Gordon Campbell seemed to catch everyone by surprise with the announcement of a $20-million contribution to a privately planned autism centre with a vague mandate.
And not everyone involved with the issues is pleased, based on this e-mail to the province's auditor general.
TO: Office of the Auditor General of BC
FROM: Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach, Moms on the Move
RE: Request for review of Premier's/Minister's role in committing $20 million in public funds for a private proposal to build an autism centre
DATE: October 29, 2008
Dear Sirs,
We are both parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and coordinators of Moms on the Move, a volunteer provincial network that has provided information, advocacy and support to BC families of individuals with autism and other special needs for over eight years. We are the largest such network in BC, linking over 1,000 families and community members.
We are writing to request that you investigate the role of the Premier's office in allocating $20 million in provincial funding and/or other public resources/property to a private proponent seeking to build an "autism centre;" and further, to review whether the Minister responsible for autism policy in BC has failed to ensure that public resources intended to serve children with autism are being allocated in a manner consistent with provincial autism policy and good governance practices with regard to procurement, accountability and public interest.
Background
We were invited, along with other autism community groups leaders, to a meeting hosted by the project proponents, Wendy and Sergio Cocchia, at their downtown hotel on July 24. At that meeting, they informed us:
a.. They are parents of a child with autism but have no expertise or experience in delivering autism services or supports
b.. They are personally acquainted with the Premier and have been asking him for several years to provide public funding and/or property to help them build a provincial autism centre
c.. The Premier gave Sergio Cocchia a "heads-up" in advance that the February 2008 budget would include funding for their centre.
d.. The Premier invited Cocchia to meet him in February following the budget, committed $20 million in Provincial funds towards constructing a new building to house their centre and asked him to develop and submit a formal proposal by the fall.
e.. The Premier said the $20 million would have to be paid out by March 31, 2009, or it would be lost to "general revenues."
f.. In response to questions, the proponent said he was unaware of any needs assessment, formal RFP, advertisement or competitive process.
g.. The proponents established a foundation and intend to fundraise to construct a $34-million building, possibly at the SFU Campus on Burnaby Mountain.
h.. The purpose of the centre was not determined. Facilities could include space to deliver therapy, research and training; a sports centre, swimming pool and baseball diamond where children with autism could enjoy recreation "safely;" a coffee shop or perhaps a training spa/salon; videoconferencing, plus accommodations for out-of town families who might visit.
i.. Government would provide no new funds for any of the proposed activities; families would have to pay from existing resources or fundraise to cover all costs.
j.. Participants were invited to help decide what to do with this new centre, as a formal proposal had to be submitted this fall.
No government officials were present on July 24 to comment further or confirm this. There has still been no formal government announcement regarding this proposal, availability of new public funds and/or government's objectives, intentions or project parameters. The 2008 Throne Speech contains a single sentence referencing plans for a provincial residential centre for autism education and reseach. No details were provided in the provincial budget. The Service Plan of the Ministry for Children and Families, which has responsibility for out-of-school supports and treatment for children with autism, has no reference to this plan. Neither does the Ministry of Education, which has responsibility for K-12 special education, and which abandoned earlier plans from the 2007 Throne Speech to create a provincial model school for autism suggested by the same proponents following strong commnuity opposition. All we have are several comments quoted in response to media questions: 1) The MCFD Minister confirmed a "notional commitment" was made and 2) The Minister for Housing and Welfare said the funding would come from his budget.
$20 million is equivalent to half the annual MCF budget for autism, which funds early intervention therapy for some 5,000 children. The Province has no equivalent program to fund therapy for other developmental disabilities, like Down Syndrome. At the July 24 meeting, community leaders welcomed the prospect of new provincial funding, given the urgent need to enhance and expand treatment, but questioned the appropriateness of spending it all on a building, especially when other under-utilized community facilities (like public schools) could provide any needed space. The centralized delivery model is also inconsistent with provincial policy and families' preference to access services locally, and would offer little to the vast majority of families beyond the immediate vicinity. Participants also questioned the appropriateness of the Premier's personally handling this project outside normal channels and accountability systems.
Community feedback
Participants at the July 24 meeting proposed that our group, as the largest autism network in BC, be used to seek further community feedback. We created an informal Web survey and distributed the link to over 1,000 community members (parents, professionals and service providers), including the proponents. When preliminary feedback indicated overwhelming opposition, we immediately advised the Premier and proponents of concerns being expressed (all cited correspondence copied below).
We continued to run the survey over 7 weeks in August and September and a total of 531 responses were received. A summary of the full results is attached. Individual responses and detailed comments can be browsed directly at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=fh_2f2t89ODx_2fbEqPuV9zZUw5GgAIenujqDB_2boh1vPWoY_3d
Key findings:
a.. Parents overwhelmingly prefer local delivery of autism treatment - the worst gaps are in rural areas, not Greater Vancouver
b.. Addressing gaps in funded services and supports for all ages is far more important for families than a new building/ provincial centre, which ranked last in a list of priorities
c.. 95% agreed there were better ways to spend government funds to serve children with autism in BC
d.. A majority think funding for new services should be shared with other disabilities
e.. A majority also had process concerns: 80% think the Minister should handle such inititiaves through normal channels; 96% would prefer a competitive process for soliciting proposals.
Attempts to share concerns
We have tried several times to share the detailed survey results and comments and/or to further engage with the proponents. They have dismissed these concerns in media comments, declined or failed to respond to our approaches and have not shared further information or offered further engagement since the July 24 meeting.
Sources involved in this project insist that MCF Minister Tom Christensen was not party to the Premier's initial discussions or commitment, and was not even aware of the plans until this summer. They claim all decisions are still being made by the Premier, and that he remains 100% committed to funding a new provincial autism centre, despite the lack of any clear purpose, and whether or not that's what the community wants or needs. This week, we were told: "The train has left the station" - the project is going ahead, although the proponents still can't decide what the centre could offer that the community actually wants, and the Minister has no say in this.
However, since the Premier's response to our initial approach referred us to Minister Christensen, on Sept. 19, we asked the Minister to meet with us to discuss the survey feedback and the Province's plans. On Oct. 23, the Minister responded, declining to meet. He said he "understood" community discussions were underway and suggested we participate, although we had told him that we tried without success to meet with the proponents. Our provincial network has not been informed of any other public discussions underway.
Given events to date, we are not confident that further efforts to engage with the proponents or government will lead to meaningful consideration of community concerns reflected in our survey. The process to date also raises grave questions of competence in the leadership of this project to assure its success. Further, we believe it is the duty of the Ministry responsible, not a private group, to conduct any necessary discussions, set parameters and respond to concerns about the spending of public dollars.
Governance concerns
The Premier's commitment to spend $20 million in provincial funds on a privately-held building to house a provincial autism centre represents a significant investment of public funds and a significant departure from current policy and models of autism service delivery. This could instead fund services and supports for an additional 2,500 children with special needs who are being denied/waitlisted for vital early intervention services, pay for vital treatment that many families have to cover privately, or go towards urgently-needed research, training, assessment, special education or adult services. The need for the Province to invest in such a centre was further challenged by the recent announcement that a competing private group plans to open their own provincial autism centre in Burnaby in January 2009, without any public funding.
