It's rarely mistakes that get governments in trouble. It's the attempts to conceal them.
The Liberals are falling into that trap, fighting to keep important evidence from being heard at inquiries into two terrible deaths.
There's a grim inquest under way in Victoria, one touching on a lot of critical issues. A man broke stabbed to death his wife, young son, her parents and then himself.
The woman, Sunny Parks, had predicted the killings six weeks earlier, when Peter Lee crashed their vehicle into a utility pool in what she saw as an effort to kill or injure her. She had also recounted past abuse to police. She told them he always carried a knife.
But Crown prosecutors decided he should be released on bail. The police officers who had investigated disagreed. They thought Lee was dangerous.
But the prosecutors were unconvinced. Lee was released, with several conditions.
He didn't obey them. He violated orders not to call his wife and to stay away from her and the family home. Lee's bail supervisor warned she was having trouble tracking his movements.
So a bail review was scheduled. Neither Lee nor his lawyer showed. It lasted one minute. The Crown accepted an adjournment and a new hearing was set, for a week later. Lee knew bail might be revoked. And hours before the hearing, he went on a killing spree.
There were two chances for a different outcome. If prosecutors had argued that Lee should have been held in the first place. Or if they had argued that a warrant should be issued when he failed to appear for the second hearing.
There's no clear answer here. Locking up someone who might be innocent shouldn't be done lightly. Lee had no criminal record and owned a business. Jail would be a serious hardship.
A five-person jury is hearing the inquest evidence. The province sent a supervisor of Crown prosecutors to testify. She said the prosecutors did everything right - although police might have been at fault, she said. No policy changes were needed.
That was a little bit puzzling, given the five bodies.
Another Crown prosecutors manager frustrated the inquest by saying she couldn't answer many questions, because she wasn't involved in the actual decisions.
Lawyer Diane Turner, representing the B.C. Task Force on Family Violence at the inquest, described the first supervisor's testimony as "an insult the victims."
The jury and coroner Jeff Dolan decided they needed to hear from the prosecutors who made the decisions.
That seems reasonable. There are serious unanswered questions. Experts have testified the available information indicated Lee was a serious threat.
So why didn't the prosecutors act on that basis? Is their training in family violence adequate? Did a heavy workload influence the decision to let Lee be on the street? Were they worried that the local detention centre was already overcrowded? Did communication with police break down?
Fair questions, which only the prosecutors can answer. The coroner ordered the prosecutors to testify.
Then the provincial government stepped in. Prosecutors wouldn't be allowed to testify.
So even though Premier Gordon Campbell promised the inquest would answer all questions, it's now shut down indefinitely. The government is trying to get the coroner's order that the prosecutors testify overturned in B.C. Supreme Court.
It has linked the case with a similar battle at an inquiry into how Frank Paul was left by police to die in a Vancouver alley. The government is fighting the inquiry's order to hear from prosecutors in that case as well.
The questions are reasonable. Only the prosecutors can answer them.
And prosecutors have often testified at other inquiries. (In fact, Richard Peck, the lawyer the government has hired to argue prosecutors don't have to testify, demanded prosecutors be called when he was a defence lawyer in the Air India case.)
A family is dead. And the government is fighting to withhold evidence.
Footnote: The government is claiming that prosecutors - like judges - never have to account for any action or inaction. But judges are appointed; prosecutors are hired. Judges' decisions can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada; there's no recourse or review of a prosecutor's decision.
Attorney General Wally Oppal says allowing them to testify would mean prosecutors would constantly have to second-guess their decisions. It's hard to what's so wrong with that; but the reality is that inquiries and inquests like these are extremely rare.
Among the victims are the two prosecutors being barred from testifying. The government's intransigence denies them the chance to talk about the efforts they made to reach the right decision.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Middle class losing ground in B.C.
Disturbing news in the latest StatsCan report on incomes in Canada.
The report, which used data from the 2006 census, found that people's perceptions were correct.
In Canada, and B.C., the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer.
And in B.C., particularly, those in the middle have seen their incomes shrink since 1980.
Over 25 years, the real median income in B.C. fell 11.3 per cent, to $42,230. (The median income is the midpoint; half the people in the province earn more, half learn less.)
That's a big hit, for the middle class. Canadians have, for a couple of generations, believed that with hard work they could get ahead. That's not happening.
Even since 2000, average British Columbians have been losing ground. The real median income - adjusted for inflation - has fallen 3.4 per cent even as the government has celebrated its economic success.
What's most striking is how rarely this issue is even considered by government.
There's a great focus on overall economic growth - the rise in the gross domestic product each year. And governments track both job creation and employment statistics.
But they rarely - perhaps never - talk about targets that reflect not just the overall numbers, but the improvement or drop in the living standard of average people in the province.
Even Premier Gordon Campbell's response to the bad news from StatsCan fudged the issue.
Campbell noted "personal disposable income per capita in B.C. is up 17.2 per cent since 2000."
But again that's an aggregate number; the response ignores the way those increase are - or are not shared - among British Columbians.
The traditional view of government is that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the economy grows, everyone benefits.
But the StatsCan numbers show that's not true. That at the least, governments should be factoring income distribution into their plans.
There are lots of different ways to look at income numbers. The effects of taxes and transfers tend to reduce inequities slightly. And family incomes can rise even as individual incomes decline if two parents - and perhaps a child - can all find jobs in a good market.
But the fact remains the average British Columbian has a lower real income now than in 1980.
Some of the reasons seem obvious. Thousands of good jobs have vanished from the forest industry and fisheries. They were replaced with lower-paying work.
None of this is to suggest governments can guarantee wages. Some of the factors - the rise of foreign competitors for Canadian businesses, the decline of a forest industry that has cut down the best, most accessible timber - are largely beyond government's control.
Protecting mill jobs, for example, by requiring timber to be processed locally, might mean companies decide to shut down both logging and processing.
But government should at least be considering the effect of its decisions on individuals, not just on the broad economic impact. There's little evidence that is happening.
The federal and provincial governments have, for example, launched a radical expansion in programs to allow temporary foreign workers. Some 125,000 people from other countries have been accepted as short-term residents because employers say they can't find workers. About 36,000 were in B.C. in 2006.
The governments say without the workers, the economy would be hurt. But the reality is that they also depress wages in a market-based economy. Without them, some employers would pay more to attract the workers they need.
It might be a good program for the economy, but governments offer little evidence that they have given weight to the effect on average Canadians.
There is nothing inevitable about economic growth and the way in which the benefits flow. The results reflect the decisions government make.
And over the last several decades, those decisions have resulted in rising incomes for the rich, greater struggle for the poor and - in B.C, - lost ground for those in the middle.
Footnote: Campbell's response also noted, correctly, that tax cuts since 2001 have increased after-tax income for most British Columbians. But the benefits for a family of four with a household income of $90,000 are more than 50 per cent greater than the benefits to a family with an income of $30,000.
The report, which used data from the 2006 census, found that people's perceptions were correct.
In Canada, and B.C., the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer.
And in B.C., particularly, those in the middle have seen their incomes shrink since 1980.
Over 25 years, the real median income in B.C. fell 11.3 per cent, to $42,230. (The median income is the midpoint; half the people in the province earn more, half learn less.)
That's a big hit, for the middle class. Canadians have, for a couple of generations, believed that with hard work they could get ahead. That's not happening.
Even since 2000, average British Columbians have been losing ground. The real median income - adjusted for inflation - has fallen 3.4 per cent even as the government has celebrated its economic success.
What's most striking is how rarely this issue is even considered by government.
There's a great focus on overall economic growth - the rise in the gross domestic product each year. And governments track both job creation and employment statistics.
But they rarely - perhaps never - talk about targets that reflect not just the overall numbers, but the improvement or drop in the living standard of average people in the province.
Even Premier Gordon Campbell's response to the bad news from StatsCan fudged the issue.
Campbell noted "personal disposable income per capita in B.C. is up 17.2 per cent since 2000."
But again that's an aggregate number; the response ignores the way those increase are - or are not shared - among British Columbians.
The traditional view of government is that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the economy grows, everyone benefits.
But the StatsCan numbers show that's not true. That at the least, governments should be factoring income distribution into their plans.
There are lots of different ways to look at income numbers. The effects of taxes and transfers tend to reduce inequities slightly. And family incomes can rise even as individual incomes decline if two parents - and perhaps a child - can all find jobs in a good market.
But the fact remains the average British Columbian has a lower real income now than in 1980.
Some of the reasons seem obvious. Thousands of good jobs have vanished from the forest industry and fisheries. They were replaced with lower-paying work.
None of this is to suggest governments can guarantee wages. Some of the factors - the rise of foreign competitors for Canadian businesses, the decline of a forest industry that has cut down the best, most accessible timber - are largely beyond government's control.
Protecting mill jobs, for example, by requiring timber to be processed locally, might mean companies decide to shut down both logging and processing.
But government should at least be considering the effect of its decisions on individuals, not just on the broad economic impact. There's little evidence that is happening.
The federal and provincial governments have, for example, launched a radical expansion in programs to allow temporary foreign workers. Some 125,000 people from other countries have been accepted as short-term residents because employers say they can't find workers. About 36,000 were in B.C. in 2006.
The governments say without the workers, the economy would be hurt. But the reality is that they also depress wages in a market-based economy. Without them, some employers would pay more to attract the workers they need.
It might be a good program for the economy, but governments offer little evidence that they have given weight to the effect on average Canadians.
There is nothing inevitable about economic growth and the way in which the benefits flow. The results reflect the decisions government make.
And over the last several decades, those decisions have resulted in rising incomes for the rich, greater struggle for the poor and - in B.C, - lost ground for those in the middle.
Footnote: Campbell's response also noted, correctly, that tax cuts since 2001 have increased after-tax income for most British Columbians. But the benefits for a family of four with a household income of $90,000 are more than 50 per cent greater than the benefits to a family with an income of $30,000.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Raise in age of consent long overdue
Bravo Stephen Harper. After years of ineffectual stalling by previous federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, the age of sexual consent was raised to 16 this month.
No longer can sexual predators and sleazy old guys target naïve 14-year-old girls for exploitation.
No longer must parents watch as their children are lured off to some other city with a man who promises them love and excitement. Or risk arrest if they kick doors down and try to drag their son or daughter home because they fear for their physical and emotional safety.
No longer will men who buy beer for a 12-year-old and have sex her - a child in Grade 6 - be able to avoid conviction by testifying they thought she was 14.
That's from a real case in Saskatchewan, not some worst-case scenario. In Canada, men have been able to have sex with children in elementary school, as long as they could claim they believed the girls were 14. That made them old enough to consent to sex with a 50-year-old, under a Canadian law unchanged since 1892.
And 14-year-olds were free to take off for another city with anyone who persuaded them it would be a great time. They couldn't legally drink, or vote, or smoke or drive.
But having sex with a slick older guy, moving thousands of miles away with him - that was fine.
It was appalling. But past governments - under Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin - wouldn't do anything to protect girls.
It got positively creepy. Police chiefs and parents wanted the law changed. Eight out of 10 provinces wanted the change. (Saskatchewan and Quebec were the holdout defenders of the right of 14-year-old boys and girls to have sex with adults.)
But the federal government said no. Liberals and Conservatives were keen to protect the right of men to have sex with what most parents would consider children.
The excuses used by past governments to justify their inaction were embarrassingly and transparently lame.
Sorry, they said. The risk that a 16-year-old boy might get in legal trouble for having sex with his 13-year-old girlfriend is just too great. Better to leave children open to exploitation by adults.
It was a stupidly flimsy excuse. Other countries - not just Britain and the U.S., but nations like Thailand - have brought in protection for young boys and girls. Somehow Canada championed the right for men to sleep with kids.
The Harper government dealt with the problem pragmatically. The law doesn't make criminals out of teens who have sex. It accepts that teens are sexually active, no matter how much parents might be troubled by that. As long as both parties are within five years of each other in age, the law doesn't apply. A 17-year-old boy who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend won't be made a criminal.
The government's past failures have been bizarre. Partly, it seemed the whole notion of teens having sex was something the politicians just didn't want to acknowledge. Not many of us are comfortable with the idea.
But simply pretending it's not happening isn't a sensible response. The McCreary Centre conducts major studies on the behaviour of children and youth in B.C.
The last major report, in 2003, found that one in five B.C. 15-year-olds was already sexually active. That's perhaps 55,000 kids - not a small group. Seven per cent of 13-year-olds - another 51,000 kids - reported they had already had sex. That's two or three kids in an average Grade 8 class.
There's a big lesson for parents - and schools - in that. Children need to be taught about sex at a very early age, younger than most of us recognize. Ideally, they will wait before plunging into physical relationships. But in any case, they need information.
Just as they need protection from predators. The Conservatives deserve credit for providing that.
Footnote: Some organizations that work with young people expressed fears that the change could be confusing. Again, education is the answer, about all aspects of sexuality as well as the basic principle of the right to consent, or say no.
No longer can sexual predators and sleazy old guys target naïve 14-year-old girls for exploitation.
No longer must parents watch as their children are lured off to some other city with a man who promises them love and excitement. Or risk arrest if they kick doors down and try to drag their son or daughter home because they fear for their physical and emotional safety.
No longer will men who buy beer for a 12-year-old and have sex her - a child in Grade 6 - be able to avoid conviction by testifying they thought she was 14.
That's from a real case in Saskatchewan, not some worst-case scenario. In Canada, men have been able to have sex with children in elementary school, as long as they could claim they believed the girls were 14. That made them old enough to consent to sex with a 50-year-old, under a Canadian law unchanged since 1892.
And 14-year-olds were free to take off for another city with anyone who persuaded them it would be a great time. They couldn't legally drink, or vote, or smoke or drive.
But having sex with a slick older guy, moving thousands of miles away with him - that was fine.
It was appalling. But past governments - under Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin - wouldn't do anything to protect girls.
It got positively creepy. Police chiefs and parents wanted the law changed. Eight out of 10 provinces wanted the change. (Saskatchewan and Quebec were the holdout defenders of the right of 14-year-old boys and girls to have sex with adults.)
But the federal government said no. Liberals and Conservatives were keen to protect the right of men to have sex with what most parents would consider children.
The excuses used by past governments to justify their inaction were embarrassingly and transparently lame.
Sorry, they said. The risk that a 16-year-old boy might get in legal trouble for having sex with his 13-year-old girlfriend is just too great. Better to leave children open to exploitation by adults.
It was a stupidly flimsy excuse. Other countries - not just Britain and the U.S., but nations like Thailand - have brought in protection for young boys and girls. Somehow Canada championed the right for men to sleep with kids.
The Harper government dealt with the problem pragmatically. The law doesn't make criminals out of teens who have sex. It accepts that teens are sexually active, no matter how much parents might be troubled by that. As long as both parties are within five years of each other in age, the law doesn't apply. A 17-year-old boy who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend won't be made a criminal.
The government's past failures have been bizarre. Partly, it seemed the whole notion of teens having sex was something the politicians just didn't want to acknowledge. Not many of us are comfortable with the idea.
But simply pretending it's not happening isn't a sensible response. The McCreary Centre conducts major studies on the behaviour of children and youth in B.C.
The last major report, in 2003, found that one in five B.C. 15-year-olds was already sexually active. That's perhaps 55,000 kids - not a small group. Seven per cent of 13-year-olds - another 51,000 kids - reported they had already had sex. That's two or three kids in an average Grade 8 class.
There's a big lesson for parents - and schools - in that. Children need to be taught about sex at a very early age, younger than most of us recognize. Ideally, they will wait before plunging into physical relationships. But in any case, they need information.
Just as they need protection from predators. The Conservatives deserve credit for providing that.
Footnote: Some organizations that work with young people expressed fears that the change could be confusing. Again, education is the answer, about all aspects of sexuality as well as the basic principle of the right to consent, or say no.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Four children's deaths, four children failied
I should have written about the children's representative report on four child deaths last week, when it came out.
But I am so tired of these sad stories, and there were other topics worth writing about: Gen. Rick Hillier's departure; the Conservative election spending scandal.
Really though, I was dodging. It gets hard to read the same reports and write the same columns year after year, hear the same empty reassurances from the ministers. So many ministers: 10 since I started writing about the ministry some 11 years ago.
New Democrat, Liberal, bright, not so bright, all unable to set the ministry on the right course. Otherwise, why the lurches in new directions every few years?
Not one of them wanted to see little kids suffer, but not one of them could ensure an adequate budget, consistent direction or competent management.
There's something to celebrate simply in having the report from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth.
Since the Liberals recklessly eliminated the Children's Commission in 2002, children's deaths were treated as inconsequential. After a shameful six years, B.C. is once again paying attention to the fate of the most vulnerable children.
That doesn't make it any less sad.
It's the details that get you. This time, it was a slice of the life of Amanda Simpson, beaten to death when she was four. That's a great age - kids are increasingly articulate but still unselfconscious. They mostly haven't learned to hide their hearts.
The ministry had contact with Amanda's family before she was born.
When she was two, Turpel-Lafond recounts matter of factly, they came to child protection workers' attention again.
"The oldest sister, then six years old, reported that she was frequently the only caregiver for her sisters, ages one, two and four years." the report says. "She complained of a headache and was very tired. She also requested some help with caring for her sisters.
"The child was able to describe in detail a meal and bedtime routine she had created to keep her sisters quiet: She fed them 'freezies and ice cream' and played with them. The child described a past incident in which one of her sisters had set off the fire alarm while playing with a lighter. She said that the girls were cold and wanted to start a fire to warm up. The fire department reportedly attended the home."
There's something haunting about the line - that the six-year-old, caring for three little girls, was just so tired.
