches to media interest
- Not "?Major triathalon here Sunday,"? but "Local Olympian joins Sunday triathalon,"? or "Blind senior going for gold at Sunday triathalon"

2) Get an interesting first paragraph
- Think of the editor or producer, but also neighbours - what would make them keep reading
- Think local - all media want to be local
- Use local names, the impact on local communities

3) Use quotes
- They should sound real, and convey real information
- (Get permission)
- Include quotes from more than one person
- Good quotes can get the whole release used; bad quotes can be fatal

4) Use facts
- DonÂ't say helped many families; say 1,600 families
- DonÂ't just say dental health is the foundation of all health, say studies have found people with gum problems are twice as likely to suffer from heart disease

5) Worry about length
- Generally, a page, but if you have a lot it may be worth going longer
- Make sure all the important information is in the first half

6) Consider a fact sheet
- You can support the release with a backgrounder, in point form, on the issue, your organization or the event
- Interesting, brief facts

7) Consider multiple versions
- See thinking local

8) Always have a contact (or two) with number

9) Follow up
- See if they got it
- Note the contact name, or add to list if you sent to wrong person
- Supply more information
- Get feedback

Glimmers - faint - of softwood hope

VICTORIA - Rich Coleman is sounding pretty optimistic about progress in the softwood dispute.
Coleman's hope rests partly on this week's deadline for the U.S. to respond to the final NAFTA ruling on the duties. The U.S. lost the case, and was given until this Friday to lift the trade barrier.
The U.S. government and industry have brushed off the ruling. The justifications vary, but the message is the same - forget about NAFTA. The two sides need to negotiate a deal. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stuck with that position when she dropped in Ottawa this week.
But despite the dismissive talk from the U.S., ignoring the NAFTA ruling would be a significant step. The U.S. will have a hard time being taken seriously in future trade talks if it is ignoring the deals it has signed.
Prime Minister Paul Martin - belatedly - has also taken steps to pressure American politicians. Martin raised softwood in speeches and interviews in the U.S. this month, getting some media attention.
He made two points in particular that - if skillfully advanced - could put pressure on U.S. politicians to resolve the dispute.
First, Martin noted that the duties push up lumber costs, adding $1,000 to the cost of an average U.S. home. It's a short step to paint the American lumber companies as profiteers exploiting people trying to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina.
And second Martin raised the possibility that Canada would look towards China and other new trading partners if the U.S. can't be trusted. That would include a push to sell more oil and gas to China. Practically, it's only a moderate threat. The U.S. will be Canada's main trading partner for a long time, and the relationship will be more important to us than it is to them.
And energy is a commodity. Companies will sell it where they can get the best price. The tactic could still be politically effective in the U.S., playing to twin public fears - energy dependence, and the potential emergence of China as a huge economic rival. Ottawa can reinforce its position by backing away from U.S. proposals for a continental energy strategy.
Critics complain Martin’s new militancy is mostly about helping the Liberals improve their prospects in the coming election.
But the pressure is still helpful. Coleman has refused to link energy policy and softwood, rejecting an NDP call to hold up the sale of Terasen Gas to U.S.-based Kinder Morgan.
He does support Martin’s tougher talk as a way of getting the Americans to pay attention.
Coleman is guarded about how he thinks the dispute can be resolved. Forest ministers from softwood provinces have been in discussions on a new strategy over the last two weeks, and government forestry officials from across the country met in Vancouver last week to work on the plan.
Coleman says he has spoken with federal International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, and expects more discussions this week.
It’s tough to be overly hopeful. After Martin raised softwood with George Bush in a phone call last week, the conversation drew a couple of questions at the daily White House press briefing. But it was the last item of 10 that were raised - after reporters asked what Bush thought about the Minutemen volunteer border patrols.
The softwood issue doesn’t matter much yet to most Americans. And it matters a lot to the lumber companies, who are prepared to cling to duties as long as possible. Each day means fatter profits. (Which they keep even if the U.S. ends up returning the $5 billion in duties so far.)
Canada does have a better chance now to reach a deal than it has since the dispute began.  
Martin is setting preconditions on any negotiations with the U.S., requiring the Americans to accept the NAFTA ruling and commit to returning the duty.
It’s a reasonable position. It’s better to stick with legal actions than accept a bad deal with long-term consequences.
Footnote: Coleman said Tuesday he welcomed this week’s Ottawa mission by the Coast Forest Products Association, which is seeking aid. Coleman acknowledged a “crisis” in the coastal industry, and said he’s asked the industry for proposals for an aid plan to include short and long-term measures.