There has been no formal announcement regarding government's plans, objectives or intentions and no government effort to engage with the community to ensure that new funds for autism are spent effectively and in accordance with government policy. The Minister responsible and the proponents won't acknowledge or discuss concerns, the Minister responsible seems to be abdicating responsibility, it's unclear who's in charge, most families are still in the dark and we're being told that it doesn't matter what anybody thinks because the Premier wants this project to go ahead regardless. The latest third-party reports we have are that the former Sunny Hill hospital site is now also on offer, and that the purpose of the proposed centre still remains undetermined.
We ask that you specifically investigate/review the following questions:
1) Who is in charge? To what extent is the Premier managing this project directly, instead of allowing the Minister responsible for autism policy to manage his portfolio through normal channels, and to what extent has this muddied accountability, created concern and confusion and invited possible mis-spending of public dollars?
2) Has the Province failed to act transparently by not providing clear, timely and appropriate information to the public and affected communities regarding its intentions and objectives with an initiative that represents a significant policy shift and spending equal to half the current autism budget?
3) Does the Ministry responsible have an obligation to hold, supervise or at least participate in public consultations on major publicly-funded initiatives to ensure these are undertaken in good faith, in an open, accessible and objective manner, especially when there is evidence of significant community opposition?
4) Did the Premier act appropriately when he failed to undertake any needs assessment before committing public funds in response to a private request by an associate for support of a private initiative outside the current policy framework?
5) Was the Premier acting in accordance with provincial procurement policy and/or good governance practice when he committed $20 million without testing the offered proposal against existing provincial autism policy, without requiring credentials consistent with the proposed project, without any public discussion and without any open, competitive bidding process?
6) Minister Rich Coleman has stated in the media that this autism project will be funded from his budget for welfare and social housing - is this correct and if so, is it inappropriate? Is he therefore the Minister responsible if it's his budget?
7) Has the Province negotiated with the City of Vancouver or another party to provide lands at the former Sunny Hill hospital site to the proponents for their project and if so, on what terms?
The patterns described here are worryingly similar to those that surrounded the inception of Community Living BC, which is now widely seen as a disastrous undertaking that has consumed enormous public resources without improving the lives of those it was created to serve. MOMS repeatedly raised similar warnings during the CLBC restructuring process and urged government to reconsider, but with no success. I hope that we could avoid repeating this through proactive intervention from your office to ensure that the $20 million available is spent effectively in the public interest.
Please contact us if you have any questions (Tel 604 874-1416). We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach
Moms on the Move
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election tactics in Saanich-Gulf Islands should get close look
Some odd — even worrying — things happened in the Saanich-Gulf Island’s riding successfully held by Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn.
One election dirty trick involved phone fraud and seemed both unethical and illegal. The RCMP response, which suggested election fraud allegations just aren’t a priority, was disturbing.
And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.
If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.
First, some background. Lunn, natural resources minister in the last government, faced a tough fight for re-election. He won with 37 per cent of the vote in 2006, in part thanks to a three-way opposition vote split.
The Liberals nominated Briony Penn, a high-profile, respected environmentalist. She hoped to appeal to Green voters. Mid-campaign, NDP candidate Julian West withdrew from the race after a creepy past incident of public nudity resurfaced. (That’s fuelled some conspiracy talk on the political blogs, with no apparent foundation.)
West withdrew too late to have his name taken off the ballot, but Penn’s prospects were still helped by the departure. The NDP riding association wrote to all party members saying West was not a candidate and the party wasn’t endorsing anyone.
But in the days before the election, residents were flooded with taped phone messages urging them to vote for West. People who had caller ID saw the call was coming from the phone of NDP riding association president Bill Graham.
Except that was not true. Whoever made the calls used “spoofing” software to make it appear as if the calls were coming from Graham’s number.
The scam didn’t likely affect the outcome. Lunn had 2,625 more votes than Penn. West received 3,667 votes, but they certainly can’t all be attributed to the calls. Some people always vote NDP; others might have chosen to cast their ballots to ensure the party gets the $1.95 per vote in annual public financing.
But the scam certainly could have changed the outcome under slightly different circumstances.
Elections Canada refuses to confirm or deny investigations. Telus says it can’t do anything. The RCMP maintains no laws were broken.
But lawyers disagree. It’s a Criminal Code offence to knowingly provide false information over the phone or to fraudulently impersonate another.
That’s not the only odd development in the riding.
Third-party advertisers are allowed to participate in Canadian election campaigns, subject to spending limits. The aim is to allow interested groups or individuals to join the debate, while setting limits to make sure the rich can’t buy elections. People who favour or oppose a carbon tax, for example, can make sure the issue is front and centre or support sympathetic candidates.
Andrew MacLeod, of the consistently interesting Thetyee.ca, took a close look at third-party spending in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
In the 308 ridings across Canada, 59 third-party groups registered with Elections Canada. Five registered in Saanich-Gulf Islands using the same address — a law firm that includes Bruce Hallsor, a Lunn supporter.
Hallsor says the groups recognized his expertise in electoral law. But he is vice-president of the Conservative riding association and co-chaired the Conservative B.C. campaign in 2006. (Hallsor is also a strong proponent of electoral reform and a champion of Scouting — literally, a Boy Scout in the often scrappy world of politics.)
Four of the five, MacLeod found, also had the same financial agent: The Citizens Against Higher Taxes, the Dean Park Advocacy Association, the Economic Advisory Council of Saanich and the Saanich Peninsula Citizens Council.
Each third-party participant is limited to spending $3,666 in any riding. Candidates, this time, were limited to $92,000. And it’s illegal for third-party participants to split into multiple subsets to avoid spending limits.
The spending filings for Saanich-Gulf Islands will be watched closely. If Lunn spent to the limit, and several third-party groups with a common address spent heavily to support him, expect some tough questions.
Footnote: The Lunn campaign had its own complaints. He was a high-profile target as a potentially vulnerable B.C. Conservative. The Dogwood Initiative registered as a third party participant and worked hard - but unsuccessfully - to defeat Lunn based on his support for increasing tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters. The campaign said the group misrepresented his position.
One election dirty trick involved phone fraud and seemed both unethical and illegal. The RCMP response, which suggested election fraud allegations just aren’t a priority, was disturbing.
And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.
If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.
First, some background. Lunn, natural resources minister in the last government, faced a tough fight for re-election. He won with 37 per cent of the vote in 2006, in part thanks to a three-way opposition vote split.
The Liberals nominated Briony Penn, a high-profile, respected environmentalist. She hoped to appeal to Green voters. Mid-campaign, NDP candidate Julian West withdrew from the race after a creepy past incident of public nudity resurfaced. (That’s fuelled some conspiracy talk on the political blogs, with no apparent foundation.)
West withdrew too late to have his name taken off the ballot, but Penn’s prospects were still helped by the departure. The NDP riding association wrote to all party members saying West was not a candidate and the party wasn’t endorsing anyone.
But in the days before the election, residents were flooded with taped phone messages urging them to vote for West. People who had caller ID saw the call was coming from the phone of NDP riding association president Bill Graham.
Except that was not true. Whoever made the calls used “spoofing” software to make it appear as if the calls were coming from Graham’s number.
The scam didn’t likely affect the outcome. Lunn had 2,625 more votes than Penn. West received 3,667 votes, but they certainly can’t all be attributed to the calls. Some people always vote NDP; others might have chosen to cast their ballots to ensure the party gets the $1.95 per vote in annual public financing.
But the scam certainly could have changed the outcome under slightly different circumstances.
Elections Canada refuses to confirm or deny investigations. Telus says it can’t do anything. The RCMP maintains no laws were broken.