The four deaths reviewed in the report were all in the north between 1999 and 2005. That's an indication of how badly things had fallen apart. Only now, nine years later, was Amanda's death given the respect of a proper independent review.
The problems the report raises are familiar. The ministry had difficulty recognizing and responding to child abuse and neglect. Social workers were unable to complete the child protection investigations in a reasonable time. When it did gather information, it wasn't used properly.
Even when risk was identified, support and supervision weren't inadequate.
And when the ministry identified problems and lessons in its own, generally superficial reviews of the death, it didn't share the information with frontline workers who needed it.
It was another grim report.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen didn't see it that way. He hasn't committed to any of the recommendations in the report.
And like the nine ministers before him, he insisted the ministry has things sorted out now.
But that's not what the representative said.
"This investigation found that current safety assessment and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since these children died," the report says.
Things will always go wrong in this ministry. It's simply inevitable that misjudgments will be made, sometimes with terrible consequences.
That just makes it more important that the government do everything possible to support workers, children and families.
And it's not.
Footnote: The performance of the Coroners Service, which the government claimed has been reviewing child deaths, was terrible. The reviews of the children's deaths were left incomplete, with no effective monitoring. The service's review of Amanda's death was stalled for two years because the coroner was "uncomfortable" with the task. The chief coroner took no action.
But I am so tired of these sad stories, and there were other topics worth writing about: Gen. Rick Hillier's departure; the Conservative election spending scandal.
Really though, I was dodging. It gets hard to read the same reports and write the same columns year after year, hear the same empty reassurances from the ministers. So many ministers: 10 since I started writing about the ministry some 11 years ago.
New Democrat, Liberal, bright, not so bright, all unable to set the ministry on the right course. Otherwise, why the lurches in new directions every few years?
Not one of them wanted to see little kids suffer, but not one of them could ensure an adequate budget, consistent direction or competent management.
There's something to celebrate simply in having the report from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth.
Since the Liberals recklessly eliminated the Children's Commission in 2002, children's deaths were treated as inconsequential. After a shameful six years, B.C. is once again paying attention to the fate of the most vulnerable children.
That doesn't make it any less sad.
It's the details that get you. This time, it was a slice of the life of Amanda Simpson, beaten to death when she was four. That's a great age - kids are increasingly articulate but still unselfconscious. They mostly haven't learned to hide their hearts.
The ministry had contact with Amanda's family before she was born.
When she was two, Turpel-Lafond recounts matter of factly, they came to child protection workers' attention again.
"The oldest sister, then six years old, reported that she was frequently the only caregiver for her sisters, ages one, two and four years." the report says. "She complained of a headache and was very tired. She also requested some help with caring for her sisters.
"The child was able to describe in detail a meal and bedtime routine she had created to keep her sisters quiet: She fed them 'freezies and ice cream' and played with them. The child described a past incident in which one of her sisters had set off the fire alarm while playing with a lighter. She said that the girls were cold and wanted to start a fire to warm up. The fire department reportedly attended the home."
There's something haunting about the line - that the six-year-old, caring for three little girls, was just so tired.
The four deaths reviewed in the report were all in the north between 1999 and 2005. That's an indication of how badly things had fallen apart. Only now, nine years later, was Amanda's death given the respect of a proper independent review.
The problems the report raises are familiar. The ministry had difficulty recognizing and responding to child abuse and neglect. Social workers were unable to complete the child protection investigations in a reasonable time. When it did gather information, it wasn't used properly.
Even when risk was identified, support and supervision weren't inadequate.
And when the ministry identified problems and lessons in its own, generally superficial reviews of the death, it didn't share the information with frontline workers who needed it.
It was another grim report.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen didn't see it that way. He hasn't committed to any of the recommendations in the report.
And like the nine ministers before him, he insisted the ministry has things sorted out now.
But that's not what the representative said.
"This investigation found that current safety assessment and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since these children died," the report says.
Things will always go wrong in this ministry. It's simply inevitable that misjudgments will be made, sometimes with terrible consequences.
That just makes it more important that the government do everything possible to support workers, children and families.
And it's not.
Footnote: The performance of the Coroners Service, which the government claimed has been reviewing child deaths, was terrible. The reviews of the children's deaths were left incomplete, with no effective monitoring. The service's review of Amanda's death was stalled for two years because the coroner was "uncomfortable" with the task. The chief coroner took no action.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Ritziest schools get playground money; neediest shunned
It's worrying that for the second time in six months the government has made a mess of the simple task of handing out money for school playgrounds.
The NDP were quick to hint at some sort of sinister plot in the latest bungle, which saw ritzy private schools get cash while schools in the inner city and struggling rural communities got zip.
And there is an ideological aspect to the decision to deprive poor kids of playgrounds, as if they just aren't worthy of them.
But mostly, this looks like a blend of insensitivity and incompetence. That could be even more worrying.
Especially because the government has been through this once already. In December, it announced $1 million in funding for 66 selected school playground projects across the province.
Good news, it seemed. But Jason Harshenin, editor of the Grand Forks Gazette, wondered why a small local school which had been left off the list despite a great application.
He found the government had passed the job of deciding which schools would get the playground grants on the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Council. There were $10 million worth of applications for the available $1 million.
But the confederation said it didn't have time to read the applications. So it just drew schools' names from a hat. More than 600 applied; 66 were drawn.
It's an irresponsible way to spend taxpayers' money - by lottery, with no effort to seek the best value or return or help schools with the greatest need.
The government looked sloppy. So you would think they would learn.
But no. This month, the government announced $1.5 million in playground grants to 96 parent advisory councils. The grants were based on "demonstrated need," said Solicitor General John van Dongen. (Van Dongen was involved because the money came from gambling profits; the Education Ministry actually ran the program.)
The claim simply wasn't true. Two of the ritziest private schools in Vancouver got $20,000 each. Other schools, with much greater need, were shut out.
It's hard to see any "demonstrated need" at St. George's School, for example. Tuition for an elementary student is $14,240 a year. The school has a big trust fund and full-time fund-raising staff.
It already has two gyms, an indoor swimming pool, three tennis courts, four basketball courts and a full fitness centre.
Yet it got $20,000 for playground equipment, while schools in desperate need of got nothing.
The government structured the grant program up to exclude some schools. It wasn't enough to need playground equipment for the children. Before schools could even apply, they had to have an active parents' advisory council.
That's a given in most affluent neighbourhoods.
But for other schools, keeping a PAC going is a struggle. In a community with a lot of single parents, many working two jobs, it's tough to get active participants. In urban areas with large populations of newcomers to Canada, the concept isn't really established.
And in small towns, where schools face problems of declining enrolments, the PAC can become too much work.
As well, the parents' advisory councils had to have raised matching funds before their applications would even be considered.
Again, no giant problem at St. George's or many public schools with affluent parents who are able to run a successful silent auction or fundraising campaign.
But the requirement is a huge barrier for schools in poor neighbourhoods and struggling committees - the areas in which the playground equipment is most desperately needed.
Education Minister Shirley Bond said the criteria would be reviewed, but offered no other help for schools left off the list.
She couldn't explain why the government thought children should be denied access to playgrounds of their parents couldn't raise thousands of dollars to cover half the costs.
And Bond certainly couldn't explain how her ministry had botched playground grants again after last year's debacle.
Footnote: The obvious solution is simply to provide playground grants to school districts and let them decide where the need is greatest. The current program is unfair and needlessly bureaucratic and complex. The government's reluctance to trust school boards to manage the process is baffling.
The NDP were quick to hint at some sort of sinister plot in the latest bungle, which saw ritzy private schools get cash while schools in the inner city and struggling rural communities got zip.
And there is an ideological aspect to the decision to deprive poor kids of playgrounds, as if they just aren't worthy of them.
But mostly, this looks like a blend of insensitivity and incompetence. That could be even more worrying.
Especially because the government has been through this once already. In December, it announced $1 million in funding for 66 selected school playground projects across the province.
Good news, it seemed. But Jason Harshenin, editor of the Grand Forks Gazette, wondered why a small local school which had been left off the list despite a great application.
He found the government had passed the job of deciding which schools would get the playground grants on the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Council. There were $10 million worth of applications for the available $1 million.
But the confederation said it didn't have time to read the applications. So it just drew schools' names from a hat. More than 600 applied; 66 were drawn.
It's an irresponsible way to spend taxpayers' money - by lottery, with no effort to seek the best value or return or help schools with the greatest need.
The government looked sloppy. So you would think they would learn.
But no. This month, the government announced $1.5 million in playground grants to 96 parent advisory councils. The grants were based on "demonstrated need," said Solicitor General John van Dongen. (Van Dongen was involved because the money came from gambling profits; the Education Ministry actually ran the program.)
The claim simply wasn't true. Two of the ritziest private schools in Vancouver got $20,000 each. Other schools, with much greater need, were shut out.
It's hard to see any "demonstrated need" at St. George's School, for example. Tuition for an elementary student is $14,240 a year. The school has a big trust fund and full-time fund-raising staff.
It already has two gyms, an indoor swimming pool, three tennis courts, four basketball courts and a full fitness centre.
Yet it got $20,000 for playground equipment, while schools in desperate need of got nothing.
The government structured the grant program up to exclude some schools. It wasn't enough to need playground equipment for the children. Before schools could even apply, they had to have an active parents' advisory council.
That's a given in most affluent neighbourhoods.
But for other schools, keeping a PAC going is a struggle. In a community with a lot of single parents, many working two jobs, it's tough to get active participants. In urban areas with large populations of newcomers to Canada, the concept isn't really established.
And in small towns, where schools face problems of declining enrolments, the PAC can become too much work.
As well, the parents' advisory councils had to have raised matching funds before their applications would even be considered.
Again, no giant problem at St. George's or many public schools with affluent parents who are able to run a successful silent auction or fundraising campaign.
But the requirement is a huge barrier for schools in poor neighbourhoods and struggling committees - the areas in which the playground equipment is most desperately needed.
Education Minister Shirley Bond said the criteria would be reviewed, but offered no other help for schools left off the list.
She couldn't explain why the government thought children should be denied access to playgrounds of their parents couldn't raise thousands of dollars to cover half the costs.
And Bond certainly couldn't explain how her ministry had botched playground grants again after last year's debacle.
Footnote: The obvious solution is simply to provide playground grants to school districts and let them decide where the need is greatest. The current program is unfair and needlessly bureaucratic and complex. The government's reluctance to trust school boards to manage the process is baffling.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Conservatives are making ad spending scandal worse
The federal Conservatives are heading into trouble over allegations of election spending fraud and money-laundering.
It's more complex than the usual scandal. But if the unproven Elections Canada claims are true, Harper and company are in the process of alienating a lot of the uncommitted voters they need onside in the next election.
In what seems a bad mistake, the Conservatives are confirming the substance of the charges.
And they're offering self-destructive justifications, ones that leave the politicians strapped to the scandal if it goes off a cliff.
Here are the allegations, boiled down.
There are advertising spending limits for parties in federal election campaigns. Parliament decided that a party with a big pile of cash shouldn't be able to buy a victory.
In the last election campaign, the Conservatives' national campaign was allowed to spend $18.3 million on advertising - no more.
Candidates had separate individual spending limits.
The allegation is that the party wanted to spend more than $18.3 million on national advertising.
Many candidates local couldn't raise enough to reach their spending limits.
So, the national party arranged to send cheques for $4,000 to $29,000 to selected local candidates.
And they turned around and wrote cheques back to the party for the same amount, often in the day.
Ostensibly, the local candidates were saying they wanted to run more TV and radio ads to help in their local races. The national office was supposed to help by buying them.
But really, Elections Canada alleges, it was a just a shuffle to get around the election spending limits.
The result, according to the elections office, was that the Conservatives spent $1.1 million more on ads than they were allowed.
It gets worse. Local campaigns are eligible for a 60-per-cent rebate from taxpayers on the money they spend. The national campaigns aren't.
The deal, if it worked as Election Canada claims, cost taxpayers $700,000.
The Conservatives have offered two defences.
First, they say the candidates really wanted those national ad campaigns to run. They recognized that they mattered less than the leaders and hoped the party effort would help them to victory.
But Elections Canada has evidence that contradicts that. Mostly, the local candidates and their volunteer agents just did what they were told. Sometimes, they said the national ads actually hurt them.
Here on Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservatives complained they were made to pay for advertising that hurt their effort. The ads, directed at a national audience, attacked the Liberals. The local Conservatives' main opponent was New Democrat incumbent Jean Crowder. The attacks, by discouraging Liberal votes, might have helped Crowder to victory.
The second defence is the really damning one.
The Conservatives have claimed Elections Canada is picking on them, a theme echoed by some commentators.
All the other parties do it too, the Conservatives complain.
It's a defence that never worked at my house. Wrong doesn't become right if it enough people vote for it. (If the other kids jumped off the bridge. . . )
Worse for the Conservatives, there's no evidence that the other parties did do it too. Former candidates for other parties and observers say they don't recall any large-scale funding shuffles to pay for national ads or other dubious transactions.
By making that claim, the Conservatives haven't claimed the high road. They've chosen to argue they only that they obeyed the letter of the law. (Even that has been cast into doubt by some of the evidence, including early questions about the shuffle's possible illegality.)
Harper's defence - and the claim that Elections Canada is picking on the Conservatives - will fly with the party's core supporters.
But most uncommitted voters will likely find the allegation that Elections Canada is singling out the party for harassment unbelievable.
The Conservatives won a minority government in large part because they promised an end to dubious campaign practices.
Now it looks more like they embraced them.
Footnote: Twelve B.C. Conservative candidates took part in the in-and-out funding shuffle: Dick Harris, Cariboo-Prince George; Jay Hill, Prince George-Peace River; Jim Abbott, Kootenay-Columbia; Ron Cannan, Kelowna-Lake Country; Colin Mayes, Okanagan-Shuswap; Stockwell Day, Okanagan-Coquihalla; Norm Sowden, Nanaimo-Cowichan; Troy DeSouza, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca; George Drazenovic, Burnaby-Douglas; Marc Dalton, Burnaby-New Westminster; Elizabeth Pagtakhan, Vancouver East; and Kanman Wong, Vancouver Kingsway.
It's more complex than the usual scandal. But if the unproven Elections Canada claims are true, Harper and company are in the process of alienating a lot of the uncommitted voters they need onside in the next election.
In what seems a bad mistake, the Conservatives are confirming the substance of the charges.
And they're offering self-destructive justifications, ones that leave the politicians strapped to the scandal if it goes off a cliff.
Here are the allegations, boiled down.
There are advertising spending limits for parties in federal election campaigns. Parliament decided that a party with a big pile of cash shouldn't be able to buy a victory.
In the last election campaign, the Conservatives' national campaign was allowed to spend $18.3 million on advertising - no more.
Candidates had separate individual spending limits.
The allegation is that the party wanted to spend more than $18.3 million on national advertising.
Many candidates local couldn't raise enough to reach their spending limits.
So, the national party arranged to send cheques for $4,000 to $29,000 to selected local candidates.
And they turned around and wrote cheques back to the party for the same amount, often in the day.
Ostensibly, the local candidates were saying they wanted to run more TV and radio ads to help in their local races. The national office was supposed to help by buying them.
But really, Elections Canada alleges, it was a just a shuffle to get around the election spending limits.
The result, according to the elections office, was that the Conservatives spent $1.1 million more on ads than they were allowed.
It gets worse. Local campaigns are eligible for a 60-per-cent rebate from taxpayers on the money they spend. The national campaigns aren't.
The deal, if it worked as Election Canada claims, cost taxpayers $700,000.
The Conservatives have offered two defences.
First, they say the candidates really wanted those national ad campaigns to run. They recognized that they mattered less than the leaders and hoped the party effort would help them to victory.
But Elections Canada has evidence that contradicts that. Mostly, the local candidates and their volunteer agents just did what they were told. Sometimes, they said the national ads actually hurt them.
Here on Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservatives complained they were made to pay for advertising that hurt their effort. The ads, directed at a national audience, attacked the Liberals. The local Conservatives' main opponent was New Democrat incumbent Jean Crowder. The attacks, by discouraging Liberal votes, might have helped Crowder to victory.
The second defence is the really damning one.
The Conservatives have claimed Elections Canada is picking on them, a theme echoed by some commentators.
All the other parties do it too, the Conservatives complain.
It's a defence that never worked at my house. Wrong doesn't become right if it enough people vote for it. (If the other kids jumped off the bridge. . . )
Worse for the Conservatives, there's no evidence that the other parties did do it too. Former candidates for other parties and observers say they don't recall any large-scale funding shuffles to pay for national ads or other dubious transactions.
By making that claim, the Conservatives haven't claimed the high road. They've chosen to argue they only that they obeyed the letter of the law. (Even that has been cast into doubt by some of the evidence, including early questions about the shuffle's possible illegality.)
Harper's defence - and the claim that Elections Canada is picking on the Conservatives - will fly with the party's core supporters.
But most uncommitted voters will likely find the allegation that Elections Canada is singling out the party for harassment unbelievable.
The Conservatives won a minority government in large part because they promised an end to dubious campaign practices.
Now it looks more like they embraced them.
Footnote: Twelve B.C. Conservative candidates took part in the in-and-out funding shuffle: Dick Harris, Cariboo-Prince George; Jay Hill, Prince George-Peace River; Jim Abbott, Kootenay-Columbia; Ron Cannan, Kelowna-Lake Country; Colin Mayes, Okanagan-Shuswap; Stockwell Day, Okanagan-Coquihalla; Norm Sowden, Nanaimo-Cowichan; Troy DeSouza, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca; George Drazenovic, Burnaby-Douglas; Marc Dalton, Burnaby-New Westminster; Elizabeth Pagtakhan, Vancouver East; and Kanman Wong, Vancouver Kingsway.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Hillier's power set a dangerous precedent
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defense staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I were in the Canadian Forces, certainly in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military - the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have.