Teachers should take Ready's deal; it's fair

VICTORIA - First, the main point. Teachers and government should both accept Vince Ready's recommendations - without conditions - and get the schools open.
Ready addresses the concerns of both sides, and gives both a face-saving way out of the deadlock.
Teachers don't get a wage increase, but that was never a realistic demand after other public sector unions accepted a two-year freeze.
But they still get more money, in a way Premier Gordon Campbell says the government can live with.
And the union has won an acknowledgment that there are problems in the classroom, and addressed them through the bargaining process, something the government had denied through most of the negotiations..
All in, Ready's proposals will mean the government will come up with $105 million to address teachers' concerns, without any increase to the salary grid.
Ready agreed there's a problem with class sizes and composition for kids in Grades 4 and above. Some classes are too big for children to learn, and include too many students with special needs who aren't getting help. The government should spend $20 million - enough to hire about 320 more teachers - to fix some of the problems, Ready says.
That's a gain for the teachers. The Liberals have maintained those issues can't be addressed through collective bargaining, and that it's the government responsibility to ensure effective learning conditions. Ready is confirming the government hasn't done the job.
Ready also proposes a $40-million injection to "harmonize salary grids" in the province, a measure that both sides supported but couldn't agree on in negotiations. That will mean raises for some teachers.
The BC Teachers' Federation would get an extra$40 million for its long-term disability fund. (Teachers want the government to pay a share of LTD premiums; the government doesn't want to. This is a one-time compromise.)
And supply teachers will get $5 million in improved pay.
It's far less than teachers wanted, far more than the government was prepared to do before the strike.
The money package will probably disappoint some school boards. Campbell emphasized in a Friday morning press conference that the government isn't putting any new cash into the system. The $105 million will come from the savings - about $150 million - that have flowed from not paying teachers for almost two weeks. Some districts hoped much of that money would stay with them for local priorities.
Ready supports the idea of a Learning Round Table, offered by the government on the eve of the strike as a forum for discussing issues like class size.
But he says the government's plan for a forum with equal representation from the BCTF, school trustees, parent advisory councils, superintendents and school administrators, would give teachers two of 10 seats. Not enough, says Ready, and the government has agreed to add more.
The union and government should also be meeting regularly to discuss teaching issues, Ready says. Those talks should include amendments to the School Act to set class size limits for Grades 4 to 12. (Limits were included in the teachers' contract until the Liberals used legislation to remove them in 2002. Limits were added to the School Act for the early grades, but there were only guidelines for average sizes for Grade 4 and up. They haven't worked to protect learning conditions.)
It's a reasonable package. The government has agreed.
But the BCTF is continuing a pattern of incompetent negotiating. Union head Jinny Sims says the union will only accept the recoomendations if the government agrees in writing to amend the School Act by June 30 to include class size limits for the senior grades.
The teachers'mistrust is understandable.
But bargaining is over. Ready has offered both sides a reasonable way out after a nine-day strike, which has hurt teachers, their supporters in other unions and - most importantly - students.
It is ridiculous brinkmanship to risk a longer strike, and more damage, in return for one more concession.
The teachers' union will pay a heavy price in public support if it doesn't accept this settlement.
Footnote: Did it have to come to this? Maybe. Labour disputes have their own pace and rhythm. Sometimes a settlement is not possible until both sides have tested their mutual resolve and bludgeoned into accepting compromise.

Liberals wisely relent on no-talks stance

VICTORIA - The Liberals can't bring themselves to admit it, but the government has broken its vow not to negotiate with striking teachers.
That's a good and responsible thing. The priority now should be on coming up with some acceptable deal to get schools open and head off the escalating walkouts.
And despite all the dancing from the government, that's what mediator Vince Ready is now trying to do.
Ready, a star in the mediation world, is meeting with the BC Teachers' Federation and the BC Public School Employers' Association to look for a possible solution.
Labour Minister Mike de Jong bobbed and weaved Wednesday. Ready was appointed on the eve of the strike to act as anindustrial inquiry commissioner and recommend a new bargaining structure, he said. Time is tight, so he has started
work now, says de Jong.
And make no mistake, De Jong said. The government hasn't retreated from its vow of no talks until teachers return to work,.
Except that working with Ready is Ken Dobell, the former top bureaucrat who is a special advisor to the premier.
Dobell isn't needed to help with the review of the bargaining structure. But he can play a critical role in talks to end the strike. Dobell can speak for the government, and make unofficial commitments that the teachers' union can expect will be kept. And he can do those things without officially breaking the no-talks rule.
The vow not to talk to teachers while they were on an illegal strike was never a good idea.
The rule of law is important, and governments can be expected to denounce illegal acts.
But the courts are capable of dealing with people or organizations that break the law. The teachers' union has already its assets frozen by BC Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown to cut off strike pay and other funding for the walkout. On Friday it will return to court and likely face significant fines for continued defiance.
The employer's primary interest should be in fixing the immediate problem - in this case closed schools.
That's the approach governments generally take. Last year's illegal HEU strike was ended through a deal negotiated through the BC Federation of Labour.
Premier Gordon Campbell took responsibility. "We have concluded an arrangement supported by the B.C. Federation of Labour that will put an end to this dispute," he said then.
It's still not time to start looking for the kids' school books.In this kind of situation, with damage mounting and no clear end in sight, both sides should be focused on getting a deal, even a mediocre one. The process now should be about saving face and making - and accepting - small concessions and gains.
De Jong suggested the government would be willing look at adding more class size guarantees and other staffing requirements to the School Act. Given the right framework, and commitments for real discussions, that should address some of the union's concerns.
But the BCTF has so far shown no ability to recognize the need for compromise.
More than a week into the strike, it still has a proposal for a 15-per-cent wage increase on the table. It's past time for the union to accept a wage freeze - like other public sector unions - until the next round of talks in June.
Teachers have continued to enjoy wide public support, one of the factors that brought the government to the table. But the polls suggest that will fade as the illegal strike continues. Other unions will also question the usefulness of continuing their support if teachers don't compromise.
Ready will be reminding the teachers of those risks. And he will be reminding the government of it's failure to fix a broken bargaining system or even acknowledge the right of teachers to negotiate working conditons.
The government has blinked in this showdown. It was a sensible thing to do. Now we'll see if the parties can reach deal.
Footnote: The government's refusal to acknowledge that talks are under way is baffling. The public's interest is in a resolution and re-opened schools. Any efforts to achieve that will be well-received.