But lawyers disagree. It’s a Criminal Code offence to knowingly provide false information over the phone or to fraudulently impersonate another.
That’s not the only odd development in the riding.
Third-party advertisers are allowed to participate in Canadian election campaigns, subject to spending limits. The aim is to allow interested groups or individuals to join the debate, while setting limits to make sure the rich can’t buy elections. People who favour or oppose a carbon tax, for example, can make sure the issue is front and centre or support sympathetic candidates.
Andrew MacLeod, of the consistently interesting Thetyee.ca, took a close look at third-party spending in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
In the 308 ridings across Canada, 59 third-party groups registered with Elections Canada. Five registered in Saanich-Gulf Islands using the same address — a law firm that includes Bruce Hallsor, a Lunn supporter.
Hallsor says the groups recognized his expertise in electoral law. But he is vice-president of the Conservative riding association and co-chaired the Conservative B.C. campaign in 2006. (Hallsor is also a strong proponent of electoral reform and a champion of Scouting — literally, a Boy Scout in the often scrappy world of politics.)
Four of the five, MacLeod found, also had the same financial agent: The Citizens Against Higher Taxes, the Dean Park Advocacy Association, the Economic Advisory Council of Saanich and the Saanich Peninsula Citizens Council.
Each third-party participant is limited to spending $3,666 in any riding. Candidates, this time, were limited to $92,000. And it’s illegal for third-party participants to split into multiple subsets to avoid spending limits.
The spending filings for Saanich-Gulf Islands will be watched closely. If Lunn spent to the limit, and several third-party groups with a common address spent heavily to support him, expect some tough questions.
Footnote: The Lunn campaign had its own complaints. He was a high-profile target as a potentially vulnerable B.C. Conservative. The Dogwood Initiative registered as a third party participant and worked hard - but unsuccessfully - to defeat Lunn based on his support for increasing tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters. The campaign said the group misrepresented his position.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
So does Campbell's pension plan make sense?
Yes, says the Times Colonist in an interesting editorial
Sunday, October 26, 2008
James gets TV time too
A few eyebrows were raised when Gordon Campbell used the provincial legislative TV channel to broadcast his speech on the economy. The channel had been used to bring the proceedings in the legislature to cable subscribers around the province. It hadn't been seen as a communications vehicle for the governing party.
And, it looks it isn't. Carole James has successfully argued she deserves the chance to talk about the economy on the legislative channel. (A good decision by Speaker Bill Barisoff, once he allowed the premier's TV speech.)
Stay tuned.
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
October 26, 2008
CAROLE JAMES TO DELIVER TELEVISED STATEMENT ON ECONOMY
VICTORIA -- NDP Leader Carole James will deliver a televised statement on the economy on Monday, October 27 at 6:15 PM.
The statement will air on Hansard television.
- 30 -
And, it looks it isn't. Carole James has successfully argued she deserves the chance to talk about the economy on the legislative channel. (A good decision by Speaker Bill Barisoff, once he allowed the premier's TV speech.)
Stay tuned.
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
October 26, 2008
CAROLE JAMES TO DELIVER TELEVISED STATEMENT ON ECONOMY
VICTORIA -- NDP Leader Carole James will deliver a televised statement on the economy on Monday, October 27 at 6:15 PM.
The statement will air on Hansard television.
- 30 -
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Less than meets the eye to Campbell's big talk
Gordon Campbell offered up some spooky pre-Halloween rhetoric about the global economic crisis night, but outlined a pretty modest response.
Businesses will get about $190 million a year in tax breaks and benefits.
Individuals will get a one-time break. The three-per-cent tax cut scheduled for Jan.1 and with the two-per-cent cut introduced July 1 will both be made retroactive to the beginning of this year. That will cost the government about $144 million in revenue this year; nothing after that. For a taxpayer making $50,000, it's worth about an extra $140 this year.
The government will advance some infrastructure projects to keep people working, but Campbell couldn't say which ones. It will increase the payment to B.C. Ferries to restore sailings cut by the corporation and provide a one-third fare cut for December and January.
And it is working on some sort of voluntary, user-pay pension plan for people who don't have access to.
It's a reasonable, modest response to the economic woes. Consumers will have a little more money this year and businesses will get little breaks to help them through tough times.
The cuts are small enough that the province won't have any trouble maintaining current services and a big surplus this year and next. The government is on track for a surplus of about $2 billion this year. The measures Campbell announced will only knock about $350 million off that total.
The lack of focus on regions facing the toughest, especially forest communities, was notable. There is about $50 million in property tax relief for industry, which will be helpful. And the infrastructure projects could include resource roads. But most measures are broad brush.
The other notable aspect is the premier's decision to ditch the practice of presenting budget measures - which this was - in the legislature.
Campbell unveiled the plan in a speech broadcast on the legislature TV channel at 6:15 p.m. He had hoped TV newscasts would broadcast it live, but they said no thanks.
The whole deal was set up for political effect. Reporters were in a mini-lockup starting at 5:15 and forbidden from filing until after Campbell finished speaking. The aim, in part, was to make it tough for any opposition or expert reaction to make it into the evening newscasts or even into the papers. Reporters were on tight deadlines.
Campbell said the legislature would be recalled on Nov. 20 "to enact these measures."
But the fall session, which had been cancelled by the Liberals, was only to last until Nov. 27. If the Liberals stick to that timeline, MLAs had better bring their rubber stamps with them.
A longer session would allow MLAs from all parties to debate the measures and propose changes or different approaches. (And would allow the government to pass some critical bills it abandoned in the spring citing lack of time.)
Politically, it's tough to judge the impact of the announcements.
The tax cuts will be welcomed by businesses and many individuals. But people waiting for surgery, hoping for improvements to their children's education or with other priorities will wonder why those are taking second place to tax cuts.
Part of Campbell's goal, with six months until the official start of the election campaign, was to demonstrate that he and the Liberals are the people to manage the economy in troubled times.
Public reaction in the next six or seven weeks will be interesting. The measures are useful, but basically more of the same. The tax cuts were almost all planned and have just been implemented earlier than scheduled. The government says it plans no spending changes.
Carole James faces three challenges between now and the session. She has to convince voters that the NDP has the same competence. She has to demonstrate more empathy or understanding than Campbell. And she has to make a credible case for the potential for more creative, active efforts to encourage needed economic activity.
Footnote: Campbell also promised better deposit protection for people with credit union accounts. The pension plan for the 75 per cent of workers not covered by company or union plans appears to be very much work in progress, with no details. Campbell did say he hoped the user-pay plan could be in place by the end of next year.\
Businesses will get about $190 million a year in tax breaks and benefits.
Individuals will get a one-time break. The three-per-cent tax cut scheduled for Jan.1 and with the two-per-cent cut introduced July 1 will both be made retroactive to the beginning of this year. That will cost the government about $144 million in revenue this year; nothing after that. For a taxpayer making $50,000, it's worth about an extra $140 this year.
The government will advance some infrastructure projects to keep people working, but Campbell couldn't say which ones. It will increase the payment to B.C. Ferries to restore sailings cut by the corporation and provide a one-third fare cut for December and January.
And it is working on some sort of voluntary, user-pay pension plan for people who don't have access to.
It's a reasonable, modest response to the economic woes. Consumers will have a little more money this year and businesses will get little breaks to help them through tough times.
The cuts are small enough that the province won't have any trouble maintaining current services and a big surplus this year and next. The government is on track for a surplus of about $2 billion this year. The measures Campbell announced will only knock about $350 million off that total.