He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force - "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate guy or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians - especially ones like Stephen Harper who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions - welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that Hillier wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When he was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, Hillier used the ceremony - attended by then prime minister Paul Martin - to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the armed forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it.
And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support, and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murders and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The Canadian Forces job is - or should be - to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was partly Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served.
Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting the objectives for the military and making policy decisions? A career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one has ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to Hillier's effective lobbying and political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And again, it raises questions about what Canadians gave up - tax cuts, or improved health care - to fund the military spending Hillier so adroitly won.
"He didn't fear the politicians," Martin noted in a column on Hillier's departure. "They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. And anytime politicians are afraid of generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong.
Footnote: Hillier's successes on behalf of the military raise another issue. Were the defence ministers he reported to unusually weak? Or has the increasing centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office left all ministers with such a diminished role that they can be swept aside?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The health care sustainability scam
The best you can hope for from George Abbott's bill making "sustainability" a sixth principle of medicare is that it doesn't mean anything.
That's a reasonable assumption. The Liberals have been trying to make health care a theme of this session, presenting lots of bills. Some are bound to be slight.
But if the Liberals argue that the bill does demands action, people who support public health care should be worried.
Gordon Campbell promised that sustainability would be added to the five principles of the Canada Health Act in the throne speech in 2006, at the same time he announced the conversation on health.
The conversation took a year to get going and didn't produce the results Campbell expected. Generally, people were keen to protect and improve the current public system.
Despite some fear-mongering by the government, British Columbians public weren't overly concerned about paying for heath care.
Not what the government had expected. Campbell had made much of the need to cut health spending radically to avoid a looming crisis. The public, rightly, didn't buy it.
The sustainability bill could just be an effort to deliver on the 2006 promise.
But it raises concerns that the Liberals are creating a legislative pretext for radical change in health care - perhaps denying patients' treatment that has been accepted as medically necessary or closing hospitals.
The Canada Health Act sets out five principles for medicare: All medically necessary procedures have to be covered; the system must be be publicly managed and paid for; everyone has to be covered; access has to be equal - no user fees or special payments for preferential treatment; and provinces have to make sure residents are covered within Canada. There are additional details, but broadly the principles are pretty clear.
Sustainability takes the government on to murkier ground, and at worst manufactures a crisis.
Health-care costs are increasing. New drugs, expensive technologies, an aging population looking for great care - cost pressures are inevitable.
But there is no crisis. Back in 1985, about one in every three dollars the government took in went to pay for health care. In 1995, the same. And last year, it was about the same - 35.5 per cent of the money government collected was consumed by health care.
Look at it another way. In 1985, health spending was about five percent of GDP. By 1995, it was 6.6 per cent. This year it will be about nine per cent. The increases are an issue, but the notion that we can't afford health care - that it's not sustainable - is simply not supported by the facts. (We spend four per cent of GDP on dining out in restaurants and taverns.)
Health-care spending was just under $13 billion last year. With the government's encouragement, British Columbians put about $10 billion into slot machines and lottery tickets.
And other countries - including France, Germany and the U.S. spend a higher proportion of GDP on health care.
None of this is to dismiss the importance of good heath-care management. Especially over the next two decades, as the boomer bulge moves into the senior years, pressures will mount. It will be important to reduce demand by encouraging healthier choices and to look for the most cost-effective ways to deliver services.
But there's no sustainability crisis.
Perhaps Abbott will clarify the government's intentions during debate on the bill.
In the meantime, the legislation fuels fears the government will use scare tactics to justify cutting care or offering patients the chance to pay extra for private treatment. (A shift that would actually increase health care costs overall. User fees mean the total cost for a specific procedure rise.)
Health care will cost each British Columbian about $3.50 a week more this year
than it did last year.
That hardly seems a crisis.
Footnote: Even the federal Conservatives are on the opposite of this issue. Abbott asked his federal counterpart to add sustainability to the Canada Health Act last year. Federal Health Minister Tony Clement said he saw no need to make the change.
That's a reasonable assumption. The Liberals have been trying to make health care a theme of this session, presenting lots of bills. Some are bound to be slight.
But if the Liberals argue that the bill does demands action, people who support public health care should be worried.
Gordon Campbell promised that sustainability would be added to the five principles of the Canada Health Act in the throne speech in 2006, at the same time he announced the conversation on health.
The conversation took a year to get going and didn't produce the results Campbell expected. Generally, people were keen to protect and improve the current public system.
Despite some fear-mongering by the government, British Columbians public weren't overly concerned about paying for heath care.
Not what the government had expected. Campbell had made much of the need to cut health spending radically to avoid a looming crisis. The public, rightly, didn't buy it.
The sustainability bill could just be an effort to deliver on the 2006 promise.
But it raises concerns that the Liberals are creating a legislative pretext for radical change in health care - perhaps denying patients' treatment that has been accepted as medically necessary or closing hospitals.
The Canada Health Act sets out five principles for medicare: All medically necessary procedures have to be covered; the system must be be publicly managed and paid for; everyone has to be covered; access has to be equal - no user fees or special payments for preferential treatment; and provinces have to make sure residents are covered within Canada. There are additional details, but broadly the principles are pretty clear.
Sustainability takes the government on to murkier ground, and at worst manufactures a crisis.
Health-care costs are increasing. New drugs, expensive technologies, an aging population looking for great care - cost pressures are inevitable.
But there is no crisis. Back in 1985, about one in every three dollars the government took in went to pay for health care. In 1995, the same. And last year, it was about the same - 35.5 per cent of the money government collected was consumed by health care.
Look at it another way. In 1985, health spending was about five percent of GDP. By 1995, it was 6.6 per cent. This year it will be about nine per cent. The increases are an issue, but the notion that we can't afford health care - that it's not sustainable - is simply not supported by the facts. (We spend four per cent of GDP on dining out in restaurants and taverns.)
Health-care spending was just under $13 billion last year. With the government's encouragement, British Columbians put about $10 billion into slot machines and lottery tickets.
And other countries - including France, Germany and the U.S. spend a higher proportion of GDP on health care.
None of this is to dismiss the importance of good heath-care management. Especially over the next two decades, as the boomer bulge moves into the senior years, pressures will mount. It will be important to reduce demand by encouraging healthier choices and to look for the most cost-effective ways to deliver services.
But there's no sustainability crisis.
Perhaps Abbott will clarify the government's intentions during debate on the bill.
In the meantime, the legislation fuels fears the government will use scare tactics to justify cutting care or offering patients the chance to pay extra for private treatment. (A shift that would actually increase health care costs overall. User fees mean the total cost for a specific procedure rise.)
Health care will cost each British Columbian about $3.50 a week more this year
than it did last year.
That hardly seems a crisis.
Footnote: Even the federal Conservatives are on the opposite of this issue. Abbott asked his federal counterpart to add sustainability to the Canada Health Act last year. Federal Health Minister Tony Clement said he saw no need to make the change.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
An inquiry is needed into the Merritt deaths
The murder of three children in Merritt would be terrible, no matter what the circumstances.
But if the crime could have been prevented. . .
There are real questions about whether Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon Schoenborn had to die. Worse, the same questions have been raised in earlier cases.
And the issues aren't just ones of judgment. The police, prosecutors and courts apparently didn't have access to critical information. Information that perhaps could have saved the children's lives.
The questions have been piling up in the days since the children were found stabbed to death. Their father, Dwayne Schoenborn, is the suspected killer. He was looking after them last Sunday while their mother went shopping. She returned to find them dead; he hasn't been seen since.
Bad things happen in this world. But there are questions about whether this very bad thing had to happen.
The early questions - or criticisms - have focused on whether Schoenborn should have been in jail.
In the seven days before the murders, Merritt RCMP had several dealings with him. They went four times to the trailer were the children's mother, Darcie Clarke, lived with them. Three were at the request of the Ministry of Children and Families; once to arrest Schoenborn for an outstanding warrant for driving while suspended.
That wasn't all. RCMP officers arrested him for being drunk in public. And four days before the murders, Schoenborn was arrested at his children's school. He was accused of threatening the principal and a child who he thought had harassed his daughter.
The RCMP said they wanted Schoenborn held in custody until his court appearance. But Merritt court had closed.
So the RCMP telephoned a Burnaby office where justices of the peace are on call for such occasions. The justice who answered the phone decided Schoenborn wasn't a flight risk, as police alleged.
He ordered him released on $100 bail, and to stay away from the girl and the principal and keep the peace.
I can't second-guess the order.
But I wonder if that's the right way to make such a decision - over the phone, in a hurry. The process does ensure people - still innocent- aren't locked up for any longer than necessary. And it saves money. But is it sound? Does the justice of the peace make a less sound decision when he can't see the suspect? Are the RCMP officers able to present the legal issues as effectively as a Crown prosecutor.
There is a more significant problem. Last year, Schoenborn was charged with threatening to kill his wife. The charge was stayed, but an order limiting his involvement with her was put in place. He violated that order in February.
But the justice of the peace apparently knew none of that. The stories have varied. Some reports say the RCMP didn't know; some say they faxed the information to the justice of the peace.
It doesn't matter. In an age where millions of complex transactions are made every few minutes, the justice system apparently can't communicate critical information about suspects. With tragic results.
This isn't a new issue. Last year, in Victoria, Peter Lee killed his wife, his son, two in-laws and himself. Police believed Lee should be held in custody after an earlier incident in which he had attempted to kill his wife. Crown prosecutors disagreed.
Attorney General Wally Oppal promised a review of the release process then. But nothing has changed. An inquest is scheduled to start April 28. Too late for the three children, and too narrowly focused to produce useful results anyway.
There are other issues, harder to nail down but important. Schoenborn had a mental illness and alcohol addiction. Was he helped? A coroner's inquest has already ordered. But that won't answer anything but the most basic questions.
Oppal has the power to order a public inquiry into the deaths and anything that could have been done to prevent them.
Footnote: The RCMP have faced tough questions as well. It took 20 hours from the time of the murders - until a media relations officer arrived - for the police to confirm that Schoenborn was a suspect. That delay. Some citizens say, put them at risk and allowed the prime suspect the chance to leave the area.
But if the crime could have been prevented. . .
There are real questions about whether Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon Schoenborn had to die. Worse, the same questions have been raised in earlier cases.
And the issues aren't just ones of judgment. The police, prosecutors and courts apparently didn't have access to critical information. Information that perhaps could have saved the children's lives.
The questions have been piling up in the days since the children were found stabbed to death. Their father, Dwayne Schoenborn, is the suspected killer. He was looking after them last Sunday while their mother went shopping. She returned to find them dead; he hasn't been seen since.
Bad things happen in this world. But there are questions about whether this very bad thing had to happen.
The early questions - or criticisms - have focused on whether Schoenborn should have been in jail.
In the seven days before the murders, Merritt RCMP had several dealings with him. They went four times to the trailer were the children's mother, Darcie Clarke, lived with them. Three were at the request of the Ministry of Children and Families; once to arrest Schoenborn for an outstanding warrant for driving while suspended.
That wasn't all. RCMP officers arrested him for being drunk in public. And four days before the murders, Schoenborn was arrested at his children's school. He was accused of threatening the principal and a child who he thought had harassed his daughter.
The RCMP said they wanted Schoenborn held in custody until his court appearance. But Merritt court had closed.
So the RCMP telephoned a Burnaby office where justices of the peace are on call for such occasions. The justice who answered the phone decided Schoenborn wasn't a flight risk, as police alleged.
He ordered him released on $100 bail, and to stay away from the girl and the principal and keep the peace.
I can't second-guess the order.
But I wonder if that's the right way to make such a decision - over the phone, in a hurry. The process does ensure people - still innocent- aren't locked up for any longer than necessary. And it saves money. But is it sound? Does the justice of the peace make a less sound decision when he can't see the suspect? Are the RCMP officers able to present the legal issues as effectively as a Crown prosecutor.
There is a more significant problem. Last year, Schoenborn was charged with threatening to kill his wife. The charge was stayed, but an order limiting his involvement with her was put in place. He violated that order in February.
But the justice of the peace apparently knew none of that. The stories have varied. Some reports say the RCMP didn't know; some say they faxed the information to the justice of the peace.
It doesn't matter. In an age where millions of complex transactions are made every few minutes, the justice system apparently can't communicate critical information about suspects. With tragic results.
This isn't a new issue. Last year, in Victoria, Peter Lee killed his wife, his son, two in-laws and himself. Police believed Lee should be held in custody after an earlier incident in which he had attempted to kill his wife. Crown prosecutors disagreed.
Attorney General Wally Oppal promised a review of the release process then. But nothing has changed. An inquest is scheduled to start April 28. Too late for the three children, and too narrowly focused to produce useful results anyway.
There are other issues, harder to nail down but important. Schoenborn had a mental illness and alcohol addiction. Was he helped? A coroner's inquest has already ordered. But that won't answer anything but the most basic questions.
Oppal has the power to order a public inquiry into the deaths and anything that could have been done to prevent them.
Footnote: The RCMP have faced tough questions as well. It took 20 hours from the time of the murders - until a media relations officer arrived - for the police to confirm that Schoenborn was a suspect. That delay. Some citizens say, put them at risk and allowed the prime suspect the chance to leave the area.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Cap-and-trade bill a blank cheque for government
A cap-and-trade system is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But if I were an MLA - pause here for a shared shudder of horror - I couldn't vote for the government's bill setting up the system.
It's vague and so short of details that MLAs of both parties really can't know what they're voting for.
The cap-and-trade system is a key part of the government's bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020.
It's simple enough in principle. The bill gives the cabinet the power to set greenhouse-gas emission caps for economic sectors and individual companies. Each company would get B.C. Allowance Units that added up to their emission limit for a year.
If a company found ways to reduce emissions and come in under its cap, it could sell the unused units to another business that needed them. That encourages companies to invest in cuts; there's a financial benefit.
If companies exceed their caps, they would face penalties. But the bill doesn't say what penalties. The maximum is a $1-million fine or six months in jail, but there's no schedule of fines. That's still to come. That seems a big gap.
It gets more complicated. The bill also creates BC Emission Reduction Units. Companies can apply to an unnamed government employee for credits for reducing or removing greenhouse-gas emissions.
If the employee says it's OK, they can sell those reductions to companies that exceed their caps.
So, for example, I could come up with a plan to get everyone in a new development to heat their homes with solar energy instead of oil or gas. I could apply for reduction units based on the average cut in greenhouse gases each year and sell them to an industry.
How and at what price? The bill doesn't say that either.
This isn't so much legislation as the first draft of an idea.
A very good idea, I hasten to say. The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on them. That makes its worthwhile for companies - and individuals - to find ways to reduce their emissions. And the only way to deliver on the promised reduction targets is to limit emissions by the major sources to specific levels.
Nothing else guarantees the targets will be met, and that's what the government has promised.
But even supporters of the principle should be nervous about this legislation. MLAs are being asked to give the cabinet huge power to impose rules that could mean ruin - or riches - for companies and communities in B.C.
The legislation doesn't say how the caps will be allocated, either by sector or by company. Who will set the critical quotas, and on what basis? Will they be auctioned, or awarded by cabinet?
The bill doesn't even say which industries or sectors will or won't be covered.
It all matters. And none of the answers can be found in the legislation.
This is naturally making businesses nervous. What new costs might they face next year? Can they even measure their emissions accurately enough to make the system work? Some worry that the costs will put them at a disadvantage compared to out-of-province competitors.
Again, even those who support the cap-and-trade approach should be troubled by the lack of information.
It doesn't seem that MLAs - of any party - could vote for this bill, because it's impossible to judge the impact on the citizens they represent. It should be important, for example, that Prince George MLAs have at least some information on the likely caps and costs for the forest industry before they decide if they're prepared to support the bill.
The whole issue presents a big challenge for government. Premier Gordon Campbell has proclaimed climate change the biggest issue facing government, but there has been little concrete action.
This bill raises concerns about the government's rush to get the job done.
Footnote: B.C. has also signed on to develop a cap-and-trade system with Manitoba and seven U.S. states, including California, as part of the Western Climate Initiative. But again, there are no details and the government has not explained how the two plans will be integrated.
But if I were an MLA - pause here for a shared shudder of horror - I couldn't vote for the government's bill setting up the system.
It's vague and so short of details that MLAs of both parties really can't know what they're voting for.
The cap-and-trade system is a key part of the government's bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020.
It's simple enough in principle. The bill gives the cabinet the power to set greenhouse-gas emission caps for economic sectors and individual companies. Each company would get B.C. Allowance Units that added up to their emission limit for a year.
If a company found ways to reduce emissions and come in under its cap, it could sell the unused units to another business that needed them. That encourages companies to invest in cuts; there's a financial benefit.
If companies exceed their caps, they would face penalties. But the bill doesn't say what penalties. The maximum is a $1-million fine or six months in jail, but there's no schedule of fines. That's still to come. That seems a big gap.
It gets more complicated. The bill also creates BC Emission Reduction Units. Companies can apply to an unnamed government employee for credits for reducing or removing greenhouse-gas emissions.
If the employee says it's OK, they can sell those reductions to companies that exceed their caps.
So, for example, I could come up with a plan to get everyone in a new development to heat their homes with solar energy instead of oil or gas. I could apply for reduction units based on the average cut in greenhouse gases each year and sell them to an industry.
How and at what price? The bill doesn't say that either.
This isn't so much legislation as the first draft of an idea.