Campbell loses showdown with teachers

VICTORIA - You got a pretty good indication of why Premier Gordon Campbell and the government are losing the battle with teachers Monday.
The demonstration on the legislature lawn was impressive, certainly one of the largest of the last several years.
But it wasn't just the size.
I ran into a former co-worker, a semi-retired sales manager who valued individual enterprise and I am sure has never voted NDP in his life. He looked a little sheepish, or uncomfortable. "I never though I'd be at one of these things," he said, looking around at the signs and cheering crowd.
But his wife is a teacher, and against all odds and inclinations, he was part of the protest.
The government has badly misjudged the public's attitude in this dispute.
It has been a surprise. People generally don't support illegal strikes. The rule of law is important, and the public rightly expects it to apply to everyone.
But the teachers have proved an exception, an indication that the public believes they have been treated unfairly by the government.
It's a reality the Liberals have not accepted.
As the protesters got organized for the march, Campbell launched a pre-emptive strike by press conference.
It would have been a good time for something new, something that addressed the public perception of unfairness and the teachers' issues.
But Campbell stuck with the hard line. No talks of any kind as long as the strike continues. No new incentives to end the strike, not even the tiny kind of concessions that could let the BC Teachers' Federation consider a tactical retreat.
"This is not a labour dispute, as this illegal action has been characterized by some unions," Campbell said. "This is a question of law and how to move forward." That means the government has no obligation to talk with teachers until they quit breaking the law.
But it is a labour dispute, despite the premier's wishful thinking. It's about wages and working conditions, and the right of people to form a union and bargain.
The dispute is also about the law, and public opinion, and politics. But it's a fantasy to pretend there aren't real issues.
What's needed is the ability to accept reality. Unions have staged illegal strikes before, and it makes employers furious. Most figure they have to live with the law, and the union should too. It's an entirely understandable frustration.
But employers recognize that the courts can handle the legal questions. The BC Supreme Court has all the tools needed to ensure Jinny Sims and the union are held accountable, and the full mandate to enforce the law. The government - like other employers - can safely step back. The courts don't like being treated contemptuously.
And smart employers keep lines of communication open, and are available for talks.
Not just the private sector. The law around charging unions with criminal contempt for illegal strikes was shaped by a 1992 Supreme Court of Canada decision on a strike by Alberta nurses.
The court upheld the principle that that unions could face criminal contempt charges.
But reading the background is interesting. Alberta's Conservative government charged the union with criminal contempt of court when it struck in 1988. But on the same day, it appointed a mediator to help resolve the dispute.
While the nurses' union was appearing in court, the government named a second conciliator. Talks continued.
The Alberta government response recognized that the courts could deal with the lack of respect for the law. The employer's dominant interest was in getting nurses - or in this case teachers - back to work on acceptable terms.
That's a challenge. Sims says the union will bend, but its track record isn't good.
Still the government's obligation - like any employer - is to solve the problem. It may be deeply troubled by the union's illegal strike, but it should be more troubled that kids are out of school.
This dispute has already cost more than four million pupil days - more than were lost in 10 years under the NDP.
That should be the government's main concern.
Footnote: Special prosecutor Len Doust, appointed Monday, is going slow on criminal contempt charges. Teachers would have to be seen as challenging the rule of the courts; SIms has been careful to say that the union's fight is with the government, not the courts. It's no excuse, but it could save the union from the toughest penalties.

Ruling may end strike, but school woes just mounting

VICTORIA - That was a clever move by Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown in the teachers' strike.
But it doesn't do anything to head off big problems in the schools.
Brown wisely put off imposing fines on the BC Teachers' Federation, and concentrated instead on making it impossible for the union to keep the strike going.
The union's finances were frozen, and it's barred from spending any money or taking any action to continue the strike - including providing teachers with $50 a day in strike pay. The BCTF is also ordered not to take money from other unions to keep up the battle.
It's a creative, apparently unprecedented approach.
Heavy handed, certainly, but Brown's goal was to force the union to end the illegal strike. Her solution doesn't appear to violate any of the teachers' charter rights, since there's no protection for illegal activity.
Teachers' first reaction will likely be anger. The government has gutted their contracts, failed to take any steps to allow effective bargaining and imposed a new agreement. Now the courts have taken away their right to draw strike pay from funds they contributed to the union over the years.
For many long-serving teachers, the loss of $250 a week in strike pay will be unpleasant, but not critical. They will want to stay out, and perhaps be more determined.
But for others the prospect of days or weeks with no income will erode their resolve, particularly because it's difficult to see any positive outcome to the strike.
And the union will face its own logistical problems if it's denied access to all resources, and have to accept the threat of large fines.
So although BCTF head Jinny Sims said that the union is reviewing its options, it's hard to see what choice is left beyond a return to work within the next week.
But no one should be celebrating . Brown's ruling was effective in achieving her goal of enforcing respect for the law.
For students, and the school system, it simply worsens a bad situation.
Teachers are being forced back into the classrooms feeling abused and betrayed, stripped of the rights that most employees in Canada enjoy. The government has taken almost every opportunity to poke at them with a sharp stick, and made no real effort to address their legitimate concerns.
Yes, the BCTF has shown a destructive inability to compromise. It has treated bargaining as a crusade for justice, instead of recognizing that labour negotiations are about getting the best deal possible under the circumstances.
But the government has been unable to recognize that the relationship with teachers will continue long after this dispute ends.
Labour Minister Mike de Jong had a chance to be conciliatory in responding to the court decision Thursday.
He let it pass, choosing instead to continue the attack, suggesting teachers are on strike because they're afraid of reprisals from the union. That claim isn't supported by independent reports from the picket line and it insults teachers who believe they have been driven to an illegal action by legitimate concerns.
It was a time to reach out, to acknowledge the depth of teachers' frustration, and the government's role. The Liberals have known the bargaining structure was hopelessly flawed, even commissioning a report last year on an alternative.
They did nothing to head off the inevitable conflict. Only on the eve of the strike did they announce another report on the bargaining structure. And their last-minute proposal for an Education Round Table, where teachers, trustees and administrators would talk about class sizes and other issues, was too late and too vague.
Brown's ruling will likely bring an end to the walkout.
But the entire affair has increased teachers' anger and frustration, bad news for the classroom, and a guarantee of rocky times when contract talks start again next year.
Footnote: Brown's ruling appears to bar the union from any activity supporting the strike, from printing more signs to faxing information to members. That raises questions about what will happen if the BCTF - or other unions - support teachers' plans for a major protest in Victoria Monday.