The lack of focus on regions facing the toughest, especially forest communities, was notable. There is about $50 million in property tax relief for industry, which will be helpful. And the infrastructure projects could include resource roads. But most measures are broad brush.
The other notable aspect is the premier's decision to ditch the practice of presenting budget measures - which this was - in the legislature.
Campbell unveiled the plan in a speech broadcast on the legislature TV channel at 6:15 p.m. He had hoped TV newscasts would broadcast it live, but they said no thanks.
The whole deal was set up for political effect. Reporters were in a mini-lockup starting at 5:15 and forbidden from filing until after Campbell finished speaking. The aim, in part, was to make it tough for any opposition or expert reaction to make it into the evening newscasts or even into the papers. Reporters were on tight deadlines.
Campbell said the legislature would be recalled on Nov. 20 "to enact these measures."
But the fall session, which had been cancelled by the Liberals, was only to last until Nov. 27. If the Liberals stick to that timeline, MLAs had better bring their rubber stamps with them.
A longer session would allow MLAs from all parties to debate the measures and propose changes or different approaches. (And would allow the government to pass some critical bills it abandoned in the spring citing lack of time.)
Politically, it's tough to judge the impact of the announcements.
The tax cuts will be welcomed by businesses and many individuals. But people waiting for surgery, hoping for improvements to their children's education or with other priorities will wonder why those are taking second place to tax cuts.
Part of Campbell's goal, with six months until the official start of the election campaign, was to demonstrate that he and the Liberals are the people to manage the economy in troubled times.
Public reaction in the next six or seven weeks will be interesting. The measures are useful, but basically more of the same. The tax cuts were almost all planned and have just been implemented earlier than scheduled. The government says it plans no spending changes.
Carole James faces three challenges between now and the session. She has to convince voters that the NDP has the same competence. She has to demonstrate more empathy or understanding than Campbell. And she has to make a credible case for the potential for more creative, active efforts to encourage needed economic activity.
Footnote: Campbell also promised better deposit protection for people with credit union accounts. The pension plan for the 75 per cent of workers not covered by company or union plans appears to be very much work in progress, with no details. Campbell did say he hoped the user-pay plan could be in place by the end of next year.\
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bringing back the legislature
Just before 5 p.m. today, the release below went out to reporters.
Premier Gordon Campbell has decided the economic outlook is bad enough that he needs to address British Columbians. He hopes the TV newscasts will carry him live in prime evening news time.
But if things are really so bad, shouldn't the legislature start its fall sitting, scheduled to run until the end of November? All MLAs - Liberal and New Democrat would have a chance to offer ideas and raise questions. There are a half a dozen bills that should be passed, including an emergency fix of the Lobbyist Act. The forest crisis, construction slowdowns, homelessness - the issues go on.
A TV show, with a script and no questions, is politically useful; the legislature is democratic.
It's also interesting that Colin Hansen is doing the heavy lifting. He has an excellent rep inside and outside government for competence and integrity.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oct. 21, 2008
Office of the Premier
ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell will make an address regarding British Columbia's economy in the face of global economic challenges.
Premier Campbell's address will be broadcast live on B.C.'s Legislative Hansard Television. To find out what channel carries Hansard in your community, go to http://www.leg.bc.ca/Hansard/8-10-1.htm.
It will also be web cast live from: www.gov.bc.ca.
Date: Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008
Time: 6:15-6:30 p.m. Address by Premier Campbell
(A technical briefing with Finance Minister Colin Hansen will be held at 6 p.m. for media only.)
Location:
Press Theatre
Parliament Buildings
Victoria
-30-
Premier Gordon Campbell has decided the economic outlook is bad enough that he needs to address British Columbians. He hopes the TV newscasts will carry him live in prime evening news time.
But if things are really so bad, shouldn't the legislature start its fall sitting, scheduled to run until the end of November? All MLAs - Liberal and New Democrat would have a chance to offer ideas and raise questions. There are a half a dozen bills that should be passed, including an emergency fix of the Lobbyist Act. The forest crisis, construction slowdowns, homelessness - the issues go on.
A TV show, with a script and no questions, is politically useful; the legislature is democratic.
It's also interesting that Colin Hansen is doing the heavy lifting. He has an excellent rep inside and outside government for competence and integrity.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oct. 21, 2008
Office of the Premier
ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell will make an address regarding British Columbia's economy in the face of global economic challenges.
Premier Campbell's address will be broadcast live on B.C.'s Legislative Hansard Television. To find out what channel carries Hansard in your community, go to http://www.leg.bc.ca/Hansard/8-10-1.htm.
It will also be web cast live from: www.gov.bc.ca.
Date: Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008
Time: 6:15-6:30 p.m. Address by Premier Campbell
(A technical briefing with Finance Minister Colin Hansen will be held at 6 p.m. for media only.)
Location:
Press Theatre
Parliament Buildings
Victoria
-30-
Court brings action on homelessness
Coming soon to a park near you - homeless people in tents, under tarps and sheltered by cardboard boxes.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
More on the homeless camping judgment
A very good column from the Times Colonist on the homeless camping judgment. The comparison to refugees seems painfully apt.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Democratic dry rot
So when do we panic about the state of democracy in Canada?
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
More on the homeless court decision
The Sun's usually insightful Ian Mulgrew has a cranky column on the B.C. Supreme Court decision that found homeless people have a right to cover themselves with a tarp or a cardboard box if they have to sleep outside.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Homeless have a right to set up shelter in parks, court rules
Homeless people who sleep outdoors won a big victory in B.C. Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that a Victoria bylaw that made illegal to use a tent or tarp or cardboard for a shelter was unconstitutional.
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Dion and Harper both in trouble after election
Sure, it was a bad night for Stephane Dion.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Insider lobbying scandal and arrogance
The B.C Liberals reputation for arrogance isn't being helped by the latest lobbying scandal.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
More tools for strategic voting
Many people — of all political stripes — are interested in strategic voting to achieve or block an election outcome. One of the challenges is figuring out how to shift your vote to produce the desired result in your riding. Or, for that matter, whether the race is close enough that you need to bother. If it's not, then voting for the party you like best gets it $1.75 a year in federal funding.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
More warning signs from children and families ministry
It's looking like things are spinning out of control in the Ministry of Children and Families, based on a meltdown at a recent meeting of a legislature committee.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
Strategic voting - part one
It seems likely that strategic voting is going to be a big part of the election, especially in B.C. where up to 10 seats could be in play next week.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Monday, October 06, 2008
More insider troubles for BC Liberals
If you haven't, check out Sean Holman's exemplary work on B.C. Liberal co-campaign manager Patrick Kinsella's role in helping companies, from Alcan to payday loan clients, influence government policies. Given the government's various ethical and accountability stumbles, this looks like a major problem, especially if Kinsella continues to refuse to co-operate with an investigation. It's all here.
A Green miscue on the provincial scene
Stuart Herzog says Green leader Jane Sterk is making a big mistake in running in the Vancouver-Fairview byelection. The piece is here.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Life catches up with a lot of candidates
Has Google cost most Canadians their chance to run for Parliament?
One of the oddest aspects of this election campaign is the number of candidates who have been fired by their parties, dropped out or at least embarrassed by their pasts.
There are four possible explanations. This could be a flawed group of candidates, but it's hard to see why that would be true. We - the public - could have become more judgmental. But again, why would we?