A very good idea, I hasten to say. The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on them. That makes its worthwhile for companies - and individuals - to find ways to reduce their emissions. And the only way to deliver on the promised reduction targets is to limit emissions by the major sources to specific levels.
Nothing else guarantees the targets will be met, and that's what the government has promised.
But even supporters of the principle should be nervous about this legislation. MLAs are being asked to give the cabinet huge power to impose rules that could mean ruin - or riches - for companies and communities in B.C.
The legislation doesn't say how the caps will be allocated, either by sector or by company. Who will set the critical quotas, and on what basis? Will they be auctioned, or awarded by cabinet?
The bill doesn't even say which industries or sectors will or won't be covered.
It all matters. And none of the answers can be found in the legislation.
This is naturally making businesses nervous. What new costs might they face next year? Can they even measure their emissions accurately enough to make the system work? Some worry that the costs will put them at a disadvantage compared to out-of-province competitors.
Again, even those who support the cap-and-trade approach should be troubled by the lack of information.
It doesn't seem that MLAs - of any party - could vote for this bill, because it's impossible to judge the impact on the citizens they represent. It should be important, for example, that Prince George MLAs have at least some information on the likely caps and costs for the forest industry before they decide if they're prepared to support the bill.
The whole issue presents a big challenge for government. Premier Gordon Campbell has proclaimed climate change the biggest issue facing government, but there has been little concrete action.
This bill raises concerns about the government's rush to get the job done.
Footnote: B.C. has also signed on to develop a cap-and-trade system with Manitoba and seven U.S. states, including California, as part of the Western Climate Initiative. But again, there are no details and the government has not explained how the two plans will be integrated.
Friday, April 04, 2008
ICBC scandal adds to Liberal problems
Many scandals start with a bang then fizzle. When they go the other way — like the growing problems at ICBC — it’s a bad sign for government.
This one started when ICBC sent out a low-key news release in mid-February. It said the Crown corporation was investigating the sale of written-off vehicles from its Burnaby research facility. After the vehicles were used for testing, staff fixed some up and ICBC sold them. Up to 198 buyers might not have been told their cars had been written off and repaired, the release said. The issue was one of disclosure.
ICBC followed up March 19 with another news release. The first 277 words dealt with the disclosure issue.
Then in two paragraphs, ICBC mentioned that some employees had bought the vehicles and that there was “some evidence” that employees used the centre to have free repairs done on their personal vehicles.
Heads had rolled, the release hinted. And in the last paragraph it added that PriceWaterhouseCoopers had been hired to do an independent investigation into the centre.
This week, ICBC revealed more. Online auctions run through auto brokers were rigged. ICBC employees who wanted the repaired vehicles put in secret bids and were promised the cars for $100 more than the real top offer.
Legitimate bidders thought they were about to get a deal only to have it snatched away. How many times did this happen? ICBC doesn’t know, but it could be more than 100.
It’s a big embarrassment. ICBC is a monopoly; it’s supposed to operate in the public interest. And it’s fierce in finding and exposing corruption in others — repair shops that commit fraud or people trying to make phony claims.
And he problems follow last year’s scandal at B.C. Lotteries. The ombudsman reported the Crown corporation didn’t have procedures to protect people who brought lottery tickets from fraud, failed to respond when people complained they had been cheated and then misled the public once the problem became public.
That scandal cost the B.C. Lotteries CEO his job. Heading up ICBC — as the NDP has pointed out frequently — is Paul Taylor, who was the architect of the Liberals’ approach to budgeting and finance for the first three years after the 2001 election.
Handling all this fell to John van Dongen, hours after he was appointed to replace John Les as solicitor general. ICBC falls under that ministry – which doesn’t make obvious sense.
Van Dongen started well. He apologized to British Columbians for the lack of integrity and expressed his determination to get answers.
Then the answers – or non-answers – grew weaker. Van Dongen wouldn’t agree to release the already completed ICBC internal report. And he dodged NDP requests that he release the terms of reference for the ongoing PriceWaterhouseCoopers investigation. (The government says the report will be released when it’s done.)
The refusal to release the terms of reference raises big questions. There’s no need for secrecy. And the public has an interest in knowing whether the investigators have been giving a narrow assignment, preventing a full review.
By the second day of questioning, it sounded like that might be a concern — and that van Dongen was prepared to deal with it. The NDP asked again in the legislature for release of the marching orders handed to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
This time, van Dongen said he had read the terms of reference and planned to speak with the ICBC board about them. And he said he expected the auditors to investigate and report on everything they considered relevant.
This affair doesn’t seem like a threat to Taylor, unless questions are raised about the response or it turns a lot of people knew this was going on. The CEO can’t really be expected to know about problems in a small corner of the business.
But the problems — like the B.C. Rail case and the Dobell affair — are starting to pile up for the Liberals.
Footnote: The government should be relieved that Les is not handling the scandal. His past performance in cases where questions have been raised about his ministry has resulted in self-inflicted damage to the government’s reputation. Van Dongen, despite his own brush with a special prosecutor, is a serious and credible person to handle the problems.
This one started when ICBC sent out a low-key news release in mid-February. It said the Crown corporation was investigating the sale of written-off vehicles from its Burnaby research facility. After the vehicles were used for testing, staff fixed some up and ICBC sold them. Up to 198 buyers might not have been told their cars had been written off and repaired, the release said. The issue was one of disclosure.
ICBC followed up March 19 with another news release. The first 277 words dealt with the disclosure issue.
Then in two paragraphs, ICBC mentioned that some employees had bought the vehicles and that there was “some evidence” that employees used the centre to have free repairs done on their personal vehicles.
Heads had rolled, the release hinted. And in the last paragraph it added that PriceWaterhouseCoopers had been hired to do an independent investigation into the centre.
This week, ICBC revealed more. Online auctions run through auto brokers were rigged. ICBC employees who wanted the repaired vehicles put in secret bids and were promised the cars for $100 more than the real top offer.
Legitimate bidders thought they were about to get a deal only to have it snatched away. How many times did this happen? ICBC doesn’t know, but it could be more than 100.
It’s a big embarrassment. ICBC is a monopoly; it’s supposed to operate in the public interest. And it’s fierce in finding and exposing corruption in others — repair shops that commit fraud or people trying to make phony claims.
And he problems follow last year’s scandal at B.C. Lotteries. The ombudsman reported the Crown corporation didn’t have procedures to protect people who brought lottery tickets from fraud, failed to respond when people complained they had been cheated and then misled the public once the problem became public.
That scandal cost the B.C. Lotteries CEO his job. Heading up ICBC — as the NDP has pointed out frequently — is Paul Taylor, who was the architect of the Liberals’ approach to budgeting and finance for the first three years after the 2001 election.
Handling all this fell to John van Dongen, hours after he was appointed to replace John Les as solicitor general. ICBC falls under that ministry – which doesn’t make obvious sense.
Van Dongen started well. He apologized to British Columbians for the lack of integrity and expressed his determination to get answers.
Then the answers – or non-answers – grew weaker. Van Dongen wouldn’t agree to release the already completed ICBC internal report. And he dodged NDP requests that he release the terms of reference for the ongoing PriceWaterhouseCoopers investigation. (The government says the report will be released when it’s done.)
The refusal to release the terms of reference raises big questions. There’s no need for secrecy. And the public has an interest in knowing whether the investigators have been giving a narrow assignment, preventing a full review.
By the second day of questioning, it sounded like that might be a concern — and that van Dongen was prepared to deal with it. The NDP asked again in the legislature for release of the marching orders handed to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
This time, van Dongen said he had read the terms of reference and planned to speak with the ICBC board about them. And he said he expected the auditors to investigate and report on everything they considered relevant.
This affair doesn’t seem like a threat to Taylor, unless questions are raised about the response or it turns a lot of people knew this was going on. The CEO can’t really be expected to know about problems in a small corner of the business.
But the problems — like the B.C. Rail case and the Dobell affair — are starting to pile up for the Liberals.
Footnote: The government should be relieved that Les is not handling the scandal. His past performance in cases where questions have been raised about his ministry has resulted in self-inflicted damage to the government’s reputation. Van Dongen, despite his own brush with a special prosecutor, is a serious and credible person to handle the problems.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Understanding the subprime crisis and its real victims
Here's your chance to be the only on your block who understands the subprime loan crisis, what it
means for the average Canadian and why it's so alarming.
The crisis has driven down stocks and sent U.S. real estate values plunging. As a result, among other things,
demand for B.C. lumber has plummeted.
Canadian banks have lost billions. Thousands of families have lost their homes. The U.S. government, the
supposed free-market champion, has used taxpayers' money to bail out banks and investment companies that
recklessly lost money.
And some individual Canadians have seen their life savings vanish.
Here's what happened.
Once, banks lent people money to buy homes and then collected the mortgage payments for 25 years. They made
money as long as the payments kept coming. So naturally they were careful to loan to people who looked able to
pay them back. The banks also made sure the houses were worth enough that they could always foreclose.
About 30 years ago, very clever investment bankers had a good thought. They went to the banks and pitched the
idea of bundling hundreds of these mortgages together, calling them asset-backed securities and selling them as
investments, promising annual payments to the security holder.
The investors got a good return; the banks gave up some revenue but got all their money up front, instead of
waiting for 25 years; the middlemen got a big commission.
It was a success. A rising real estate market gave everyone comfort; even if a few borrowers did quit making
payments, the increase in value in their homes would ensure they could be sold for more than the debt. The
investors felt safe.
People and funds flocked to buy the securities. The banks and financial institutions needed to start writing a lot
more mortgages so they would have something to sell.
But now they weren't thinking much about whether the homeowner could keep making mortgage payments for
25 years. They were looking to find a buyer to take the debt off their hands within six months.
Subprime loans, they called them. Homeowners paid higher interest - which investors liked.
But they put nothing down, or got big mortgages they couldn't really afford. Lenders offered low payments for
the first two years - long enough to bundle the loans and flog them as asset-backed securities to investors.
And people rushed to get the mortgages and buy houses. We're optimistic. We figure we'll find a way to make the
payments. If not, our houses will have risen in value. We'll sell, pay off the mortgages and come out ahead.
Everybody was keen.
So imagine you're in charge of this business for a hot investment bank, pulling in $7 million a year. You have to
sell more secutiries this year than last, or you're toast.
Everybody got a little loose about quality. Banks make bad loans to new homeowners. Investment houses grabbed
dubious mortgages. Some were shifted on to unsophisticated investors, or they couldn't be sold and banks were
stuck with them.
Then it collapsed. Mortgage holders defaulted. Lenders seized homes but couldn't sell them, as property values
fell. Individuals found their savings had vanished.
The public corporations stuck with the securities on their books had to admit they weren't worth what the
managers had claimed - not even close. One big company, Bear Stearns, was worth $20 billion a year ago. Last
week, it was bought for $1.2 billion.
Shareholders and securities' owners got creamed.
And a lot of people made a lot of money along the way.
It's remarkable on one level. This was a business worth hundreds of billions of dollars that produced nothing. It
made money by persuading people to take increasingly greater risks in the hope of reward.
The lesson is that you can't really trust anyone. And the big guys don't pay a big price for their sins.
Footnote: Hearings have started on a proposed plan to settle with Canadian investors, including about 2,000
individuals who are being offered a fraction of the value of the securities. In return, they will have to give up their
right to sue the banks, investment houses and individuals who sold them the bad investments. The early reaction
has been fiercely negative.
means for the average Canadian and why it's so alarming.
The crisis has driven down stocks and sent U.S. real estate values plunging. As a result, among other things,
demand for B.C. lumber has plummeted.
Canadian banks have lost billions. Thousands of families have lost their homes. The U.S. government, the
supposed free-market champion, has used taxpayers' money to bail out banks and investment companies that
recklessly lost money.
And some individual Canadians have seen their life savings vanish.
Here's what happened.
Once, banks lent people money to buy homes and then collected the mortgage payments for 25 years. They made
money as long as the payments kept coming. So naturally they were careful to loan to people who looked able to
pay them back. The banks also made sure the houses were worth enough that they could always foreclose.
About 30 years ago, very clever investment bankers had a good thought. They went to the banks and pitched the
idea of bundling hundreds of these mortgages together, calling them asset-backed securities and selling them as
investments, promising annual payments to the security holder.
The investors got a good return; the banks gave up some revenue but got all their money up front, instead of
waiting for 25 years; the middlemen got a big commission.
It was a success. A rising real estate market gave everyone comfort; even if a few borrowers did quit making
payments, the increase in value in their homes would ensure they could be sold for more than the debt. The
investors felt safe.
People and funds flocked to buy the securities. The banks and financial institutions needed to start writing a lot
more mortgages so they would have something to sell.
But now they weren't thinking much about whether the homeowner could keep making mortgage payments for
25 years. They were looking to find a buyer to take the debt off their hands within six months.
Subprime loans, they called them. Homeowners paid higher interest - which investors liked.
But they put nothing down, or got big mortgages they couldn't really afford. Lenders offered low payments for
the first two years - long enough to bundle the loans and flog them as asset-backed securities to investors.
And people rushed to get the mortgages and buy houses. We're optimistic. We figure we'll find a way to make the
payments. If not, our houses will have risen in value. We'll sell, pay off the mortgages and come out ahead.
Everybody was keen.
So imagine you're in charge of this business for a hot investment bank, pulling in $7 million a year. You have to
sell more secutiries this year than last, or you're toast.
Everybody got a little loose about quality. Banks make bad loans to new homeowners. Investment houses grabbed
dubious mortgages. Some were shifted on to unsophisticated investors, or they couldn't be sold and banks were
stuck with them.
Then it collapsed. Mortgage holders defaulted. Lenders seized homes but couldn't sell them, as property values
fell. Individuals found their savings had vanished.
The public corporations stuck with the securities on their books had to admit they weren't worth what the
managers had claimed - not even close. One big company, Bear Stearns, was worth $20 billion a year ago. Last
week, it was bought for $1.2 billion.
Shareholders and securities' owners got creamed.
And a lot of people made a lot of money along the way.
It's remarkable on one level. This was a business worth hundreds of billions of dollars that produced nothing. It
made money by persuading people to take increasingly greater risks in the hope of reward.
The lesson is that you can't really trust anyone. And the big guys don't pay a big price for their sins.
Footnote: Hearings have started on a proposed plan to settle with Canadian investors, including about 2,000
individuals who are being offered a fraction of the value of the securities. In return, they will have to give up their
right to sue the banks, investment houses and individuals who sold them the bad investments. The early reaction
has been fiercely negative.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Les resignation raises more questions for Liberals
The resignation of John Les and the revelation that he's been under police investigation since last June could add to the Liberals' headaches.
Les did the right thing, resigning as soon as he learned that the RCMP is looking into possible wrongdoing when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the late 1990s.
And, it's critical to note, just because the RCMP is investigating doesn't mean Les did anything wrong
But after dealing with the Dobell affair, and with the BC Rail corruption scandal still hanging over their heads, this is not good news for the Liberals.
And 48 hours after the surprise announcement at 5:30 p.m. on Friday - a favourite time to release bad news - the government still hasn't answered some important questions.
Worse, that task will likely fall to Attorney General Wally Oppal, whose mediocre performance in such situations keeps government communications types braced for a train wreck.
The first questions will be about why Les was able to keep his job as the province's top law enforcement officials for the last nine months.
The man responsible for policing - including, at least nominally, the RCMP - was under investigation by the force.
Les says he didn't know about the investigation until Friday, so he couldn't resign. Premier Gordon Campbell said Saturday he wasn't told about it, so he couldn't ask Les to resign.
So who did know? Specifically, did Oppal know? And was it the right decision by the assistant deputy attorney general to keep the investigation secret? That's who gets to make that decision.
The special prosecutor system was introduced by the Socred government in 1991. It was intended to reduce the risk of real or apparent political interference in police investigations that involved government.
If government lawyers were placed in charge of reviewing the evidence and deciding on charges in such cases, then they might fear career repercussions or feel other pressures.
So if a case involves a politician or government, the assistant deputy attorney general has the option of handing responsibility to an outside lawyer.
The ministry and the Law Society of B.C. collaborate on a standing list of lawyers to handle the assignments; the assistant deputy attorney general appoints one from the list.
It's a good framework.
But this case, along with the BC Rail investigation, raises questions about how well it's working.
The biggest problem in the Les case is the secrecy. If it was appropriate that he resign once the investigation was made public, why was it not appropriate that he resign when it began?
The government's Criminal Justice Branch says its "general practice" is to keep the appointment of a special prosecutor secret unless the public finds out about it somehow.
But the report that led to the creation of the process didn't call for that level of secrecy.
It suggested that the appointment of a special prosecutor be withheld from the public only when the information's release might undermine the investigation. That's not the approach the government is apparently taking.
The other questions will be about whether Oppal knew about the investigation and the special prosecutor.
The original recommendations suggested the attorney general could be kept aware of the progress of significant cases. Did Oppal know about this one? Did he consider whether the premier should be told, or Les should step down?
And would the public ever have found about the investigation at all if a CBC reporter hadn't forced the government's hand?
The Liberals will likely revert to the same kind of stonewalling they've used, with some success, in dealing with the Dobell case and the BC Rail scandal.
And they will point out, quite rightly, that everyone needs to remember that Les is innocent at this point. He says he's confident he'll be cleared.
But another cloud is hanging over the government.
Footnote: The original policy called for "senior criminal lawyers in private practice" to be appointed special prosecutors. But in the B.C. Rail case and now in this one, the ministry has picked lawyers who, while highly regarded, are not known for criminal work. Given the massive problems in the B.C. Rail case, this raises questions about why the change was made.