Dingwall and other federal follies - and a real scandal

VICTORIA - And on to the perennial column topic - more reasons why you should be angry at the federal government.
Let's start with David Dingwall, who has quit as the president of the Royal Mint, a $240,000-a-year patronage job that Jean Chretien gave his former cabinet minister by Jean Chretien.
Dingwall resigned under a couple of clouds. His expense claims had come to light, and they looked bad. Despite being paid six times as much the average Canadian, Dingwall still stuck taxpayers with the bill for his home Internet connection and $1.29 package of gum. And he rang up $860,000 in expenses in one year, including $5,700 for one restaurant meal and $2,500 in limousine costs, on top of the company BMW.
Dingwall also acknowledged accepting an illegal $350,000 fee as a lobbyist in 2000. He was promised the money if he scored $15 million for his client under a dubious federal technology handout program. He lobbied well; they got the money; he got the illegal payment.
You quit your job, that's usually it. But Dingwall's Liberal friends plan to pay him severance, perhaps up to $500,000.
We have to, says Prime Minister Paul Martin.
There are no facts to support that claim. Nothing in Dingwall's contract, the law or anywhere else justifies a dime in severance.
And then there's gas prices.
Not something we can do much about, says the federal government.
That's not really true. For one thing, the federal government imposes the GST on gas. Every price increase means more money for Ottawa. Shifting to a flat levy - as B.C. imposes - would help consumers.
But the federal government has helped one group. Federal employees - including MPs - just got an increase in their car allowance from 46 cents to 50.6 cents per kilometre, because of rising gas prices.
First, that's a huge car allowance - and more than Ottawa lets other workers claim as a tax deduction. And the increase isn't warranted. For a typical car gas price increases have added costs of 3.4 cents a kilometre since last year. The federal government sportily adds an extra cent per kilometre.
Is it a big deal? Sure, because it shows - like Dingwall's severance - that the people in charge don't worry much about how they spend your money.
Or how they hurt your interests. The Nelson Daily News has reported admirably on a proposed 30-per-cent duty on the bicycles most of us ride - bikes that cost less than $650.
Two bicycle manufacturers in Quebec - in Liberal ridings - are worried about Asian competitors. So they lobbied for the duty, and won an early victory. If the federal cabinet agrees, then when it's time for the first two-wheeler for your child you'll pay 30-per-cent more than you should.
No one is saying Asian companies are doing anything wrong. The few Canadian producers just don't like the competition.
Finally, and most significantly, Parliament has once again rejected raising the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16. Years before you can vote, or drink, or get a credit card, children are prey for 40-year-old with a smooth line or bright promises. A boy or girl in Grade 9 is considered fair game.
Conservative MP Nina Grewal's motion to raise the age of consent was flawed, failing to exempt youngsters choosing to have sex with their peers. But other countries with higher ages of consent, like the U.S., Britain, Australia - even Thailand - have solved the problem by barring prosecution of people within two or three years of each other.
Changing the law would let parents could use the threat of criminal charges to face down a sexual predator interested in a young daughter. Johns would have to factor one more risk into the equation when they hired young girls. Police, who favour the change, would gain a tool.
The Dingwall scandal, the other federal follies, they're serious.
But the federal Liberals' failure to protect children is scandalous.
Footnote: The age of consent in Canada was only lowered from 18 in 1987. The move to 14 went too far, and the result has been increased exploitation of children. The Liberal MPs who voted down the change need to hear directly from Canadians who think it's wrong for men to have sex with children.