The parties are likely more intent on digging dirt on their rivals. One of the most offensive aspects of elections today is the "war rooms." These are big budget operations set up mainly to snipe at the other side. The concept assumes both that politics is a game, and the object is annihilation. Surely we've gone beyond tribal warfare?
The biggest factor is the online world. Our pasts are much more with us than ever before.
On some level that's good when it comes to political candidates. They should be accountable for the lives they've led. But the peccadilloes being picked on vary wildly in significance.
And will any reasonable people run in future, knowing that they will be judged on such small aspects of the lives?
The New Democrats have lost three candidates here in B.C., One was linked to a business that sold coca seeds and had been broadcast on the Internet driving after smoking pot, as a demonstration that it wasn't risky. Another had been broadcast judging various strains of marijuana on a webcast. It was hardly a shock - both were long-time marijuana activists.
The Conservatives have lost a candidate to drugs too. A Saskatchewan MP said he wouldn't run because he had to deal with an addiction to prescription sedatives. (Though based on the number of Canadians reporting drug and alcohol dependencies, about 30 MPs should be representing their concerns.)
Nudity has come up a few times. Liberal candidate Briony Penn did a stylish Lady Godiva ride in 2001 in downtown Vancouver to protest logging. Conservative candidate Sharon Smith was briefly famous in 2003, after she had been elected mayor of Houston. Her husband had taken photos of her in the mayor's chair, wearing just the chain of office. Her kids had a party, someone peeked at the computer and Houston was on the map. Neither candidate has faced any real criticism.
But New Democrat candidate Julian West's candidacy came to an end this week over reports he was too keen on skinny dipping at a 1996 environmental conference attended by young teens. He also reportedly dropped his pants during a body painting session. He was 31 at the time. It sounded creepy, really.
What's weird is that this wasn't really a surprise. The allegations were covered at the time.
West's withdrawal came too late for the New Democrats to replace him and made things very interesting in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Gary Lunn, the Conservative natural resources minister, looked a good re-election bet, in part because Green Andrew Lewis, New Democrat West and Liberal Penn would split the vote. With the NDP out, Penn has a better chance.
The Conservatives have had their own creepy episode. Toronto Conservative candidate Chris Reid quit the race, suddenly too busy to run, once his blog postings became public. He had written that gays and women should be carrying handguns to protect themselves. Canadian gun laws, he said, had created "a castrated effeminate population."
A Conservative candidate in Burnaby-New Westminster is hanging in, despite reports he's been disciplined three time for incompetence and misconduct by real estate regulators. And two Quebec Conservatives were dumped over anti-aboriginal comments.
This kind of candidate attrition is new. And worrying.
Worrying because some quite bad candidates seem to make it through the nomination process, which is mostly a sign of a lack of involvement in candidate selection.
And worrying some good candidates are being hassled over long-ago, minor stumbles.
Footnote: This should be a useful lesson, especially for young people. The YouTube video from a party that seems so funny today, or the blog that sets out to provoke with outrageous comments, is permanent. In 20 years, it might be awkward to explain why it seemed such a good idea.
One of the oddest aspects of this election campaign is the number of candidates who have been fired by their parties, dropped out or at least embarrassed by their pasts.
There are four possible explanations. This could be a flawed group of candidates, but it's hard to see why that would be true. We - the public - could have become more judgmental. But again, why would we?
The parties are likely more intent on digging dirt on their rivals. One of the most offensive aspects of elections today is the "war rooms." These are big budget operations set up mainly to snipe at the other side. The concept assumes both that politics is a game, and the object is annihilation. Surely we've gone beyond tribal warfare?
The biggest factor is the online world. Our pasts are much more with us than ever before.
On some level that's good when it comes to political candidates. They should be accountable for the lives they've led. But the peccadilloes being picked on vary wildly in significance.
And will any reasonable people run in future, knowing that they will be judged on such small aspects of the lives?
The New Democrats have lost three candidates here in B.C., One was linked to a business that sold coca seeds and had been broadcast on the Internet driving after smoking pot, as a demonstration that it wasn't risky. Another had been broadcast judging various strains of marijuana on a webcast. It was hardly a shock - both were long-time marijuana activists.
The Conservatives have lost a candidate to drugs too. A Saskatchewan MP said he wouldn't run because he had to deal with an addiction to prescription sedatives. (Though based on the number of Canadians reporting drug and alcohol dependencies, about 30 MPs should be representing their concerns.)
Nudity has come up a few times. Liberal candidate Briony Penn did a stylish Lady Godiva ride in 2001 in downtown Vancouver to protest logging. Conservative candidate Sharon Smith was briefly famous in 2003, after she had been elected mayor of Houston. Her husband had taken photos of her in the mayor's chair, wearing just the chain of office. Her kids had a party, someone peeked at the computer and Houston was on the map. Neither candidate has faced any real criticism.
But New Democrat candidate Julian West's candidacy came to an end this week over reports he was too keen on skinny dipping at a 1996 environmental conference attended by young teens. He also reportedly dropped his pants during a body painting session. He was 31 at the time. It sounded creepy, really.
What's weird is that this wasn't really a surprise. The allegations were covered at the time.
West's withdrawal came too late for the New Democrats to replace him and made things very interesting in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Gary Lunn, the Conservative natural resources minister, looked a good re-election bet, in part because Green Andrew Lewis, New Democrat West and Liberal Penn would split the vote. With the NDP out, Penn has a better chance.
The Conservatives have had their own creepy episode. Toronto Conservative candidate Chris Reid quit the race, suddenly too busy to run, once his blog postings became public. He had written that gays and women should be carrying handguns to protect themselves. Canadian gun laws, he said, had created "a castrated effeminate population."
A Conservative candidate in Burnaby-New Westminster is hanging in, despite reports he's been disciplined three time for incompetence and misconduct by real estate regulators. And two Quebec Conservatives were dumped over anti-aboriginal comments.
This kind of candidate attrition is new. And worrying.
Worrying because some quite bad candidates seem to make it through the nomination process, which is mostly a sign of a lack of involvement in candidate selection.
And worrying some good candidates are being hassled over long-ago, minor stumbles.
Footnote: This should be a useful lesson, especially for young people. The YouTube video from a party that seems so funny today, or the blog that sets out to provoke with outrageous comments, is permanent. In 20 years, it might be awkward to explain why it seemed such a good idea.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A federal election campaign about nothing
What an odd federal election campaign. We've had naked pictures of a Conservative candidate, a couple of New Democrats and another Tory dumped for drug use, jokes about wishing for an opponent's death.
Stephen Harper is wandering around the country in baby blue sweaters, talking like Mr. Rogers. It's jarring - like he's on some new drug that mixes Valium and ecstasy.
Stephane Dion is leaving baffled audiences in most of Canada. He might be able to speak English on a basic level, but he's not able to communicate passion or complex ideas easily. (Especially why the Green Shift isn't really all that central to the Liberals' platform after all.)
Elizabeth May is on a train across the country. I've done that a few times. It's going tough campaigning when you're stuck on a siding somewhere outside Kenora waiting for a freight to pass. (And tough to sleep when guys get on with their duffle bag full of alcohol in Chapleau.)
Jack Layton is working hard, I guess.
As for the media, we're probably doing one of our worst jobs ever in communicating information to voters in a way that allows them to make an informed decision. Polls and gaffes, we've got covered. Strategies in responding to polls and gaffes, we've also got. Party spokesmen - the Conservatives, bizarrely, demand a secret identity - are asked to say how the last week went. (Usually pretty well their guys, apparently, and badly for the other side.)