Les did the right thing, resigning as soon as he learned that the RCMP is looking into possible wrongdoing when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the late 1990s.
And, it's critical to note, just because the RCMP is investigating doesn't mean Les did anything wrong
But after dealing with the Dobell affair, and with the BC Rail corruption scandal still hanging over their heads, this is not good news for the Liberals.
And 48 hours after the surprise announcement at 5:30 p.m. on Friday - a favourite time to release bad news - the government still hasn't answered some important questions.
Worse, that task will likely fall to Attorney General Wally Oppal, whose mediocre performance in such situations keeps government communications types braced for a train wreck.
The first questions will be about why Les was able to keep his job as the province's top law enforcement officials for the last nine months.
The man responsible for policing - including, at least nominally, the RCMP - was under investigation by the force.
Les says he didn't know about the investigation until Friday, so he couldn't resign. Premier Gordon Campbell said Saturday he wasn't told about it, so he couldn't ask Les to resign.
So who did know? Specifically, did Oppal know? And was it the right decision by the assistant deputy attorney general to keep the investigation secret? That's who gets to make that decision.
The special prosecutor system was introduced by the Socred government in 1991. It was intended to reduce the risk of real or apparent political interference in police investigations that involved government.
If government lawyers were placed in charge of reviewing the evidence and deciding on charges in such cases, then they might fear career repercussions or feel other pressures.
So if a case involves a politician or government, the assistant deputy attorney general has the option of handing responsibility to an outside lawyer.
The ministry and the Law Society of B.C. collaborate on a standing list of lawyers to handle the assignments; the assistant deputy attorney general appoints one from the list.
It's a good framework.
But this case, along with the BC Rail investigation, raises questions about how well it's working.
The biggest problem in the Les case is the secrecy. If it was appropriate that he resign once the investigation was made public, why was it not appropriate that he resign when it began?
The government's Criminal Justice Branch says its "general practice" is to keep the appointment of a special prosecutor secret unless the public finds out about it somehow.
But the report that led to the creation of the process didn't call for that level of secrecy.
It suggested that the appointment of a special prosecutor be withheld from the public only when the information's release might undermine the investigation. That's not the approach the government is apparently taking.
The other questions will be about whether Oppal knew about the investigation and the special prosecutor.
The original recommendations suggested the attorney general could be kept aware of the progress of significant cases. Did Oppal know about this one? Did he consider whether the premier should be told, or Les should step down?
And would the public ever have found about the investigation at all if a CBC reporter hadn't forced the government's hand?
The Liberals will likely revert to the same kind of stonewalling they've used, with some success, in dealing with the Dobell case and the BC Rail scandal.
And they will point out, quite rightly, that everyone needs to remember that Les is innocent at this point. He says he's confident he'll be cleared.
But another cloud is hanging over the government.
Footnote: The original policy called for "senior criminal lawyers in private practice" to be appointed special prosecutors. But in the B.C. Rail case and now in this one, the ministry has picked lawyers who, while highly regarded, are not known for criminal work. Given the massive problems in the B.C. Rail case, this raises questions about why the change was made.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Paying taxes as a step toward happiness
Maybe it's age, but I'm thinking a lot more about happiness.
There are all sorts of things that drive us - providing a good life for our children, security, fear of failure, a need to impress or outdo someone else, making the most of our talents or helping make a better world.
But shouldn't happiness figure in there somewhere?
The idea makes politicians, at least in North America, edgy. Maybe they just don't believe happiness is a legitimate aim.
Or perhaps they fear the search for happiness might make us selfish and self-absorbed, uncaring about our obligations to our neighbours. People might work less and grouse about taxes more.
Turns out the politicians are wrong. The drive to be happy should make us kinder and more generous, not more selfish.
That's the conclusion I'd pull from some research just published in Science. UBC psychology prof Elizabeth Dunn was part of the team. Among other studies, they interviewed a group of employees at a Boston company to assess their general happiness.
The company had a generous profit-sharing plan. At year-end, the staff got cheques for between $3,000 and $8,000.
Six to eight weeks after the bonuses were paid, the researchers interviewed the same people to see how the money had affected their state of mind.
Those who bought gifts for others or donated to charity showed greater gains in happiness that those who bought something for themselves or cleared up a credit card bill.
So money can buy happiness - but only if you spend it on someone else.
The results are consistent with other research that found happiness tends to be linked to helping others. Even small amounts committed to making things better for other people resulted in greater happiness.
The findings fit with other studies on income and happiness. One of the most cited - though that's not necessarily an indication of reliability - surveyed people around in 65 countries between 1990 and 2000.
It found that up to about $13,000 per person per year, increasing income meant increasing happiness. After that, higher income produced much smaller gains in happiness.
It makes sense to me. I've been paid quite a lot of money, and been unhappy. I've had income dramatically lower, and been pleased with life.
There is, for most of us, a comfort zone. If paying an unexpected car repair bill or a child's school costs is a big problem, then happiness is reduced. But broadly, income and happiness have much less to do with each other than people expect.
Which leads, in a winding way, to politics. Governments have increasingly a ccepted the idea that taxes are inherently bad. Tax increases, the construct goes, should make people unhappy; tax cuts should make them happier.
The assumption has already been proved dubious. One survey found 60 per cent of British Columbians would welcome higher property taxes in return for improved services. Another indicated a majority Albertans didn't want the $400 rebate the Klein government sent out in 2006; they thought the money should have been spent on health care and education.
The happiness research reinforces the point. Taxes are, on the most basic level, a form of using our money to help others. Practically, we gain - our parents don't wait as long for needed medical care, our child gets a better education and the walk to work isn't marked by so many homeless people sleeping in doorways.
But the research suggests that we'll actually be happier as a result of paying taxes to make life better for others.
That's an important distinction. Happiness only increases if the money is actually improving life for others. If it's being wasted or spent on dubious priorities, then we do get surly.
Still, there's an important lesson there for political parties. If the public thinks they're competent, then paying taxes might actually make people happier.
Footnote: Canadian governments don't worry much about happiness. The B.C. government has a couple of hundred performance measurements, but not one that deals with how happy we are. But in Bhutan, the Peace and Prosperity Party has just swept into power with a platform that includes measuring "Gross National Happiness." British Conservative leader David Cameron has backed similar proposals.
There are all sorts of things that drive us - providing a good life for our children, security, fear of failure, a need to impress or outdo someone else, making the most of our talents or helping make a better world.
But shouldn't happiness figure in there somewhere?
The idea makes politicians, at least in North America, edgy. Maybe they just don't believe happiness is a legitimate aim.
Or perhaps they fear the search for happiness might make us selfish and self-absorbed, uncaring about our obligations to our neighbours. People might work less and grouse about taxes more.
Turns out the politicians are wrong. The drive to be happy should make us kinder and more generous, not more selfish.
That's the conclusion I'd pull from some research just published in Science. UBC psychology prof Elizabeth Dunn was part of the team. Among other studies, they interviewed a group of employees at a Boston company to assess their general happiness.
The company had a generous profit-sharing plan. At year-end, the staff got cheques for between $3,000 and $8,000.
Six to eight weeks after the bonuses were paid, the researchers interviewed the same people to see how the money had affected their state of mind.
Those who bought gifts for others or donated to charity showed greater gains in happiness that those who bought something for themselves or cleared up a credit card bill.
So money can buy happiness - but only if you spend it on someone else.
The results are consistent with other research that found happiness tends to be linked to helping others. Even small amounts committed to making things better for other people resulted in greater happiness.
The findings fit with other studies on income and happiness. One of the most cited - though that's not necessarily an indication of reliability - surveyed people around in 65 countries between 1990 and 2000.
It found that up to about $13,000 per person per year, increasing income meant increasing happiness. After that, higher income produced much smaller gains in happiness.
It makes sense to me. I've been paid quite a lot of money, and been unhappy. I've had income dramatically lower, and been pleased with life.
There is, for most of us, a comfort zone. If paying an unexpected car repair bill or a child's school costs is a big problem, then happiness is reduced. But broadly, income and happiness have much less to do with each other than people expect.
Which leads, in a winding way, to politics. Governments have increasingly a ccepted the idea that taxes are inherently bad. Tax increases, the construct goes, should make people unhappy; tax cuts should make them happier.
The assumption has already been proved dubious. One survey found 60 per cent of British Columbians would welcome higher property taxes in return for improved services. Another indicated a majority Albertans didn't want the $400 rebate the Klein government sent out in 2006; they thought the money should have been spent on health care and education.
The happiness research reinforces the point. Taxes are, on the most basic level, a form of using our money to help others. Practically, we gain - our parents don't wait as long for needed medical care, our child gets a better education and the walk to work isn't marked by so many homeless people sleeping in doorways.
But the research suggests that we'll actually be happier as a result of paying taxes to make life better for others.
That's an important distinction. Happiness only increases if the money is actually improving life for others. If it's being wasted or spent on dubious priorities, then we do get surly.
Still, there's an important lesson there for political parties. If the public thinks they're competent, then paying taxes might actually make people happier.
Footnote: Canadian governments don't worry much about happiness. The B.C. government has a couple of hundred performance measurements, but not one that deals with how happy we are. But in Bhutan, the Peace and Prosperity Party has just swept into power with a platform that includes measuring "Gross National Happiness." British Conservative leader David Cameron has backed similar proposals.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Nurses' union wins round in fight against two-tier care
It's been one of the great frauds in B.C. Governments have proclaimed the importance of equal access to health care, while ignoring the expansion of clinics that offer special treatment for those who can pay.
The clinics and surgical centres are routinely breaking the law, both the Canada Health Act and the province's Medicare Protection Act. It's illegal to charge a premium for services covered by the Medical Services Plan.
You can buy optional treatment, like cosmetic surgery.
But you can't pay extra so your son is treated ahead of some other, sicker child.
That's the service the various clinics and centres offer every day. But the provincial government chooses to pretend it's not happening.
We are supposed to live by the rule of law. But there's little recourse for the average citizen when a government decides it's above the law.
Or there didn't seem to be. The B.C. Nurses' Union has changed that.
I like judicial activism. Ideally, people could count on their MLA or MP to stand up for them and the law.
But with almost all power in the premier's or prime minister's office, that won't happen. So the courts stand in for our local elected representatives.
The nurses' union filed a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court against the attorney general and Medical Services Commission for not enforcing the Medicare Protection Act and allowing two-tier care.
The government argued the case should be tossed out. It was none of the union's business whether the government enforced the law, the lawyers said.
And who says the government has to enforce its laws anyway, they argued. (I'm paraphrasing; for the source, go to www.courts.gov.bc.ca. Click on this week's Supreme Court decisions in the menu on the left.)
Justice Stephen Kelleher disagreed. "What the union is doing in pursuing this position is well within what a democratic trade union normally does in our society," he ruled. "The courts have recognized that unions have a legitimate role to play in engaging in broader political and social processes of society." The union's members would be hurt if the basic principles of medicare were abandoned, he noted.
It seems a stretch. I'd argue that a union's role is to represent the interest of its members.
But the ruling also seems in the public interest. It's important that sick kids' opportunity to get medical care shouldn't depend on their parents' ability to pay.
If the government won't enforce the law, and individuals can't afford to, perhaps unions have the responsibility be default.
This is, once again, one of those issues that cuts across party lines. The expansion of two-tier care really got going under the NDP government in the 1990s. It stood by while private clinics and surgical centres started offering speedy treatment for those willing to pay to jump the queue in the public system.
The Liberals have mostly continued to practice willful blindness as two-tier care expanded in obvious violation of the law.
The federal government fines the province for Canada Health Act violations related to user fees most years. B.C. has the worst record among provinces. But nothing happens.
There was a brief flurry of provincial interest in enforcing the law. In late 2003, then health care minister Colin Hansen brought in legislation to uphold the Canada Health Act and prevent two-tier care. It was debated and passed in the legislature with overwhelming government support.
But three weeks later, Premier Gordon Campbell apparently changed his mind. The law has never been put into effect.
So far, Canadians have supported the principles of the Canada Health Act, particularly the notion that care should go to those who need it most, not those with the biggest bank accounts.
But in B.C. - and other provinces - governments have chosen not to enforce the law. The union's legal action lawsuit might change that.
Footnote: The lawsuit, launched three years ago, doesn't challenge the private delivery of services, only some operators' practice of charging extra fees for speedier access. Governments are free under the law to contract with clinics for necessary treatments, as long as the patient doesn't have to pay any extra user fees.
The clinics and surgical centres are routinely breaking the law, both the Canada Health Act and the province's Medicare Protection Act. It's illegal to charge a premium for services covered by the Medical Services Plan.
You can buy optional treatment, like cosmetic surgery.
But you can't pay extra so your son is treated ahead of some other, sicker child.
That's the service the various clinics and centres offer every day. But the provincial government chooses to pretend it's not happening.
We are supposed to live by the rule of law. But there's little recourse for the average citizen when a government decides it's above the law.
Or there didn't seem to be. The B.C. Nurses' Union has changed that.
I like judicial activism. Ideally, people could count on their MLA or MP to stand up for them and the law.
But with almost all power in the premier's or prime minister's office, that won't happen. So the courts stand in for our local elected representatives.
The nurses' union filed a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court against the attorney general and Medical Services Commission for not enforcing the Medicare Protection Act and allowing two-tier care.
The government argued the case should be tossed out. It was none of the union's business whether the government enforced the law, the lawyers said.
And who says the government has to enforce its laws anyway, they argued. (I'm paraphrasing; for the source, go to www.courts.gov.bc.ca. Click on this week's Supreme Court decisions in the menu on the left.)
Justice Stephen Kelleher disagreed. "What the union is doing in pursuing this position is well within what a democratic trade union normally does in our society," he ruled. "The courts have recognized that unions have a legitimate role to play in engaging in broader political and social processes of society." The union's members would be hurt if the basic principles of medicare were abandoned, he noted.
It seems a stretch. I'd argue that a union's role is to represent the interest of its members.
But the ruling also seems in the public interest. It's important that sick kids' opportunity to get medical care shouldn't depend on their parents' ability to pay.
If the government won't enforce the law, and individuals can't afford to, perhaps unions have the responsibility be default.
This is, once again, one of those issues that cuts across party lines. The expansion of two-tier care really got going under the NDP government in the 1990s. It stood by while private clinics and surgical centres started offering speedy treatment for those willing to pay to jump the queue in the public system.
The Liberals have mostly continued to practice willful blindness as two-tier care expanded in obvious violation of the law.
The federal government fines the province for Canada Health Act violations related to user fees most years. B.C. has the worst record among provinces. But nothing happens.
There was a brief flurry of provincial interest in enforcing the law. In late 2003, then health care minister Colin Hansen brought in legislation to uphold the Canada Health Act and prevent two-tier care. It was debated and passed in the legislature with overwhelming government support.
But three weeks later, Premier Gordon Campbell apparently changed his mind. The law has never been put into effect.
So far, Canadians have supported the principles of the Canada Health Act, particularly the notion that care should go to those who need it most, not those with the biggest bank accounts.
But in B.C. - and other provinces - governments have chosen not to enforce the law. The union's legal action lawsuit might change that.
Footnote: The lawsuit, launched three years ago, doesn't challenge the private delivery of services, only some operators' practice of charging extra fees for speedier access. Governments are free under the law to contract with clinics for necessary treatments, as long as the patient doesn't have to pay any extra user fees.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Government trying to keep evidence from Frank Paul inquiry
Frank Paul's death almost 10 years ago has raised harsh questions about racism in B.C. Police, the justice system, the provincial government are all under a dark cloud.
Now some key players - the government prosecutors who decided not to lay any criminal charges in the case - are trying to avoid scrutiny at the public inquiry belatedly called into Paul's death.
It's a grim story. Three weeks before Christmas in 1998, two Vancouver police officers found Paul semiconscious in alley. They called a patrol wagon to take him to jail. A video shows the native man being dragged from the wagon to a hall outside the cells.
A nurse walks past. Then an officer decides Paul isn't drunk. He's dragged out of the jail by his feet.
The officers drop him in an alley. Hours later, police find him dead.
And then, for the next nine years, stonewalling and cover-up. None of the people or institutions that should have been concerned - the coroner, the police complaints commissioner, the police board, the solicitor general, the premier - did anything.
Until last year, when mounting pressure from First Nations and human rights advocates forced the government to call a public inquiry.
The inquiry evidence hasn't got that much attention, but it has been important. One police officer offered emotional testimony, expressing his remorse at leaving Paul to die.
Another insisted that the man was not drunk, even though he couldn't walk out of the jail.
Larry Campbell, then coroner, now senator, couldn't offer a good reason why he hadn't ordered an inquest.
Then solicitor general Rich Coleman has yet to explain why he rejected the police complaints commissioner's request for a public inquiry. Coleman feared, among other things, that an inquiry would uncover allegations of racism against the Vancouver police. That seems a reason to hold an inquiry, not to avoid one.
The inquiry has been hearing from the witnesses it considers important.
Until now. The provincial government is going to court to try and prevent Crown counsel from testifying about the decision not to lay any charges against the officers involved in Paul's death.
Inquiry commissioner William Davies has ruled that he wants five Crown prosecutors to testify about the procedures they followed in deciding against charges in the case.
Davies noted that the Criminal Justice Branch of the Solicitor General's Ministry was one of the public bodies specifically identified as subject to review in the inquiry's terms of reference.
"The branch is currently under a cloud, for its response to Mr. Paul's death. It is too early to tell whether or not that cloud is warranted," he said.
But the government is going to B.C. Supreme Court to oppose the requirement that Crown prosecutors testify at the inquiry. Its reasons are unconvincing.