Poll shows teachers win by going back to work

VICTORIA - The government and teachers are now battling for your good opinion.
The BCTF's strike isn't about economic pressure, the key factor in most job action. School districts are saving about $18 million a day because of the walkout.
The only real purpose - apart from venting - is to put political pressure on the government so it will bend on teachers' demands for more money and a say in job conditions like class size.
Parents and the public will soon be angry about the school shutdown. The question is who they will blame.
If it's the government, then political considerations could force some compromise on its part.
If the public holds the BCTF responsible, then the government can safely stand pat, and take a tougher line in whatever new system of bargaining it imposes for the talks starting in the spring.
That means public opinion should be the critical factor for the union as it decides what to do about the Supreme Court ruling that the strike is illegal.
Justice Brenda Brown found that everyone in society has to obey court orders, or "anarchy cannot be far behind." But she put off imposing penalties until Thursday, a useful wait to allow tempers to cool. "I am hopeful that teachers are responsible citizens and they will pay attention to my ruling," Brown found.
In the meantime teachers and government should both pay attention to the only serious public opinion poll on the dispute so far available.
The Mustel Group - the most accurate of the pollsters in assessing the last election campaign - found that teachers have easily been winning the battle for public opinion.
Two out of three of those surveyed with a view on the dispute supported the teachers, the poll found.
The public is also not buying the government's argument that teachers have to take a pay freeze like other public sector employees. More than two-thirds of those with an opinion backed the teachers' proposal for a 15-per-cent increase over the government's demand for a freeze. (That should make the government edgy as it heads into new talks with the rest of its unions. The public appears to believe that big surpluses mean the government can afford raises.)
And the teachers' focus on class size has found a receptive audience. About 85 per cent of those with an opinion say class size affects children's education. Both the government and teachers say they care about class size, but since the government's actions have resulted in larger classes teachers own the issue.
All good news for the union.
But then things turn in the government's favour. British Columbians were basically split on whether they supported or opposed the teachers' strike plan. (The poll, based in interviews with 315 adults in the Lower Mainland, was taken the day before the strike started.)
And about two-thirds of respondents said they wouldn't support the teachers' strike once legislation made it illegal.
That means the dispute is at a crossroads. Public opinion is the only real weapon teachers have. Up to this point, they have won that battle. The government knows the public is on the teachers' side, and that has to temper its response.
But that could swing quickly if the union persists in an illegal strike.
At this point a long strike can't win anything for the teachers. Staying out will not bring a raise, or class size negotiations.
Instead, public support will be eroded, and the government will face less pressure to take a fairer approach to the union's issues in the new bargaining model.
Brown has given both sides until Thursday to come up with the least damaging end to the job action.
The smart thing - for union and government - is to look for a solution that shows some willingness to compromise.
Failing that, the union has to recognize the critical long-term importance of public support. A continued strike in defiance of the law would do lasting damage to its cause.
Footnote: Both political parties are likely relieved that the legislature is shut down this week for a Thanksgiving break. NDP leader Carole James - after some prodding - said teachers should obey the law. But the issue is problematic for the New Democrats as well as the Liberals.

Note on comments

I've had to add a slightly clunky step for people who want to post comments.
It's needed to thwart the spamsters who have now targeted the Comment section of blogs like this for their junk.
The good news is that if they are that desperate, the business is on its last legs.
The bad news is that you need to copy a wavey word before you can comment.
I hope people still will, and once again note the reason and respect shown by people who comment on the issues raised here.
Cheers
Paul

Bungling on both sides as teachers go on strike

VICTORIA - It looked like amateur hour at the legislature Thursday as teachers prepared to walk off the job.
Who are the good guys in this, a Press Gallery colleague wondered aloud?
No one, really.
The Liberal government has invited this strike and failed to take the most simple steps to try and head it off.
When the government used legislation to rewrite the teachers' contract in 2002, taking out clauses governing issues like class size, it created an obvious problem.
The reasoning behind the change makes sense. Class sizes, for example, are an issue of educational effectiveness and one of many possible priorities. The ultimate responsibility for deciding on the best approach should lie with elected trustees and MLAs.
But they are also vitally important to teachers, and an important element of their working conditions. They need a chance to make their case on issues like class size, and support for special needs students.
The problem was clear then. It remained clear over the last three years. And commissioner Don Wright reminded the government of the need to address teachers' concerns in 2004. They have legitimate rights which the legislation removed.
But the government did nothing that could be considered even a serious effort to address the problem. Only Thursday did Labour Minister Mike de Jong announce that Vince Ready would review the bargaining process, and consider teachers' concerns.
Education Minister Shirley Bond also leaped into action Thursday, holding up a new "Learning Round Table" as the forum that would solve teachers' disaffection.
It was an ludicrously empty political gesture. The membership and mandate were undefined, though Bond said trustees, teachers, parent advisory councils and administrators should all be involved. The round table wouldn't have any real power; Bond would just relay the substance of the discussions to cabinet. It was meaningless.
And it turned out the government hadn't even pitched the idea when BCTF head Jinny Sims, BC Federation of Labour head Jim Sinclair and other union leaders met de Jong a few hours earlier in a last-ditch effort to head off the dispute.
Bond said the government had just decided on the round table. And she acknowleged that reporters were hearing about it before the BCTF. That's an indication the round table proposal has more to do with dodging the wrath of parents than reaching a deal.
Meanwhile, Sims emerged from the meeting with de Jong demonstrating just how tough it would be for even a more skilled government to get a deal with the union.
The BCTF has real and serious grievances.
But the union has treated collective bargaining like a crusade for justice, with Sims comparing the strike to acts of civil disobedience by civil rights campaigners in the American south.
Effective collective bargaining demands realism. The goal is to get the best deal you can, not to insist on achieving what you consider your due.
And sometimes, that means accepting a crummy deal indeed.
Both government and union have sat in a car speeding toward a cliff for a couple of years now, each insisting the other should do something about it, neither willing to reach out and grab the steering wheel.
And now we're at the cliff.
Negotiations often take unions and employers to the edge. But smart ones leave themselves a last-minute way out - a concession that can allow both to claim partial victory, a path to reluctant settlement.
The BCTF and the government haven't done that. The union does not appear to be interested in compromise; the government's silly "round table" ploy shows it is not prepared to make a real effort.
The losers are children and parents.
The loss of a few days of school are a major hassle for many families, especially working parents.
And the prospect of a school system staffed with teachers who feel beat up and abused by their employer is much worse news.
Footnote: The strike is illegal even without passage of the contract legislation, since the LRB hasn't yet set the required essential service levels. It now looks like we face several days of court proceedings, and penalties for teachers and the union. It's a result that signals failure by everyone involved.