My impression that most people are not only paying little attention, but wishing this wasn't happening to them right now. The Conservative minority was OK.
But you still should vote Oct. 14 - a little over three weeks away. Here are some things worth considering.
First, Harper promised that Canadian Forces would withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. That's a big policy change for him, if he's to be believed. The war will not be won by then, and Afghan police and military won't be ready to be on their own.
But Harper says Canadians will have done enough.
I agree. But it's a big change from Harper's position that deadlines are impossible and that Canada would stay until the job was done. And it raises a question about the value of Canadian deaths between now and then, particularly if conditions continue to deteriorate.
Dion has backed away, but the major Liberal policy remains a carbon tax on most fuels - not gasoline - and offsetting cuts to other taxes. It makes perfect sense economically, but people don't like it. Certainly beats the two other main parties' positions on climate change.
After that, it gets blurry. I bounced through all the major media websites looking for a basic summary of the platform pledges so far.
No luck, though about everything else, from comedian Rick Mercer's take to nude shots of a Conservative candidate, were covered (or uncovered).
There are policy differences. Dion has promised money for the auto industry, farmers and post-secondary students and to boost arts spending. He's also pledged to honour the Kelowna accord and introduce a child care plan and spend more on social housing.
Harper offers about $750 to help first-time homebuyers and a tax break for seniors. He'll let the self-employed claim maternity benefits. And he'll cut the tax on diesel fuel, reducing transportation costs.
Neither leader of the main parties says he will increase taxes.
There's more to come. But so far, this has become a campaign about itself.
The two main parties are mostly trying to create a sense that the other guys are risky - note those Conservative ads suggesting electing Dion would be like pumping money into a slot machine - and that they are at least OK.
Voters are already trying to figure out how to vote strategically, in our outmoded system, to get the least bad outcome.
Good luck choosing.
Footnote: OK, this column might be considered part of the problem. As the campaign continues, I'll try to write once a week on the issues and where the parties stand.
But this is a campaign - again - that will likely be based on who voters don't want to see in power and on which party can do the best job of persuading its supporters to vote on Oct. 14.
Stephen Harper is wandering around the country in baby blue sweaters, talking like Mr. Rogers. It's jarring - like he's on some new drug that mixes Valium and ecstasy.
Stephane Dion is leaving baffled audiences in most of Canada. He might be able to speak English on a basic level, but he's not able to communicate passion or complex ideas easily. (Especially why the Green Shift isn't really all that central to the Liberals' platform after all.)
Elizabeth May is on a train across the country. I've done that a few times. It's going tough campaigning when you're stuck on a siding somewhere outside Kenora waiting for a freight to pass. (And tough to sleep when guys get on with their duffle bag full of alcohol in Chapleau.)
Jack Layton is working hard, I guess.
As for the media, we're probably doing one of our worst jobs ever in communicating information to voters in a way that allows them to make an informed decision. Polls and gaffes, we've got covered. Strategies in responding to polls and gaffes, we've also got. Party spokesmen - the Conservatives, bizarrely, demand a secret identity - are asked to say how the last week went. (Usually pretty well their guys, apparently, and badly for the other side.)
My impression that most people are not only paying little attention, but wishing this wasn't happening to them right now. The Conservative minority was OK.
But you still should vote Oct. 14 - a little over three weeks away. Here are some things worth considering.
First, Harper promised that Canadian Forces would withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. That's a big policy change for him, if he's to be believed. The war will not be won by then, and Afghan police and military won't be ready to be on their own.
But Harper says Canadians will have done enough.
I agree. But it's a big change from Harper's position that deadlines are impossible and that Canada would stay until the job was done. And it raises a question about the value of Canadian deaths between now and then, particularly if conditions continue to deteriorate.
Dion has backed away, but the major Liberal policy remains a carbon tax on most fuels - not gasoline - and offsetting cuts to other taxes. It makes perfect sense economically, but people don't like it. Certainly beats the two other main parties' positions on climate change.
After that, it gets blurry. I bounced through all the major media websites looking for a basic summary of the platform pledges so far.
No luck, though about everything else, from comedian Rick Mercer's take to nude shots of a Conservative candidate, were covered (or uncovered).
There are policy differences. Dion has promised money for the auto industry, farmers and post-secondary students and to boost arts spending. He's also pledged to honour the Kelowna accord and introduce a child care plan and spend more on social housing.
Harper offers about $750 to help first-time homebuyers and a tax break for seniors. He'll let the self-employed claim maternity benefits. And he'll cut the tax on diesel fuel, reducing transportation costs.
Neither leader of the main parties says he will increase taxes.
There's more to come. But so far, this has become a campaign about itself.
The two main parties are mostly trying to create a sense that the other guys are risky - note those Conservative ads suggesting electing Dion would be like pumping money into a slot machine - and that they are at least OK.
Voters are already trying to figure out how to vote strategically, in our outmoded system, to get the least bad outcome.
Good luck choosing.
Footnote: OK, this column might be considered part of the problem. As the campaign continues, I'll try to write once a week on the issues and where the parties stand.
But this is a campaign - again - that will likely be based on who voters don't want to see in power and on which party can do the best job of persuading its supporters to vote on Oct. 14.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Premier picks school in his riding for big benefit
The scent of old-style pork barrel politics is hanging over the premier's office.
The government has decided it would be a good idea to see schools threatened with closure used as community centres.
The five lucky schools selected for the pilot project would not only be spared the risk of closure, but get big money for upgrades and new facilities.
Typically, for Premier Gordon Campbell, the first step was a snappy name - Neighbourhoods of Learning. (Community schools by another name.)
Next, a $30-million budget.
But then, the obvious questions. Where should these pilot projects be located? Where students and communities need them? In the places school trustees decide are priorities? Nope.
Two of the three schools announced as pilot projects are in Gordon Campbell's riding. Two rural schools that will participate are still to be chosen.
One of the schools in the premier's riding, General Gordon Elementary, only made the list because Campbell said that's where he wanted the money to go.
It wasn't purely a move to steer money to a school in his constituency. Campbell said the parents there had pitched the idea for the community schools and deserved a reward for their initiative.
But the government's had already signalled its nervousness about the premier's intervention.
Education Minister Shirley Bond - always a loyal trooper - tried to maintain Campbell hadn't been involved at all in the decision to award the big money to two schools in his riding.
Vancouver school district trustees had raised the need for upgrades to General Gordon, she said.
But the school district contradicted Bond.
The superintendent said the district had raised concerns about a number of older schools in Vancouver that were threatened by the need for seismic upgrades.
The premier, not the school district, said General Gordon should jump to the front of the queue as part of the Neighbourhoods for Learning pilot. He had been lobbied by the parents, who had also noted their in with the top guy in pushing the Education Ministry to see things their way.
There are a lot of schools in the Lower Mainland and on the Island that need upgrading to keep children safe in the event of an earthquake. Some of them might close because of the problem. The government has leaned toward building smaller, cheaper schools.
Should the fact that parents' advisory council can get a meeting with the premier decide where the money goes?
Rural communities that have faced closures, long bus rides for kids and lost schools might have liked the chance to make their case for a larger share of the money. Though that could still come when the remaining pilot projects are announced - especially if the parents can get a meeting with an influential cabinet minister.
Too cynical? Maybe.