The government argues that prosecutors should not have to account for or explain their decisions to lay charges or decide against them under any circumstances.
Having them testify "opens the door for government, special interest groups and others to put pressure on Crown prosecutors to proceed with criminal charges in circumstances where it is not warranted."
There are three problems with the argument. First, it's unclear how having the prosecutors explain their thinking and the process allows special interest groups to pressure them. Especially given how infrequently such inquiries are called.
Second, it suggests that there is no accountability for prosecutor's decisions not to lay charges. Judges' decisions can be appealed; prosecutors, under this model, would be not just independent but omnipotent.
And third, the attempt to block the evidence from being heard suggests the government still does not understand the critical need for answers in this case.
Frank Paul's death was followed by years of actions that prevented the truth from coming out. The government shouldn't be continuing that secrecy.
Footnote: The B.C. Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the province's arguments until May. Meanwhile, the continued efforts to keep prosecutors from providing evidence is angering First Nations organizations, which complain the government is reneging on Attorney General Wally Oppal's promise of a full and open inquiry into Paul's death.
Now some key players - the government prosecutors who decided not to lay any criminal charges in the case - are trying to avoid scrutiny at the public inquiry belatedly called into Paul's death.
It's a grim story. Three weeks before Christmas in 1998, two Vancouver police officers found Paul semiconscious in alley. They called a patrol wagon to take him to jail. A video shows the native man being dragged from the wagon to a hall outside the cells.
A nurse walks past. Then an officer decides Paul isn't drunk. He's dragged out of the jail by his feet.
The officers drop him in an alley. Hours later, police find him dead.
And then, for the next nine years, stonewalling and cover-up. None of the people or institutions that should have been concerned - the coroner, the police complaints commissioner, the police board, the solicitor general, the premier - did anything.
Until last year, when mounting pressure from First Nations and human rights advocates forced the government to call a public inquiry.
The inquiry evidence hasn't got that much attention, but it has been important. One police officer offered emotional testimony, expressing his remorse at leaving Paul to die.
Another insisted that the man was not drunk, even though he couldn't walk out of the jail.
Larry Campbell, then coroner, now senator, couldn't offer a good reason why he hadn't ordered an inquest.
Then solicitor general Rich Coleman has yet to explain why he rejected the police complaints commissioner's request for a public inquiry. Coleman feared, among other things, that an inquiry would uncover allegations of racism against the Vancouver police. That seems a reason to hold an inquiry, not to avoid one.
The inquiry has been hearing from the witnesses it considers important.
Until now. The provincial government is going to court to try and prevent Crown counsel from testifying about the decision not to lay any charges against the officers involved in Paul's death.
Inquiry commissioner William Davies has ruled that he wants five Crown prosecutors to testify about the procedures they followed in deciding against charges in the case.
Davies noted that the Criminal Justice Branch of the Solicitor General's Ministry was one of the public bodies specifically identified as subject to review in the inquiry's terms of reference.
"The branch is currently under a cloud, for its response to Mr. Paul's death. It is too early to tell whether or not that cloud is warranted," he said.
But the government is going to B.C. Supreme Court to oppose the requirement that Crown prosecutors testify at the inquiry. Its reasons are unconvincing.
The government argues that prosecutors should not have to account for or explain their decisions to lay charges or decide against them under any circumstances.
Having them testify "opens the door for government, special interest groups and others to put pressure on Crown prosecutors to proceed with criminal charges in circumstances where it is not warranted."
There are three problems with the argument. First, it's unclear how having the prosecutors explain their thinking and the process allows special interest groups to pressure them. Especially given how infrequently such inquiries are called.
Second, it suggests that there is no accountability for prosecutor's decisions not to lay charges. Judges' decisions can be appealed; prosecutors, under this model, would be not just independent but omnipotent.
And third, the attempt to block the evidence from being heard suggests the government still does not understand the critical need for answers in this case.
Frank Paul's death was followed by years of actions that prevented the truth from coming out. The government shouldn't be continuing that secrecy.
Footnote: The B.C. Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the province's arguments until May. Meanwhile, the continued efforts to keep prosecutors from providing evidence is angering First Nations organizations, which complain the government is reneging on Attorney General Wally Oppal's promise of a full and open inquiry into Paul's death.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Disabled kids aren't getting the support they need: report_
I can't imagine anything more challenging than being the parent of a disabled child.
It's not just the effort, the commitment that goes into making sure your child has the best life possible. Not just the exhaustion and expense and emotions and the toll on other relationships.
The parents also know that someday they won't be there. And then what will happen to their children, who can't care for themselves?
We've accepted the idea that this is a shared responsibility. That when parents can't cope, the government will provide help. Therapy and support, perhaps places children can go occasionally weekend a month while their parents have a small break, sometime specialized residential care.
Most of us would want to be there for those families.
But the provincial government isn't doing a good job. It's even ignoring a 2007 B.C. Court of Appeal decision that found the government has been breaking its own law by denying help to those who need it.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth, has just reported on how well we're doing in supporting these children and families.
It's not great news.
Families who decide they need help can't figure out where to go. They face a "complex, fragmented service delivery system." That's a big barrier if you're already spending every waking moment caring for your disabled teen.
It's often not even clear where they should start. The Ministry of Children and Families and Community Living BC, the government's agency delivering services to people with developmental disabilities both have roles, too often poorly defined.
Even if families can find their way to the right office, the problems aren't over. Turpel-Lafond found wait times - or getting needed help at all - are a significant problem.
No one really knows what's going on. Or, as the representative puts it: "There is insufficient public accountability and measurement of child and youth outcomes. At present, with respect to CLBC and MCFD services to children and youth with special needs, it is not possible to decipher who is getting what services, by whom, at what cost and with what outcome. "
And there is the government's shame. It insists that once people turn 19, they are ineligible for help if they score at least 70 on an IQ test. Only five per cent of the population has IQ scores that low.
The policy discounts other problems that might keep them from making their way successfully - fetal alcohol syndrome, autism, ADHD, big psychological problems.
The B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have both ruled the policy violates the government's own laws
But Turpel-Lafond says that continues to be the government's policy, despite the court ruling.
Her report includes examples that show the ridiculous destructiveness of the policy. A 17-year-old boy with a range of serious psychological and behaviour problems was removed from his last foster home after he assaulted the family's six-year-old son.
The children and families ministry had nowhere for him, so social workers arranged a placement in a Community Living BC home. There's a lot of support and supervision, so it's expensive - $8,000 a month. But he's doing well.
But he's aging out of care, as the social workers say. And although his IQ tested below 70 in the past, a new assessment put him just over the cut-off.
So, once he turns 19. Community Living BC says he's on his own.
Social worker and forensic services assessments say he won't make it. The young man is a risk to harm himself or others in the community once he turns 19 and the support is withdrawn, they say.
It's wrong and foolish stupid to condemn someone to a costly failure in life to save money - especially the long-term cost is much greater.
Turpel-Lafond has offered a useful guide for improvements. The government should welcome the help.
Footnote: Turpel-Lafond criticized policies that see help cut off for children in government care when they turn 19. "A prudent parent wouldn't send a developmentally impaired 19-year-old to the street and the state shouldn't do that," she said. Children in care should get transitional help until they turn 24. Christensen said the current policy would stand.
It's not just the effort, the commitment that goes into making sure your child has the best life possible. Not just the exhaustion and expense and emotions and the toll on other relationships.
The parents also know that someday they won't be there. And then what will happen to their children, who can't care for themselves?
We've accepted the idea that this is a shared responsibility. That when parents can't cope, the government will provide help. Therapy and support, perhaps places children can go occasionally weekend a month while their parents have a small break, sometime specialized residential care.
Most of us would want to be there for those families.
But the provincial government isn't doing a good job. It's even ignoring a 2007 B.C. Court of Appeal decision that found the government has been breaking its own law by denying help to those who need it.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth, has just reported on how well we're doing in supporting these children and families.
It's not great news.
Families who decide they need help can't figure out where to go. They face a "complex, fragmented service delivery system." That's a big barrier if you're already spending every waking moment caring for your disabled teen.
It's often not even clear where they should start. The Ministry of Children and Families and Community Living BC, the government's agency delivering services to people with developmental disabilities both have roles, too often poorly defined.
Even if families can find their way to the right office, the problems aren't over. Turpel-Lafond found wait times - or getting needed help at all - are a significant problem.
No one really knows what's going on. Or, as the representative puts it: "There is insufficient public accountability and measurement of child and youth outcomes. At present, with respect to CLBC and MCFD services to children and youth with special needs, it is not possible to decipher who is getting what services, by whom, at what cost and with what outcome. "
And there is the government's shame. It insists that once people turn 19, they are ineligible for help if they score at least 70 on an IQ test. Only five per cent of the population has IQ scores that low.
The policy discounts other problems that might keep them from making their way successfully - fetal alcohol syndrome, autism, ADHD, big psychological problems.
The B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have both ruled the policy violates the government's own laws
But Turpel-Lafond says that continues to be the government's policy, despite the court ruling.
Her report includes examples that show the ridiculous destructiveness of the policy. A 17-year-old boy with a range of serious psychological and behaviour problems was removed from his last foster home after he assaulted the family's six-year-old son.
The children and families ministry had nowhere for him, so social workers arranged a placement in a Community Living BC home. There's a lot of support and supervision, so it's expensive - $8,000 a month. But he's doing well.
But he's aging out of care, as the social workers say. And although his IQ tested below 70 in the past, a new assessment put him just over the cut-off.
So, once he turns 19. Community Living BC says he's on his own.
Social worker and forensic services assessments say he won't make it. The young man is a risk to harm himself or others in the community once he turns 19 and the support is withdrawn, they say.
It's wrong and foolish stupid to condemn someone to a costly failure in life to save money - especially the long-term cost is much greater.
Turpel-Lafond has offered a useful guide for improvements. The government should welcome the help.
Footnote: Turpel-Lafond criticized policies that see help cut off for children in government care when they turn 19. "A prudent parent wouldn't send a developmentally impaired 19-year-old to the street and the state shouldn't do that," she said. Children in care should get transitional help until they turn 24. Christensen said the current policy would stand.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Liberals, Campbell look bad in Dobell affair
The Liberals' biggest problem in the Ken Dobell scandal isn't the long-time Campbell advisor's illegal activity. The most troubling aspect is the failure of the premier's office to see the problems, let alone deal with them.
Even when concerns were raised about Dobell's activities and access, the premier's office denied any problems.
Jessica McDonald, the premier's deputy and top public sector manager, investigated. There was nothing for the public to worry about, she reported.
But there was. This week a special prosecutor - appointed because of opposition pressure - reported on the case. He concluded Dobell had violated provincial law by failing to register as a lobbyist, even though he was trying to influence government policy for paying clients.
He also found a "substantial likelihood" that Dobell could be convicted of the Criminal Code offence of influence-peddling.
The City of Vancouver had hired him to try and get provincial money for social housing; his lobbying activities included meeting Housing Minister Rich Coleman. At the same time, Dobell was being paid $250 an hour as a special advisor to Premier Gordon Campbell.
"One of the reasons he wanted the title Special Advisor in his contract was 'the linkage to the premier,'" prosecutor Terrence Robertson reports. "Mr. Dobell recognized that people would assume that he would make recommendations to the premier and that those recommendations would have some credibility."
So when Vancouver hired him to get as a consultant, in part to get housing funding from the province, Dobell was likely breaking the law, the prosecutor found. It's against the law to take money in return for providing special influence in government.
Robertson decided against influence-peddling charges, saying they wouldn't serve the public interest. Dobell held an honest but wrong belief that he wasn't breaking any laws and co-operated completely. The lead RCMP investigator "saw this as a case in which there was no corruption," Robertson said.
And conviction would likely result in an absolute discharge anyway, the special prosecutor said.
Dobell agreed to plead guilty to failing to register as a lobbyist and repay the $6,950 he was paid for his time spent meeting provincial officials. Attorney General Wally Oppal denied there was a plea bargain, but it looked that way.
It's a grimy, sloppy business. Dobell has been a close Campbell associate since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor. When the Liberals were elected in 2001, Dobell was hired as deputy minister to the premier. He ran the show for Campbell.
And through that time, he had an excellent reputation.
In 2005, Dobell stepped down and went into business as a consultant. Campbell was his best client, hiring him as a special advisor at $250 an hour with annual payment cap of $230,000. He chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that didn't work out so well, given the massive cost overruns - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Dobell worked on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, conflicts with teachers, the Gateway transportation project and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in the government's Vancouver headquarters. But Dobell had other clients, including the City of Vancouver. The work included getting money from the province. And who better to lobby than someone who Campbell valued so highly that he was paying $250 an hour for his opinions.
The conflict should have been obvious. No matter what Dobell might have thought, potential clients could reasonably expect him to have the inside track as a special advisor to the premier. Other municipalities, for example, must have wondered whether their housing plans were being ignored because they didn't have the premier's associate on the payroll.
Campbell and the government still haven't acknowledged any wrongdoing. Dobell is still a lobbyist, trying to woo the government on behalf clients. And the Liberals are looking more arrogant than accountable over the whole issue.
Footnote: Attorney General Wally Oppal was left to handle questions about the affair and he offered nothing but repeated claims that it would be inappropriate to comment until Dobell pleaded guilty. Campbell said only that he respected Dobell as a person. The Liberals would have slammed such responses from an NDP premier under the same circumstances.
Even when concerns were raised about Dobell's activities and access, the premier's office denied any problems.
Jessica McDonald, the premier's deputy and top public sector manager, investigated. There was nothing for the public to worry about, she reported.
But there was. This week a special prosecutor - appointed because of opposition pressure - reported on the case. He concluded Dobell had violated provincial law by failing to register as a lobbyist, even though he was trying to influence government policy for paying clients.
He also found a "substantial likelihood" that Dobell could be convicted of the Criminal Code offence of influence-peddling.
The City of Vancouver had hired him to try and get provincial money for social housing; his lobbying activities included meeting Housing Minister Rich Coleman. At the same time, Dobell was being paid $250 an hour as a special advisor to Premier Gordon Campbell.
"One of the reasons he wanted the title Special Advisor in his contract was 'the linkage to the premier,'" prosecutor Terrence Robertson reports. "Mr. Dobell recognized that people would assume that he would make recommendations to the premier and that those recommendations would have some credibility."
So when Vancouver hired him to get as a consultant, in part to get housing funding from the province, Dobell was likely breaking the law, the prosecutor found. It's against the law to take money in return for providing special influence in government.
Robertson decided against influence-peddling charges, saying they wouldn't serve the public interest. Dobell held an honest but wrong belief that he wasn't breaking any laws and co-operated completely. The lead RCMP investigator "saw this as a case in which there was no corruption," Robertson said.
And conviction would likely result in an absolute discharge anyway, the special prosecutor said.
Dobell agreed to plead guilty to failing to register as a lobbyist and repay the $6,950 he was paid for his time spent meeting provincial officials. Attorney General Wally Oppal denied there was a plea bargain, but it looked that way.
It's a grimy, sloppy business. Dobell has been a close Campbell associate since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor. When the Liberals were elected in 2001, Dobell was hired as deputy minister to the premier. He ran the show for Campbell.
And through that time, he had an excellent reputation.
In 2005, Dobell stepped down and went into business as a consultant. Campbell was his best client, hiring him as a special advisor at $250 an hour with annual payment cap of $230,000. He chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that didn't work out so well, given the massive cost overruns - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Dobell worked on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, conflicts with teachers, the Gateway transportation project and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in the government's Vancouver headquarters. But Dobell had other clients, including the City of Vancouver. The work included getting money from the province. And who better to lobby than someone who Campbell valued so highly that he was paying $250 an hour for his opinions.
The conflict should have been obvious. No matter what Dobell might have thought, potential clients could reasonably expect him to have the inside track as a special advisor to the premier. Other municipalities, for example, must have wondered whether their housing plans were being ignored because they didn't have the premier's associate on the payroll.
Campbell and the government still haven't acknowledged any wrongdoing. Dobell is still a lobbyist, trying to woo the government on behalf clients. And the Liberals are looking more arrogant than accountable over the whole issue.
Footnote: Attorney General Wally Oppal was left to handle questions about the affair and he offered nothing but repeated claims that it would be inappropriate to comment until Dobell pleaded guilty. Campbell said only that he respected Dobell as a person. The Liberals would have slammed such responses from an NDP premier under the same circumstances.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Day is wrong: Kids need their moms, even in prison
Stockwell Day's reaction to the news that a mom will raise her baby inside a B.C. penitentiary shows why the Conservatives still make people nervous.
Sure, prison isn't a great place for a kid. But can anyone argue that toddlers don't really need their moms? Or that everything will work out nicely for a child apprehended by the government and launched into a life of changing foster homes and overworked social workers, to be cast adrift at 19?
Lisa Whitford is the mother. In 2006, she shot Anthony Cartledge, her common-law partner, in Prince George. He died. She was arrested at the scene. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to six years. With credit for time in custody after her arrest, the sentence means up to four more years behind bars.
When Whitford shot Cartledge, she was pregnant with his child. The baby was born while she was awaiting trial -- Jordyn, a girl.
This isn't some heartwarming movie. Whitford has had a wretched life. She was abused as a child, raped as a teen and has been an addict and criminal. Her first three children have already been apprehended and ended up in government care.
But she has done well with Jordyn, who is almost one now and thriving. In a rare sentencing decision, Whitford was allowed to keep Jordyn with her in prison. She'll serve her sentence in the Fraser Valley Institution, where she and he child will have a space much like an apartment, only with guards.
This alarmed Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. He called for an urgent review of the program that allows mothers to look after their babies in prison.