Children's deaths need to mean something

VICTORIA - If it takes a study by Judge Thomas Gove to restore proper reviews of children's deaths in B.C., then let's get it done.
Something was lost when the Liberals wiped out the office that - among other useful functions - used to investigate children's deaths in B.C.
Look at the numbers. In six years the Children's Commission reviewed and reported on 800 children's deaths.
In the three years since it was eliminated, there has been one public report by the coroner, and two reviews by the ministry.
It is a big loss.
The Children's Commission released the reviews every few months, in batches. It was generally a depressing day. The reports were sad - children dying of sickness, or in car crashes, or committing suicide.
But the deaths often offered lessons, and the commission made sure they were heard. Sometimes, the children were in government care, and the lessons involved the ministry of children and families. The reports raised alarms about children bounced between foster homes, or left with too little support.
And they raised alarms about other issues, reminding us how many youths die because they don't wear seatbelts, or how often warnings of suicide are ignored, or how adult alcohol abuse puts children's lives at risk, or even how the right choice of a bicycle can save lives.
They were lessons from death. Because someone was looking, they were discovered. Because someone reported them, those lessons were shared.
It seems a useful government function, a way of providing the public with information on how well the ministry was doing, and on how we could keep all children safer. But the Liberals shut it down.
That is about to change.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen announced this week that he and Gordon Campbell had met with Gove to hear his concerns about the accountability lost along with the Children's Commission.
As a result Gove, Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley and Chief Coroner Terry Smith would be reporting on the current system on reviewing and reporting child deaths, and possible improvements, Hagen said.
Gove, whose 1995 review into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil led to the creation of the children and families ministry, has made his views clear.
The controversy over the death of 19-month-old Sherry Charlie was unnecessary, Gove told the Victoria Times-Colonist's Lindsay Kines.
"If the children's commission. . . was still in existence at the time that this little girl died, they would have done a death review in the normal course," he said. "It would not have required any politician to instruct anyone to do so. That report would have gone to the experts panel. They would have made recommendations, which may well have examined and challenged some of the policies that had her placed where she was. . . And that report would have been made public."
"We do not have a service close to what we had before," Gove said.
He's right, despite the government's denials. The numbers speak for themselves. Maybe too many reviews were being done, and the scope can be narrowed. But eliminating all public reporting was damaging.
The other troubling aspect to this is the government's inability to look critically at its own actions - to learn from mistakes, and successes.
The government insisted that the summary of the internal review of Sherry Charlies' death was all anyone needed to see - until public pressure, helped by Morley forced release of a more complete version.
It insisted that the report was adequate - until questions from the New Democrats forced the promise of one narrow review, then a slightly wider one. Then Morley and the Ombudsman both stepped in.
And it has insisted that reporting deaths is fully adequate - until Gove and the NDP raised the political pressure.
It's good to respond to public concern. But what's emerging is a picture of a government unable to take a hard look and learn from is own inevitable mistakes.
Footnote: "When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place." - Gordon Campbell, 1996.

Imposed teachers' deal a badge of failure

VICTORIA - It wasn't much of a surprise when Labour Minister Mike de Jong stood up in the legislature Monday and launched a pre-emptive strike on teachers.
No chance of a settlement in the dispute between the BC Teachers' Federation and the BC School Employers' Association, said de Jong.
So rather than wait for the job action to escalate, the Liberals introduced legislation to impose a new contact, making a strike illegal. (Like most unions, teachers are barred from job action when there is a contract in place, even an imposed one.)
It was, given the situation, the only real option. Deputy labour minister Rick Connolly had just reported that "there is no prospect for a voluntary resolution at the bargaining table."
The failure was "predictable," said de Jong, explaining the decision in his office. "The history of these two parties is that they have never in the past 10 or 15 years been able to negotiate an agreement."
The comment highlights a Liberal failure.
The deadlock was predictable. The parties haven't reached a negotiated deal since bargaining under the current structure began in 1993. The possibility of settlement became more remote in 2002, when the Liberals passed legislation to strip the teachers' contract of critical provisions, including class size limits and guaranteed number of support teachers.
Which means that the government could have seen this problem two years ago - or last year, when their own review identified the problems - and moved to address it.
De Jong took that step now.
The legislation extends the teachers' current contract for a two-year term, with no changes and no wage increase. The contract expired in 2004. Now it's extended to next June.
De Jong said that by the end of the week he will have appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner to recommend a better way of reaching contracts with teachers. The commissioner will report in time to allow a new system to be in place before talks start next year.
BCTF president Jinny Sims wasn't pleased. Sims said she had been fighting tears as she watched the pronouncement from inside the legislature. Teachers would decide quickly on their next step, she said.
None of the parties emerge from this looking good.
The negotiations were always certain to have problems. The union wanted a significant raise; the government told the employers' association that teachers, like other public servants, would have to take a two-year freeze.
And teachers wanted to negotiate issues like class size, and support for special needs students. The government said no chance.
It was a tough spot for teachers. There was very little to negotiate, and the employers' association knew that all it had to do was wait, and the government would impose a contract on its terms.
But negotiating isn't about justice and righting wrongs. It's about getting the best deal possible under the circumstances. The BCTF never accepted that reality.
The government never accepted what de Jong now says is so evident - that the bargaining system doesn't work. Commissioner Don Wright identified the problem in a report to the government last year, and offered a solution. If talks didn't work, a third party would conciliate. If that failed, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement. Issues like class size, while not part of the contract, needed to be discussed with the union in a separate process, Wright said. (Connolly made the same finding.)
But faced with a predictable, foreseeable problem, the government didn't act.
It's tough to measure the consequences. It should be a concern when teachers are denied the right to negotiate working conditions that is enjoyed by others under our system.
And it's bad for the quality of education if large number of teachers feel abused and unheard.
It may have been impossible to avoid this outcome. It would have been nice if all concerned had tried harder.
Footnote: De Jong's choice of inquiry commissioner, and the amount of freedom offered by the terms of reference, will be critical in at least establishing the chance of success. A broad mandate will will be needed to convince teachers the exercise is serious.