But it does look much look who you know matters more than what you need to give kids and communities a boost. Campbell's riding - Vancouver Point Grey - is among the most affluent in the province.
Meanwhile, out in Langley, a 5,000-seat arena and community centre is being built at a cost of $56 million. Great news for the community.
Especially because almost one-third of the money is coming from the provincial government. When he was forests minister, Rich Coleman decided to spend $15 million of forestry money on the arena. It would use wood laminate beams and be a great marketing tool, he said.
But the industry could likely suggest better uses for $15 million than an arena in the minister's riding. Unemployed forest workers - some 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last year - certainly could.
What should worry supporters is that neither of these were missteps Campbell would have allowed a few years ago. The Liberals risk becoming the government they once ran against.
And it's not hard to remember what happened to that government.
Footnote: The whole school closure issue is a problem for the government. It had been pushing school districts to be aggressive in closing and selling schools to pay for new facilities for the last six years. Now, after about 170 schools have been closed, a policy flip-flop calls for new uses and a moratorium on closures. It's sensible, but erratic.
The government has decided it would be a good idea to see schools threatened with closure used as community centres.
The five lucky schools selected for the pilot project would not only be spared the risk of closure, but get big money for upgrades and new facilities.
Typically, for Premier Gordon Campbell, the first step was a snappy name - Neighbourhoods of Learning. (Community schools by another name.)
Next, a $30-million budget.
But then, the obvious questions. Where should these pilot projects be located? Where students and communities need them? In the places school trustees decide are priorities? Nope.
Two of the three schools announced as pilot projects are in Gordon Campbell's riding. Two rural schools that will participate are still to be chosen.
One of the schools in the premier's riding, General Gordon Elementary, only made the list because Campbell said that's where he wanted the money to go.
It wasn't purely a move to steer money to a school in his constituency. Campbell said the parents there had pitched the idea for the community schools and deserved a reward for their initiative.
But the government's had already signalled its nervousness about the premier's intervention.
Education Minister Shirley Bond - always a loyal trooper - tried to maintain Campbell hadn't been involved at all in the decision to award the big money to two schools in his riding.
Vancouver school district trustees had raised the need for upgrades to General Gordon, she said.
But the school district contradicted Bond.
The superintendent said the district had raised concerns about a number of older schools in Vancouver that were threatened by the need for seismic upgrades.
The premier, not the school district, said General Gordon should jump to the front of the queue as part of the Neighbourhoods for Learning pilot. He had been lobbied by the parents, who had also noted their in with the top guy in pushing the Education Ministry to see things their way.
There are a lot of schools in the Lower Mainland and on the Island that need upgrading to keep children safe in the event of an earthquake. Some of them might close because of the problem. The government has leaned toward building smaller, cheaper schools.
Should the fact that parents' advisory council can get a meeting with the premier decide where the money goes?
Rural communities that have faced closures, long bus rides for kids and lost schools might have liked the chance to make their case for a larger share of the money. Though that could still come when the remaining pilot projects are announced - especially if the parents can get a meeting with an influential cabinet minister.
Too cynical? Maybe.
But it does look much look who you know matters more than what you need to give kids and communities a boost. Campbell's riding - Vancouver Point Grey - is among the most affluent in the province.
Meanwhile, out in Langley, a 5,000-seat arena and community centre is being built at a cost of $56 million. Great news for the community.
Especially because almost one-third of the money is coming from the provincial government. When he was forests minister, Rich Coleman decided to spend $15 million of forestry money on the arena. It would use wood laminate beams and be a great marketing tool, he said.
But the industry could likely suggest better uses for $15 million than an arena in the minister's riding. Unemployed forest workers - some 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last year - certainly could.
What should worry supporters is that neither of these were missteps Campbell would have allowed a few years ago. The Liberals risk becoming the government they once ran against.
And it's not hard to remember what happened to that government.
Footnote: The whole school closure issue is a problem for the government. It had been pushing school districts to be aggressive in closing and selling schools to pay for new facilities for the last six years. Now, after about 170 schools have been closed, a policy flip-flop calls for new uses and a moratorium on closures. It's sensible, but erratic.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
'Surprise' surplus sign of bad budgeting
Surprise. Three months into the fiscal year and the provincial government has discovered that it underestimated revenues by about $1.2 billion.
Well, not really a surprise. More the norm by now.
The Liberals have made it standard operating procedure to introduce and have the legislature vote on budgets that project modest surpluses.
Then, like an exotic dancer, the finance minister slowly reveals the real numbers over the course of the year.
The modest surplus turns into several billion dollars, which the government can do with as it pleases.
Generally, that means paying down the debt. But with an election coming next May, expect some goodies out of this year's slush fund - maybe even another carbon rebate next spring.
This can all seem a little abstract, I know. But the bad budgeting has consequences.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that as a result the government is collecting more money from you than it actually needs. Last year's surplus of $2.1 billion - after about $1 billion in last-minute spending - would have let the government cut income taxes by 15 per cent for a year or chop a point off the provincial sales tax.
Or, alternately, the surplus means the government has money it could have allocated for services that people need. The B.C. Association for Community Living asked this week why so many children with disabilities are on waiting lists for services if the government has more than $1 billion extra.
And anyone waiting for surgery will wonder why more of that money isn't addressing health-care issues.
Some of it will. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's first quarter update included the $120 million the government has already committed to address health authority underfunding. More is likely on the way. (Again, welcome, but why not do it right the first time so health authorities can plan properly?)
It's certainly better to err on the side of caution. But this goes beyond prudence. The surplus for this year, budgeted at $800 million in the budget, is already forecast to be more than $2 billion.
The "surprise" surplus comes even though Hansen also warned that economic growth will be slower than the government expected this year and next.
The ministry's panel of outside economists had forecast growth at 2.8 per cent in 2008 when the budget was being prepared; they've knocked that back to 2.1 per cent; they pared the estimate for next year from 3.0 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
That's still healthy growth. But not for everyone. The quarterly update includes bad news for hard hit forest communities. The expected harvest from Crown land has been cut by 12 per cent since the budget was prepared. Those communities too will be wondering why some of that surplus isn't coming their way to help deal with the crisis.
The Liberals mostly used the surpluses as a way to reduce the debt. Collect more than you really need, spend less than you have and then end the year with no option but paying down debt. That's not a bad thing, but B.C.'s debt is manageable and the public - according to the annual budget consultations - wants the priority to be better services, not tax cuts or debt reduction.
The government has also used of the money for year-end spending - setting up a housing fund, sending the $100 carbon dividend cheques to every British Columbian (and about 18,000 people who are no longer living in the province).
That's probably what lies ahead, with the election coming in May. Hansen said the surplus gives the government "flexibility" to cut taxes, or spend more on programs people want.
Or even to send out rebate cheques again. They'll decide, but because the fall sitting of the legislature has been cancelled, the decision will be rubber stamped next spring.
It's really not a good way to run a government, or a business, or a family's finances. If you work with bad forecasts, you make decisions based on faulty information.
In the private sector, that can land you in trouble.
Footnote: A budget consultation flyer - that will look much like a Liberal campaign brochure - is being mailed to every home in the province, allegedly to allow you to comment on the budget options. Based on past practice, the comments stand a good chance of being ignored; one year, the government only looked at 10 per cent of the forms.
Well, not really a surprise. More the norm by now.
The Liberals have made it standard operating procedure to introduce and have the legislature vote on budgets that project modest surpluses.