That's fine, if the interest is in the children's welfare.
But Day, sadly, went farther. He was concerned, the Globe and Mail reported, about "the message that is sent to serious offenders when they are permitted to retain custody of a child while incarcerated."
It's an appalling thing to say. Should children suffer to send a message to offenders?
And does Day really think that women like Whitfield, shotguns in hand, will stop to consider whether they might be pregnant and at risk of losing contact with their unborn child before pulling the trigger?
I have two children and three grandchildren. They are, I am convinced, better off with their parents than in the government's care. Even if their mothers were in prison, they would be better off.
That's not a criticism of foster parents, or child protection workers. As a group, they have my admiration. Many children emerge successfully from the system. And many enter with big problems, physically and emotionally.
But I would work terribly hard to keep a child I knew from going into care. There are too many shuffles between foster homes, too much struggle and a terrible end to support on the day they turn 19 -- when they really need a helping hand.
Statistically, children in care face huge disadvantages. They're likely to end up living below the poverty line and more likely to be in trouble with the law. They're less likely to finish high school and much more likely to be homeless or on welfare.
It might all fall apart for Whitford. Her lawyer says caring for Jordyn has given her "a sense of worthfulness, something to live for. She cares so much for this child."
The program works for moms. Research on the American version of the program found that offenders whose children were taken from them were almost four times as likely to re-offend as moms allowed to keep them.
Critics have suggested prison is no place for a child. But it could be as safe and healthy as some of the apartments or neighbourhoods where children are being raised now.
Little kids need their mothers. (Fathers too.) And this should be about little kids.
When Day makes it about punishing their mothers, it's alarming and a little creepy.
Footnote: It's hard to see why the program has become enough of a priority that Day wants an immediate review. In Canada there are two or three women and children participating in the federal mother-child prison program. There are thousands of children in worse circumstances on reserves and in cities, yet Day's government hasn't ordered any immediate action.
Sure, prison isn't a great place for a kid. But can anyone argue that toddlers don't really need their moms? Or that everything will work out nicely for a child apprehended by the government and launched into a life of changing foster homes and overworked social workers, to be cast adrift at 19?
Lisa Whitford is the mother. In 2006, she shot Anthony Cartledge, her common-law partner, in Prince George. He died. She was arrested at the scene. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to six years. With credit for time in custody after her arrest, the sentence means up to four more years behind bars.
When Whitford shot Cartledge, she was pregnant with his child. The baby was born while she was awaiting trial -- Jordyn, a girl.
This isn't some heartwarming movie. Whitford has had a wretched life. She was abused as a child, raped as a teen and has been an addict and criminal. Her first three children have already been apprehended and ended up in government care.
But she has done well with Jordyn, who is almost one now and thriving. In a rare sentencing decision, Whitford was allowed to keep Jordyn with her in prison. She'll serve her sentence in the Fraser Valley Institution, where she and he child will have a space much like an apartment, only with guards.
This alarmed Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. He called for an urgent review of the program that allows mothers to look after their babies in prison.
That's fine, if the interest is in the children's welfare.
But Day, sadly, went farther. He was concerned, the Globe and Mail reported, about "the message that is sent to serious offenders when they are permitted to retain custody of a child while incarcerated."
It's an appalling thing to say. Should children suffer to send a message to offenders?
And does Day really think that women like Whitfield, shotguns in hand, will stop to consider whether they might be pregnant and at risk of losing contact with their unborn child before pulling the trigger?
I have two children and three grandchildren. They are, I am convinced, better off with their parents than in the government's care. Even if their mothers were in prison, they would be better off.
That's not a criticism of foster parents, or child protection workers. As a group, they have my admiration. Many children emerge successfully from the system. And many enter with big problems, physically and emotionally.
But I would work terribly hard to keep a child I knew from going into care. There are too many shuffles between foster homes, too much struggle and a terrible end to support on the day they turn 19 -- when they really need a helping hand.
Statistically, children in care face huge disadvantages. They're likely to end up living below the poverty line and more likely to be in trouble with the law. They're less likely to finish high school and much more likely to be homeless or on welfare.
It might all fall apart for Whitford. Her lawyer says caring for Jordyn has given her "a sense of worthfulness, something to live for. She cares so much for this child."
The program works for moms. Research on the American version of the program found that offenders whose children were taken from them were almost four times as likely to re-offend as moms allowed to keep them.
Critics have suggested prison is no place for a child. But it could be as safe and healthy as some of the apartments or neighbourhoods where children are being raised now.
Little kids need their mothers. (Fathers too.) And this should be about little kids.
When Day makes it about punishing their mothers, it's alarming and a little creepy.
Footnote: It's hard to see why the program has become enough of a priority that Day wants an immediate review. In Canada there are two or three women and children participating in the federal mother-child prison program. There are thousands of children in worse circumstances on reserves and in cities, yet Day's government hasn't ordered any immediate action.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The ins and outs of the carbon tax
The Liberals' carbon tax took quick fire from a lot of different directions.
Within a few hours of the announcement, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the B.C. Government Employees Union and the B.C. Green Party had all zipped off press releases complaining about the carbon-tax plan.
Which means it's at least an interesting idea. If right, left and enviros are united in skepticism, the tax has made an impact.
Of course, there was a lot of praise too, from a wide range of sources too.
I don't think you can argue against the principle. The government, reflecting the views of most British Columbians, has decided greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced dramatically to slow global warming.
That means, fundamentally, burning fewer fossil fuels - gas and coal and oil.
There are other approaches. You can plant trees and can claim you're creating a carbon sink to offset some of the gas you burn in your drive to work. You could pay somebody else to reduce their emissions and count that as your contribution.
But really, meaningful action means emission reductions. That means changes in the way we live - car pooling or insulating our walls or at least walking to the store sometimes.
And while some people will start taking the bus just to help reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions, many more will park their cars if gas prices hit a painful point.
That's the principle behind the carbon tax. The government figured out how much greenhouse gas each fuel produced when burned. (Diesel is worse than gas in cars; oil is worse than natural gas for home heating.) Then it calculated a tax that was intended to work out to $10 per tonne of greenhouse gases produced this year, rising to $30 a tonne by 2012.
So the gas tax will start at 2.4 cents a litre this year and rise 1.2 cents a litre each year after. By 2012, it will be 7.2 cents a litre.
That's one problem with the plan. Gas prices are about 10 cents higher than they were a year ago - in Victoria they jumped six cents in hours this week - but not many people have changed their driving patterns.
And if people haven't considered it worthwhile to put in a more efficient gas furnace, it doesn't seem likely that a one-per-cent tax on natural gas - perhaps an extra dollar week in heating costs - will be move them.
But you've got to start somewhere.
The tax could influence business decisions. But that's a little worrying. Will an energy-dependent company install a more efficient power source or expand into Alberta or Idaho, where there is no carbon tax?
Or will not much of anything change? Les Leyne, the Times Colonist columnist, raised that point with Taylor in the press conference.
B.C. emits about 66 million tonnes of greenhouse gas a year. The government has passed a law saying that has to be cut by one-third by 2020. Without changes, the growth in our population and energy appetite would probably take emissions to more than 80 million tonnes by then.
In 2020, emissions will have to be cut by 22 million tonnes from today's level. But Leyne noted, the carbon tax is only projected to reduce emissions by three million tonnes.
At best, that's 14 per cent of the way to the goal.
There are lots of measures still to come. It sounds odd, but capturing the methane gas from dumps and burning it for heat or power makes a big difference.
The cap and trade system, while still to come, will theoretically encourage companies to reduce their emissions. If they come in under their cap, they can sell the credits to less-successful companies.
But not much will happen when the value of emissions is $10 per tonne. The province plans to charge itself $25 a tonne to cover its carbon emissions. The money will go into its Pacific Carbon Trust, which will use the money to reduce greenhouse gases. (The idea that Gordon Campbell can give the trust $4 to erase the emissions from a round-trip between Vancouver and Victoria is odd.)
Strange days and wild waters. But British Columbians wanted their government to do something about climate change. And it's taken the first steps into the unknown.
Within a few hours of the announcement, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, the B.C. Government Employees Union and the B.C. Green Party had all zipped off press releases complaining about the carbon-tax plan.
Which means it's at least an interesting idea. If right, left and enviros are united in skepticism, the tax has made an impact.
Of course, there was a lot of praise too, from a wide range of sources too.
I don't think you can argue against the principle. The government, reflecting the views of most British Columbians, has decided greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced dramatically to slow global warming.
That means, fundamentally, burning fewer fossil fuels - gas and coal and oil.
There are other approaches. You can plant trees and can claim you're creating a carbon sink to offset some of the gas you burn in your drive to work. You could pay somebody else to reduce their emissions and count that as your contribution.
But really, meaningful action means emission reductions. That means changes in the way we live - car pooling or insulating our walls or at least walking to the store sometimes.
And while some people will start taking the bus just to help reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions, many more will park their cars if gas prices hit a painful point.
That's the principle behind the carbon tax. The government figured out how much greenhouse gas each fuel produced when burned. (Diesel is worse than gas in cars; oil is worse than natural gas for home heating.) Then it calculated a tax that was intended to work out to $10 per tonne of greenhouse gases produced this year, rising to $30 a tonne by 2012.
So the gas tax will start at 2.4 cents a litre this year and rise 1.2 cents a litre each year after. By 2012, it will be 7.2 cents a litre.
That's one problem with the plan. Gas prices are about 10 cents higher than they were a year ago - in Victoria they jumped six cents in hours this week - but not many people have changed their driving patterns.
And if people haven't considered it worthwhile to put in a more efficient gas furnace, it doesn't seem likely that a one-per-cent tax on natural gas - perhaps an extra dollar week in heating costs - will be move them.
But you've got to start somewhere.
The tax could influence business decisions. But that's a little worrying. Will an energy-dependent company install a more efficient power source or expand into Alberta or Idaho, where there is no carbon tax?
Or will not much of anything change? Les Leyne, the Times Colonist columnist, raised that point with Taylor in the press conference.
B.C. emits about 66 million tonnes of greenhouse gas a year. The government has passed a law saying that has to be cut by one-third by 2020. Without changes, the growth in our population and energy appetite would probably take emissions to more than 80 million tonnes by then.
In 2020, emissions will have to be cut by 22 million tonnes from today's level. But Leyne noted, the carbon tax is only projected to reduce emissions by three million tonnes.
At best, that's 14 per cent of the way to the goal.
There are lots of measures still to come. It sounds odd, but capturing the methane gas from dumps and burning it for heat or power makes a big difference.
The cap and trade system, while still to come, will theoretically encourage companies to reduce their emissions. If they come in under their cap, they can sell the credits to less-successful companies.
But not much will happen when the value of emissions is $10 per tonne. The province plans to charge itself $25 a tonne to cover its carbon emissions. The money will go into its Pacific Carbon Trust, which will use the money to reduce greenhouse gases. (The idea that Gordon Campbell can give the trust $4 to erase the emissions from a round-trip between Vancouver and Victoria is odd.)
Strange days and wild waters. But British Columbians wanted their government to do something about climate change. And it's taken the first steps into the unknown.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The five-point B.C. budget guide
OK, here's the five things you need to know about the budget in about 700 words.
First, you're going to get a cheque in June for $100 per person in your household. It's called the "Climate Action Dividend" to try and link it to the budget's green theme. The government hopes you'll use the money to buy a bicycle or a more efficient fridge.
Really it just reflects the fact the government - once again - wildly underestimated revenues in last year's budget. It was on track to a $3-billion surplus this year, and to facing tough questions about why people were waiting for knee surgery or paying such high taxes with all that cash piling up in the government accounts.
So you get a cheque. The measure will cost government $440 million.
Second, you're also going to pay more for gas, oil and other carbon fuels. A new carbon tax will be based on the amount of greenhouse gases the fuel produces, starting at $10 per tonne this year and rising to $30 a tonne by 2012.
Beginning July 1, you'll pay 2.41 cents a litre in a carbon tax on gas - something like $50 a year for a typical family. It will go up 1.2 cents a year. All fuels will be taxed. Figure $35 extra this year if you heat with natural gas, $50 if you heat with oil.
The tax will bring in $338 million this year, rising to $880 million within two years.
The government wants the tax to be revenue neutral -any new money taken in is to be offset by other tax cuts.
So it's made several other tax reductions. A carbon tax tends to hurt low-income families, grabbing a larger share of their limited income. People eligible for the federal GST credit - about 25 per cent of British Columbians - will get $100 per adult and $30 per child. (A carbon tax also hits rural residents harder, but there is no special aid for them.)
Personal income tax reductions will be worth $215 million. For a family of four with household income of $70,000, the savings will be about $200 a year. For a family with an income of $120,000, about $360.
Corporations will get $170 million in tax cuts this year.
Third, this carbon tax is a leap into the unknown. No province or state has a similar tax. The business reps in the budget lockup appeared unsure how much the tax would affect them.
For some industries, like money-losing pulp mills, it's clearly bad news. They'll pay more for fuel and, since they aren't profitable and paying taxes, they won't benefit from the tax cuts.
Broadly, it looks resource industries - which generally use a lot of energy and can't pass increased costs onto their customers - are most worried.
Fourth, beyond the carbon tax, this is largely a status quo budget, for better and worse. Spending leaps a bit this year, thanks to some one-time initiatives, but is forecast to increase less than three per cent in each of the next two years.
So health spending, for example, will rise about six per cent a year for each of the next three years. Not enough to actually allow the health authorities to deliver needed care, but not the noose some had feared.
It showed that the public's message in the conversation on health - that people would to preserve decent care - got through.
It's also status quo in terms of government neglect of some critical areas. The funding to deal with homelessness is almost non-existent. There is a token commitment, for example, to help 1,065 families with rent subsidies of about $80 each, a tiny step. More outreach workers will be hired and shelters will stay open in the daytime.
At a time when some 10,000 to 15,000 British Columbians are homeless and communities across the province are being damaged, the inaction is baffling.
Fifth, there was a broad sense that this government sees the province's future in the Lower Mainland. There was money for mining exploration and incentives to encourage movie-making in the North and Interior.
But the focus was on tech and Asia-Pacific opportunities and financial institutions.
And that, in about 700 words, is what you need to know from this year's 10-inch stack of budget documents.
I hope.
First, you're going to get a cheque in June for $100 per person in your household. It's called the "Climate Action Dividend" to try and link it to the budget's green theme. The government hopes you'll use the money to buy a bicycle or a more efficient fridge.
Really it just reflects the fact the government - once again - wildly underestimated revenues in last year's budget. It was on track to a $3-billion surplus this year, and to facing tough questions about why people were waiting for knee surgery or paying such high taxes with all that cash piling up in the government accounts.
So you get a cheque. The measure will cost government $440 million.
Second, you're also going to pay more for gas, oil and other carbon fuels. A new carbon tax will be based on the amount of greenhouse gases the fuel produces, starting at $10 per tonne this year and rising to $30 a tonne by 2012.
Beginning July 1, you'll pay 2.41 cents a litre in a carbon tax on gas - something like $50 a year for a typical family. It will go up 1.2 cents a year. All fuels will be taxed. Figure $35 extra this year if you heat with natural gas, $50 if you heat with oil.
The tax will bring in $338 million this year, rising to $880 million within two years.
The government wants the tax to be revenue neutral -any new money taken in is to be offset by other tax cuts.
So it's made several other tax reductions. A carbon tax tends to hurt low-income families, grabbing a larger share of their limited income. People eligible for the federal GST credit - about 25 per cent of British Columbians - will get $100 per adult and $30 per child. (A carbon tax also hits rural residents harder, but there is no special aid for them.)
Personal income tax reductions will be worth $215 million. For a family of four with household income of $70,000, the savings will be about $200 a year. For a family with an income of $120,000, about $360.
Corporations will get $170 million in tax cuts this year.
Third, this carbon tax is a leap into the unknown. No province or state has a similar tax. The business reps in the budget lockup appeared unsure how much the tax would affect them.
For some industries, like money-losing pulp mills, it's clearly bad news. They'll pay more for fuel and, since they aren't profitable and paying taxes, they won't benefit from the tax cuts.
Broadly, it looks resource industries - which generally use a lot of energy and can't pass increased costs onto their customers - are most worried.
Fourth, beyond the carbon tax, this is largely a status quo budget, for better and worse. Spending leaps a bit this year, thanks to some one-time initiatives, but is forecast to increase less than three per cent in each of the next two years.
So health spending, for example, will rise about six per cent a year for each of the next three years. Not enough to actually allow the health authorities to deliver needed care, but not the noose some had feared.
It showed that the public's message in the conversation on health - that people would to preserve decent care - got through.
It's also status quo in terms of government neglect of some critical areas. The funding to deal with homelessness is almost non-existent. There is a token commitment, for example, to help 1,065 families with rent subsidies of about $80 each, a tiny step. More outreach workers will be hired and shelters will stay open in the daytime.
At a time when some 10,000 to 15,000 British Columbians are homeless and communities across the province are being damaged, the inaction is baffling.
Fifth, there was a broad sense that this government sees the province's future in the Lower Mainland. There was money for mining exploration and incentives to encourage movie-making in the North and Interior.
But the focus was on tech and Asia-Pacific opportunities and financial institutions.
And that, in about 700 words, is what you need to know from this year's 10-inch stack of budget documents.
I hope.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Throne speech surprisingly interesting
Maybe I've been doing this stuff for too long, but that seemed an interesting throne speech from the Campbell government.
It's foolish to get too fired up about the ritual. There's not necessarily a link between all those words, read by the lieutenant governor, and what government actually does.