Time, sadly, to legislate end to teachers' job action

VICTORIA - There's no real alternative to a legislated end to teachers' job action, and no real reason to wait any longer.
Labour Minister Mike de Jong released the fact-finding report from deputy labour minister Rick Connolloy Friday, which concludes that "there is no prospect for a voluntary resolution at the bargaining table."
He's right, given the circumstances. The BC School Employers' Association has no mandate to bargain the issues that concern teachers, and no reason to make any concessions. If they wait, their proposals will be the basis of a legislated settlement.
De Jong said cabinet is considering the next step. But waiting for rotating strikes to start Oct. 11 before reacting with legislation would simply create needless disruption.
It is a disheartening situation, and one that reflects badly on all involved.
The main items in dispute are compensation, and issues like class size and teacher aides for special needs students.
Compensation was always going to be a point of conflict. The government says teachers have to take a two-year wage freeze, like other public sector employees, before getting any increases. Teachers want to keep up with inflation, and wage settlements in Ontario and Alberta.
Donnolly reports that the BC Teachers' Federation proposals would mean cost increases of seven per cent to 10 per cent a year for three years. (The employer and the union have come up with different costings.)
It's hard to see how the impasse over compensation could have been avoided.
But that' s not so true of the deadlock over the other issues.
Teachers had maximum class size guarantees and provisions for teacher aides and librarians in their contracts until 2002. (And they believed they had given up wage increases in return for those provisions.)
The Liberals used legislation to strip them from the contract, without consultation or compensation.
The motive is understandable. Issues like class size affect educational quality, and must be balanced with other priorities. Those decisions should be made by elected - and accountable- trustees, and MLAs.
But the issues also affect working conditions, and teachers should be able to get a serious hearing for their concerns. (Teachers are also rightly angry that their voices as frontline professionals aren't being heard.)
Donnolly is sympathetic. "Effective public policy requires involvement of all those affected," he reports. "It is my opinion that government should develop an approach to engage with teachers and education stakeholders including parents, trustees, superintendents and principals in an effective and meaningful dialogue regarding this critical issue that is entirely separate from the collective bargaining process. "
Commissioner Don Wright made a similar recommendation in a report to government 10 months ago. last year.
But three years after creating the problem, the government hasn't acted to provide a way for teachers to be heard.
Government action might not have changed anything. The BCTF is insisting on government-union talks on the issues, linked to contract negotiations. The Liberals want more stakeholders involved and a separate process.
De Jong expressed surprise at Donnolly's report. "I don't know how you can meet for 35 times and not agree on anything," he said.
It's simple. There is no reason for the parties to bargain. People negotiate and compromise because they think they have a chance to reach an agreement that gets them something, and because they fear the consequences of failing.
The employer has nothing to fear from failed talks, and no reason - or mandate - to bend. The teachers don't believe they can get anything. Negotiations will fail.
The result is bad for students - employees who feel abused do not do their best work - and violates teachers' right to bargain the terms of their employment.
Wright reported the problem to the government last year, and proposed a solution. Not perfect, perhaps, and not what teachers wanted, but a start.
The government's inaction, and an intractable union, set the stage for this damaging deadlock.
Footnote: What now? The government's best option is to impose a two-year deal, which takes the union to next June. At the same time it could legislate a timetable to ensure that a new, workable process - perhaps based on the Wright recommendations - is in place in time for new negotiations next year.