But the speech read by the province's first aboriginal lieutenant governor - a significant milestone - had some interesting ideas. Both good interesting and bad interesting.
Take three. In education, health and climate change.
The government promised a serious look at dramatic improvements in early childhood education. A new agency will "assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year-olds." It will also look at providing parents with the choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012. The report is to be done by next spring - a few months before the election.
The change could be hugely positive, especially for kids from poorer families. The reality is that a five-year-old from an affluent family, with a stay-at-home mum and play groups and story times and junior gym is a lot more ready for kindergarten than a five-year-old growing up with a single-parent earning just above minimum wage.
A good early childhood education program would let more children start school confidently and capably. That success could carry them a long way.
And if cost is an issue, then the FSA test results could be put to good use. Start the program in the schools with the weakest performance in basic skills.
In health, there's proposals to cheer and to fear.
The government seems keen on doing things cheaper, which is good. It wants nurses to do more - sewing up wounds and such. And it wants their schooling cut from four years to three, another good change. Better more nurses - or doctors - slightly less well-trained, than a shortage.
But it's also still pitching the myth that we can't afford health care. The government wants to pass a law making "sustainability" a sixth principle under the Canada Health Act, alongside equal access to care and the rest. It's unclear what that means, but the suggestion is that access to care will be cut to reduce costs.
And maybe, at some point, there will be have to tough limits on car.
But we're spending relatively little on health care in B.C. today. Internationally, health-care costs in Canada are smaller share of GDP than most Western countries - about one-third less than the U.S.
In 1985, government health care spending was five per cent. By 1995, it had risen to 6.6 per cent. The increase has slowed since. This year, it will be about 7.2 per cent. Given our rising expectations and aging population, that's not an unreasonable increase.
Looked at another way, government health spending consumes about one-third of revenues today - as it did in 1995 and 1985.
And the throne speech promises a study of an Independent Living Savings Account. It sounds like an RRSP, except you can only use the money for care when you're old - home support or residential care.
That would benefit people with money to set aside. And those who didn't have any extra income available would subsidize their tax break.
And it raises questions how limited the government believes support for seniors in the future, if it's warning people to set aside money today if they can.
On climate change, the throne speech was alarmingly short on specifics. Campbell was clear that the government wasn't going to be deterred from tough action.
But there is a sense of a great leap into the unknown here. The targets are in place, but the government still doesn't seem to know how to get there or what it will cost.
Footnote: The throne speech included a big flood of ideas and initiatives. But there were some gaps. The big problems in the forest industry - right now and the coast, and coming in the Interior - received no real attention. And there was no mention of the Heartland, or whatever the current favorite term is. The challenges of smaller communities no longer seem a priority.
It's foolish to get too fired up about the ritual. There's not necessarily a link between all those words, read by the lieutenant governor, and what government actually does.
But the speech read by the province's first aboriginal lieutenant governor - a significant milestone - had some interesting ideas. Both good interesting and bad interesting.
Take three. In education, health and climate change.
The government promised a serious look at dramatic improvements in early childhood education. A new agency will "assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year-olds." It will also look at providing parents with the choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012. The report is to be done by next spring - a few months before the election.
The change could be hugely positive, especially for kids from poorer families. The reality is that a five-year-old from an affluent family, with a stay-at-home mum and play groups and story times and junior gym is a lot more ready for kindergarten than a five-year-old growing up with a single-parent earning just above minimum wage.
A good early childhood education program would let more children start school confidently and capably. That success could carry them a long way.
And if cost is an issue, then the FSA test results could be put to good use. Start the program in the schools with the weakest performance in basic skills.
In health, there's proposals to cheer and to fear.
The government seems keen on doing things cheaper, which is good. It wants nurses to do more - sewing up wounds and such. And it wants their schooling cut from four years to three, another good change. Better more nurses - or doctors - slightly less well-trained, than a shortage.
But it's also still pitching the myth that we can't afford health care. The government wants to pass a law making "sustainability" a sixth principle under the Canada Health Act, alongside equal access to care and the rest. It's unclear what that means, but the suggestion is that access to care will be cut to reduce costs.
And maybe, at some point, there will be have to tough limits on car.
But we're spending relatively little on health care in B.C. today. Internationally, health-care costs in Canada are smaller share of GDP than most Western countries - about one-third less than the U.S.
In 1985, government health care spending was five per cent. By 1995, it had risen to 6.6 per cent. The increase has slowed since. This year, it will be about 7.2 per cent. Given our rising expectations and aging population, that's not an unreasonable increase.
Looked at another way, government health spending consumes about one-third of revenues today - as it did in 1995 and 1985.
And the throne speech promises a study of an Independent Living Savings Account. It sounds like an RRSP, except you can only use the money for care when you're old - home support or residential care.
That would benefit people with money to set aside. And those who didn't have any extra income available would subsidize their tax break.
And it raises questions how limited the government believes support for seniors in the future, if it's warning people to set aside money today if they can.
On climate change, the throne speech was alarmingly short on specifics. Campbell was clear that the government wasn't going to be deterred from tough action.
But there is a sense of a great leap into the unknown here. The targets are in place, but the government still doesn't seem to know how to get there or what it will cost.
Footnote: The throne speech included a big flood of ideas and initiatives. But there were some gaps. The big problems in the forest industry - right now and the coast, and coming in the Interior - received no real attention. And there was no mention of the Heartland, or whatever the current favorite term is. The challenges of smaller communities no longer seem a priority.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The premier used to think mental health was important
Things are badly out of control on Victoria’s downtown streets, and in communities across the province. More and more addicted and mentally ill people have ended up on the streets and the problems have hit a critical point.
How did this happen? The short answer is that government — and most of us — chose to ignore the problem. It just wasn’t a priority.
Premier Gordon Campbell can explain that as well as anyone.
Back in 2001, Campbell eliminated the office of the mental health advocate. The office was created in 1998. That was four years after the ombudsman had recommended an independent monitor in a critical report on mental health services. The NDP government was no better at paying attention to these issues.
Campbell said the advocate wasn’t a strong enough response. That’s why he was naming a cabinet minister to be responsible for mental health and addiction services.
“A minister of state for mental health is clearly a requirement,” Campbell told the legislature in 2001. “Let’s assume that the last government cared about mental health. They failed people with mental illness miserably.”
Why?
“I would suggest that they did it because there was no one focusing on mental health issues,” said Campbell.
But the minister of state for addictions and mental health never seemed to get much done, beyond some reports and useful mailings to doctors. The evidence on the streets and from families showed things were getting worse.
After the 2005 election, Campbell decided mental health and addictions didn’t need a minister after all. The job followed the advocate onto the dust heap. Since then, people in desperate need of help have created growing street problems.
Some communications person is likely even now preparing a letter to the editor for the health minister to sign in response to this column. The government spent more than $1 billion on mental health and addictions last year and did this and that.
But that’s like boasting about how much you spent fixing your car, without acknowledging that it still doesn’t run. Governments are not elected to spend money, but to help solve problems and provide needed care.
Look at the streets. Talk to families trying to get help. Things are worse.
The answer is also misleading. The government allocates almost no money for mental health or addictions — $8 million for the entire province in 2005-6. It tells the six health authorities how much they can spend on all services and leaves the rest — mostly — up to them.
The budgets aren’t based on what’s needed to provide care. So the authority managers and medical staff decide where the money should go. Fixing knees or catching up on seniors’ long-term-care needs tend to be more compelling than treatment beds for the mentally ill or addicted.
Those people don’t have influence. They don’t hire lobbyists. They aren’t effective in advancing their own needs; if they could do things like that they wouldn’t be on the streets.
So until they become a sufficient irritation, they are ignored.
If you are diagnosed with cancer in B.C., you’ll get excellent care. If you’re alcoholic, or schizophrenic, you won’t. Even the throne speech this week didn’t deal with addiction and mental illness as health issues.
Things might be changing. The problems have become big enough that the community has taken notice. Politicians respond to that.
But how wasteful this has been. In lives, in preventable crime, in health-care costs.
Campbell was right in 2001. Unless someone is focused on the issues, advocating for the ill and holding government to account, we’re likely to see more years of failure.
It’s time to bring back the mental health advocate.
Footnote: Another gap needs to be filled. The Liberals had a minister responsible for seniors’ long-term care in their first term, but axed the position in 2005. The Premier’s Council on Aging recommended in 2006 that a minister of state for aging be appointed “to champion a co-ordinated change agenda across government.” At the least, a seniors’ advocate could ensure that their interests — particularly around issues like residential care — are represented. Many seniors don’t have family or friends to advocate for them or raise concerns.
How did this happen? The short answer is that government — and most of us — chose to ignore the problem. It just wasn’t a priority.
Premier Gordon Campbell can explain that as well as anyone.
Back in 2001, Campbell eliminated the office of the mental health advocate. The office was created in 1998. That was four years after the ombudsman had recommended an independent monitor in a critical report on mental health services. The NDP government was no better at paying attention to these issues.
Campbell said the advocate wasn’t a strong enough response. That’s why he was naming a cabinet minister to be responsible for mental health and addiction services.
“A minister of state for mental health is clearly a requirement,” Campbell told the legislature in 2001. “Let’s assume that the last government cared about mental health. They failed people with mental illness miserably.”
Why?
“I would suggest that they did it because there was no one focusing on mental health issues,” said Campbell.
But the minister of state for addictions and mental health never seemed to get much done, beyond some reports and useful mailings to doctors. The evidence on the streets and from families showed things were getting worse.
After the 2005 election, Campbell decided mental health and addictions didn’t need a minister after all. The job followed the advocate onto the dust heap. Since then, people in desperate need of help have created growing street problems.
Some communications person is likely even now preparing a letter to the editor for the health minister to sign in response to this column. The government spent more than $1 billion on mental health and addictions last year and did this and that.
But that’s like boasting about how much you spent fixing your car, without acknowledging that it still doesn’t run. Governments are not elected to spend money, but to help solve problems and provide needed care.
Look at the streets. Talk to families trying to get help. Things are worse.
The answer is also misleading. The government allocates almost no money for mental health or addictions — $8 million for the entire province in 2005-6. It tells the six health authorities how much they can spend on all services and leaves the rest — mostly — up to them.
The budgets aren’t based on what’s needed to provide care. So the authority managers and medical staff decide where the money should go. Fixing knees or catching up on seniors’ long-term-care needs tend to be more compelling than treatment beds for the mentally ill or addicted.
Those people don’t have influence. They don’t hire lobbyists. They aren’t effective in advancing their own needs; if they could do things like that they wouldn’t be on the streets.
So until they become a sufficient irritation, they are ignored.
If you are diagnosed with cancer in B.C., you’ll get excellent care. If you’re alcoholic, or schizophrenic, you won’t. Even the throne speech this week didn’t deal with addiction and mental illness as health issues.
Things might be changing. The problems have become big enough that the community has taken notice. Politicians respond to that.
But how wasteful this has been. In lives, in preventable crime, in health-care costs.
Campbell was right in 2001. Unless someone is focused on the issues, advocating for the ill and holding government to account, we’re likely to see more years of failure.
It’s time to bring back the mental health advocate.
Footnote: Another gap needs to be filled. The Liberals had a minister responsible for seniors’ long-term care in their first term, but axed the position in 2005. The Premier’s Council on Aging recommended in 2006 that a minister of state for aging be appointed “to champion a co-ordinated change agenda across government.” At the least, a seniors’ advocate could ensure that their interests — particularly around issues like residential care — are represented. Many seniors don’t have family or friends to advocate for them or raise concerns.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Risky session ahead for Liberals
The MLAs will be back here this week, for the Throne Speech, the budget and all the rest of the spring sitting.
Of course, you might never have noticed they were gone. For people who pay close attention to provincial politics, this will be a big three months. For most people, not so much.
I find it interesting, although most days dispiriting. These are capable people, respected in their hometowns. The ideal would see them coming together to debate measures that would make life better in the province. They might divide along
party lines, but they would respect each other's intelligence and commitment - or if not, the fact that the voters had chosen them. They would be full participants in government.
It's not like that. Much of the session is a weird, ritualistic game, from the rudeness and shouting of Question Period to the set speeches for and against legislation. Useful things get done, but they're islands in a sea of
embarrassing foolishness.
Still, it's what we've got. And, as I said, some useful things do get done.
This session could be the last chance for the government to do take any significant action that requires legislative approval.
The next election will be May 12, 2009. The Liberals haven't been keen on fall sittings; next spring will be an election session, as much show as substance.
This will be the chance to make some good laws.
But that's been a problem for the Liberals. They were elected in 2001 with the basic hope that they would be better than the NDP government they replaced. Competent, in a word.
Generally, the Liberals were suspicious of government and convinced it should be smaller.
Those were broadly justified views and responding to them kept the Liberals going for the first few years.
Then what? Cutting the size of government can't be a perpetual task and at a certain point the public is looking for positive efforts to deal with their concerns.
The Liberals pitched their first budget after the 2005 election as a senior's budget. The 2006 effort was supposed to be a children's budget, an acknowledgement of the mess the government had made in services for families.
Last year, the theme was housing.
But once the snappy graphics and backdrops for the budget announcement come down, interest seems to fade.
It's hard to say that things have got better for seniors, children or the homeless or people struggling to afford housing in any material ways.
This year the theme is likely to be climate change, with a budget that proposes some concrete actions to build on the dramatic rhetoric of the 2007 throne speech.
That's a challenge. The business community is worried the government will go too far and hurt the economy. The public, having been told by Premier Gordon Campbell that this is a global crisis, is expecting some significant measures.
The Liberals will have some other measures to announce - things like the new proposal to encourage burning waste wood to generate power.
There should be announcements about what B.C. will do with its share of the federal $1-billion aid program aimed at helping single-industry towns hurt by the high Canadian dollar. The province is to get about $133 million.
The session also means the New Democrats have question period four days a week to raise tough issues.
There are a lot of good targets. There are the obvious traditional favorites for any opposition - health care wait times, the continued mystery about the direction of the Children and Families Ministry, Olympic costs.
And the NDP will also focus on public safety concerns, from the gang killings in Vancouver to the disorder created by the mounting populations of homeless, addicted and mentally ill people on the streets across the province. The New
Democrats think the Liberals are vulnerable on law-and-order issues.
It all starts next Tuesday with the Throne Speech. With barely a year to go
before the election, the stakes are high for both parties.
Footnote: The big, dangerous issue hanging over the government is the corruption trial in connection with the B.C. Rail sale. Campbell has dodged questions on the case so far, but the government's ongoing efforts to keep evidence from the
court and the special prosecutor's failure to meet the legal requirements for disclosing documents could blow up in the next two months. The trial is to start in mid-March.
Of course, you might never have noticed they were gone. For people who pay close attention to provincial politics, this will be a big three months. For most people, not so much.
I find it interesting, although most days dispiriting. These are capable people, respected in their hometowns. The ideal would see them coming together to debate measures that would make life better in the province. They might divide along
party lines, but they would respect each other's intelligence and commitment - or if not, the fact that the voters had chosen them. They would be full participants in government.
It's not like that. Much of the session is a weird, ritualistic game, from the rudeness and shouting of Question Period to the set speeches for and against legislation. Useful things get done, but they're islands in a sea of
embarrassing foolishness.
Still, it's what we've got. And, as I said, some useful things do get done.
This session could be the last chance for the government to do take any significant action that requires legislative approval.
The next election will be May 12, 2009. The Liberals haven't been keen on fall sittings; next spring will be an election session, as much show as substance.
This will be the chance to make some good laws.
But that's been a problem for the Liberals. They were elected in 2001 with the basic hope that they would be better than the NDP government they replaced. Competent, in a word.
Generally, the Liberals were suspicious of government and convinced it should be smaller.
Those were broadly justified views and responding to them kept the Liberals going for the first few years.
Then what? Cutting the size of government can't be a perpetual task and at a certain point the public is looking for positive efforts to deal with their concerns.
The Liberals pitched their first budget after the 2005 election as a senior's budget. The 2006 effort was supposed to be a children's budget, an acknowledgement of the mess the government had made in services for families.
Last year, the theme was housing.
But once the snappy graphics and backdrops for the budget announcement come down, interest seems to fade.
It's hard to say that things have got better for seniors, children or the homeless or people struggling to afford housing in any material ways.
This year the theme is likely to be climate change, with a budget that proposes some concrete actions to build on the dramatic rhetoric of the 2007 throne speech.
That's a challenge. The business community is worried the government will go too far and hurt the economy. The public, having been told by Premier Gordon Campbell that this is a global crisis, is expecting some significant measures.
The Liberals will have some other measures to announce - things like the new proposal to encourage burning waste wood to generate power.
There should be announcements about what B.C. will do with its share of the federal $1-billion aid program aimed at helping single-industry towns hurt by the high Canadian dollar. The province is to get about $133 million.
The session also means the New Democrats have question period four days a week to raise tough issues.
There are a lot of good targets. There are the obvious traditional favorites for any opposition - health care wait times, the continued mystery about the direction of the Children and Families Ministry, Olympic costs.
And the NDP will also focus on public safety concerns, from the gang killings in Vancouver to the disorder created by the mounting populations of homeless, addicted and mentally ill people on the streets across the province. The New
Democrats think the Liberals are vulnerable on law-and-order issues.
It all starts next Tuesday with the Throne Speech. With barely a year to go
before the election, the stakes are high for both parties.
Footnote: The big, dangerous issue hanging over the government is the corruption trial in connection with the B.C. Rail sale. Campbell has dodged questions on the case so far, but the government's ongoing efforts to keep evidence from the
court and the special prosecutor's failure to meet the legal requirements for disclosing documents could blow up in the next two months. The trial is to start in mid-March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