Hopeful outlook for treaties, and progress without them

VICTORIA - Maybe it's time to think about the treaty process in B.C. as a 40-year project.
The BC Treaty Commission weighed in with its annual report this week, citing some good reasons for optimism about progress, along with a few warnings. There is a chance three final agreements will be signed over the next year, the commissioners said.
But I've been heading to these annual updates for years now, generally - though not always - hearing some fairly hopeful words from the treaty commissioners.
Just as the politicians have usually been optimistic. Last fall then attorney general Geoff Plant was predicting four final treaty agreements were likely in coming months. None were signed. His NDP predecessor, Dale Lovick, was even more wildly optimistic back in 1999, predicting 10 final agreements in the next five years. And none were signed.
The outlook does look brighter now. Partly, that's the benefit of 12 years of slogging away at the treaty process, and in the courts. While the efforts were slow, and costly, they may have been needed to get everyone to the point that they could focus effectively on treaty making.
But it also reflects major changes in the province's position over the last several months, and a new unity on the First Nations side.
The Liberals' "New Relationship" project has gone a long way toward setting the stage for more productive talks. The Liberals were combative in opposition, when they went to court to try and overturn the Nisga'a treaty and promised the foolish treaty referendum. In government they have fought aggressive legal battles that angered First Nations by denying their right to aboriginal title.
All that has changed. The New Relationship document promises a broad recognition of aboriginal title, shared land-use and resource management and a share of resource revenues.
And this week Premier Gordon Campbell promised native treaty negotiators that things would be different. "For too long, and I acknowledge this, we did follow a path of denial," he said. The government will review its positions in dozens of continuing court cases, to ensure aboriginal title is respected.
These are big changes. But it's hard to be confident they will quickly lead to treaties being signed. The issues remaining, even in the negotiations that are farthest along, are the tough ones - fisheries, taxation, self-government. (The commission's earlier suggestion that an effort be made to tackle them on a provincial or regional basis still makes sense.)
Some First Nations are waiting to see what all the legal and political changes mean before they take the next steps.
And no one wants to be the first to sign, in case someone gets a better deal later.
The treaty process remains slow.
But what was striking this year is the growing recognition while treaties are important, they are not necessary to achieve improved relations, more opportunities for aboriginal communities and needed certainty about land use.
Given goodwill and shared goals, many of those goals can be accomplished through interim agreements that will solve immediate problems and help build the basis for treaties.
That hasn't really happened on a significant scale. Interim agreements have been strictly limited in their scope, and as the commission noted, often prompted by court decisions not a desire for co-operative solutions.
It's also become clear that treaties will not end the need for ongoing consultation and accommodation. First Nations and their neighbours and the province will still have to deal with common issues around land use and planning. We are in this together.
It might be helpful to broaden our focus to include not just the need for treaties, but the need to build a base of understanding and shared recognition of ground rules for decision-making.
Meanwhile, welcome the optimism, despite all the questions and doubts.
There are strong moral and economic reasons for reaching both treaties and effective interim agreements that strengthen aboriginal communities and reduce the economic damage done by land ownership uncertainty.
Footnote: The notion that treaty-making could take decades should prompt another look at the costs. The treaty commission allocated $29 million in loans and $7 million in grants last year to First Nations to support treaty efforts, bringing the 12-year total to $325 million.

Second vote on STV gives public needed choice

VICTORIA - Give Gordon Campbell top marks for his handling of the prickly problem posed by the referendum on electoral reform.
Most politicians would never have gone near the idea of asking a Citizens' Assembly to find a better way of electing governments. Campbell championed the process.
And once the referendum on the single-transferable system failed - barely - the big experiment would have been over.
But Campbell is giving voters another chance to consider electoral reform, this time with a clearer proposal and adequately funded yes and no campaigns. Another referendum will be held in the fall of 2008, at the same time as the municipal elections.
It's a fair solution to to a tricky political problem.
The Liberals decided that electoral reform could only go ahead if it received 60-per-cent support in last May's referendum. It missed by a whisker, with almost 58 per cent of those voting backing a change to the new system.
That's huge support - the Liberals were elected with only 46 per cent of the vote - and Campbell was right to look for a way to produce a definitive decision on whether B.C. should change.
Some supporters wanted Campbell to bend the rules and implement STV, on the basis that it came close enough. But the referendum requirements were clear, and justified.
His solution, unveiled in the Throne Speech, makes sense.
British Columbians will vote again on 2008, in a referendum to be held at the same time as the municipal elections. (That could be a huge factor in municipal races if it brings to the polls people who don't ordinarily vote.)
If it passes, the new rules will be in effect for the May 2009 provincial election.
This time, voters will have more information. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was already slated to review the ridings to adjust them for population changes. Now they will prepare report on what the ridings would look like under STV.
Under the STV system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each. Most of the Okanagan could be one riding, for example, with four MLAs.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked.
When the votes were counted, the results would reflect the rankings. A voter might rank an NDP candidate first, and Liberals second and third, and a Green fourth. All the votes would matter.
The result should be a more representative and diverse legislature, with MLAs who are more responsive to their communities.
The size of the new ridings concerned some people during the referendum campaign. Having that information set out will allow for more informed voting.
The yes side is heartened by the opportunity. Most believe they simply didn't have the time, or money, to inform people about the benefits of STV before the referendum. "Anytime we get a chance to explain the system to someone, they become a supporter," one campaigner noted.
Now they will be put to the test, with three years to inform people, and the promise of government funding for yes and no sides.
One interesting factor will be how the referendum is affected by the efforts to make the B.C. legislature more civil and effective. The need for change was reinforced for many people by the unrepresentative election result in 2001, and the Liberals' unwillingness to recognize the existence of an Official Opposition.
The situation is now much changed. But it should be easy for pro-STV campaigners to remind voters of the many other benefits.
Skeptics can advance a brace of theories about why Campbell is so keen on electoral reform. But many Liberals are also nervous about the idea.
The simple explanation is that Campbell is committed to the idea of letting the people decide whether there is a better way to elect governments, and is doing his best to give them that chance.
Footnote: Ontario has just followed B.C.'s example, launching its own Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform. It has gone one wise step further, charging another assembly with developing new controls on political donations and spending. That was a missed opportunity in B.C.

Sherry Charlie and broken promises, broken hopes

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.

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

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.

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.