Then, like an exotic dancer, the finance minister slowly reveals the real numbers over the course of the year.
The modest surplus turns into several billion dollars, which the government can do with as it pleases.
Generally, that means paying down the debt. But with an election coming next May, expect some goodies out of this year's slush fund - maybe even another carbon rebate next spring.
This can all seem a little abstract, I know. But the bad budgeting has consequences.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out that as a result the government is collecting more money from you than it actually needs. Last year's surplus of $2.1 billion - after about $1 billion in last-minute spending - would have let the government cut income taxes by 15 per cent for a year or chop a point off the provincial sales tax.
Or, alternately, the surplus means the government has money it could have allocated for services that people need. The B.C. Association for Community Living asked this week why so many children with disabilities are on waiting lists for services if the government has more than $1 billion extra.
And anyone waiting for surgery will wonder why more of that money isn't addressing health-care issues.
Some of it will. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's first quarter update included the $120 million the government has already committed to address health authority underfunding. More is likely on the way. (Again, welcome, but why not do it right the first time so health authorities can plan properly?)
It's certainly better to err on the side of caution. But this goes beyond prudence. The surplus for this year, budgeted at $800 million in the budget, is already forecast to be more than $2 billion.
The "surprise" surplus comes even though Hansen also warned that economic growth will be slower than the government expected this year and next.
The ministry's panel of outside economists had forecast growth at 2.8 per cent in 2008 when the budget was being prepared; they've knocked that back to 2.1 per cent; they pared the estimate for next year from 3.0 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
That's still healthy growth. But not for everyone. The quarterly update includes bad news for hard hit forest communities. The expected harvest from Crown land has been cut by 12 per cent since the budget was prepared. Those communities too will be wondering why some of that surplus isn't coming their way to help deal with the crisis.
The Liberals mostly used the surpluses as a way to reduce the debt. Collect more than you really need, spend less than you have and then end the year with no option but paying down debt. That's not a bad thing, but B.C.'s debt is manageable and the public - according to the annual budget consultations - wants the priority to be better services, not tax cuts or debt reduction.
The government has also used of the money for year-end spending - setting up a housing fund, sending the $100 carbon dividend cheques to every British Columbian (and about 18,000 people who are no longer living in the province).
That's probably what lies ahead, with the election coming in May. Hansen said the surplus gives the government "flexibility" to cut taxes, or spend more on programs people want.
Or even to send out rebate cheques again. They'll decide, but because the fall sitting of the legislature has been cancelled, the decision will be rubber stamped next spring.
It's really not a good way to run a government, or a business, or a family's finances. If you work with bad forecasts, you make decisions based on faulty information.
In the private sector, that can land you in trouble.
Footnote: A budget consultation flyer - that will look much like a Liberal campaign brochure - is being mailed to every home in the province, allegedly to allow you to comment on the budget options. Based on past practice, the comments stand a good chance of being ignored; one year, the government only looked at 10 per cent of the forms.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Liberals cheat voters by cancelling fall sitting
You can see why Gordon Campbell decided to cancel the fall sitting of the legislature. His government would spend six weeks getting batted around on bunch of contentious issues.
Cancel the session and everything changes. Instead of facing daily questions from the opposition and journalists, the premier can make one or two carefully planned appearances a week. Cut a ribbon here, speak to a friendly group there, make good news announcements in time for the evening news and dump the bad ones when you're on a private jet bound for another country.
It's an easier life. That's the problem with democracy, even a flawed version like our own. It's inconvenient to face all those questions and criticisms when you just want to wield power.
The Liberals cancelled the scheduled fall sitting this week. They had no legislation to present, so why bother, said house leader Mike de Jong.
That's not exactly true. The Liberals have three bills - on resource roads, improved insurance industry regulation and wills and estates - that they wanted to pass in the spring, but dropped because of lack of time. (They also could have delayed some of the half-dozen bills that were pushed through with no debate on the last day of the spring session.)
They were ready, and considered important then.
And there are other areas where they have acknowledged change is needed - like improving the police complaints process - and have had lots of time to draft the bills.
Even leaving aside the excuse, the Liberals know that the legislature isn't just a place to pass bills. When MLAs - government and opposition - gather in that red-carpeted chamber, it's their chance to speak on behalf of their constituents.
They can raise the issues and concerns that matter to people back home. They can ask cabinet ministers what's being done about issues, from seniors care to forestry to potholed roads.
By cancelling the session, Campbell is denying them and the public that right.
The decision carries some political risk. A recent poll found British Columbians believed Campbell is out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Shutting down the legislature reinforces that impression.
And the timing, right after Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were pilloried for trying to avoid debating Green leader Elizabeth May, was a problem. It looks like Campbell is afraid of debating Carole James.
But the Liberals figure the risks of a session are greater. There is a lot of anger over the carbon tax, and it's being ramped up by Harper's attacks. Campbell still hasn't provided any justification for the massive hike in pay scales for senior government managers.
There are potential questions on a range of issues that could make the government look bad, from seniors care to forestry problems to the efforts to deny help to the disabled based on an arbitrary IQ level.
And there are smaller embarrassments, like Campbell's decision to fly to the Beijing Games on a private jet with a developer and party supporter.
Campbell says people have told him cabinet ministers and MLAs should be out in the ridings, talking with them.
But the legislature will have sat for only 47 days this year, among the fewest in a non-election year in more than two decades. If the fall session had lasted the full six weeks, MLAs would still have 180 working days free this year. That seems plenty of time to keep up with local concerns.
De Jong was right to say there's no point passing laws just to keep the legislature busy. But he can't really be saying that the government no longer cares about the bills it introduced in the spring and sees no need to update or improve any other legislation.
Still, that's that. MLAs lose their chance to speak for their constituents. The legislature will sit for about 19 days in the spring and then break for the election.
Not democratic, but it suits Campbell's political purposes.
Footnote: There's probably not a big political price for the decision to abandon the sitting. Most people aren't all that aware of where MLAs are or what they're doing. But the decision does reinforce the impression that Campbell doesn't really accept the idea of accountability and raises the perception of arrogance.
Cancel the session and everything changes. Instead of facing daily questions from the opposition and journalists, the premier can make one or two carefully planned appearances a week. Cut a ribbon here, speak to a friendly group there, make good news announcements in time for the evening news and dump the bad ones when you're on a private jet bound for another country.
It's an easier life. That's the problem with democracy, even a flawed version like our own. It's inconvenient to face all those questions and criticisms when you just want to wield power.
The Liberals cancelled the scheduled fall sitting this week. They had no legislation to present, so why bother, said house leader Mike de Jong.
That's not exactly true. The Liberals have three bills - on resource roads, improved insurance industry regulation and wills and estates - that they wanted to pass in the spring, but dropped because of lack of time. (They also could have delayed some of the half-dozen bills that were pushed through with no debate on the last day of the spring session.)
They were ready, and considered important then.
And there are other areas where they have acknowledged change is needed - like improving the police complaints process - and have had lots of time to draft the bills.
Even leaving aside the excuse, the Liberals know that the legislature isn't just a place to pass bills. When MLAs - government and opposition - gather in that red-carpeted chamber, it's their chance to speak on behalf of their constituents.
They can raise the issues and concerns that matter to people back home. They can ask cabinet ministers what's being done about issues, from seniors care to forestry to potholed roads.
By cancelling the session, Campbell is denying them and the public that right.
The decision carries some political risk. A recent poll found British Columbians believed Campbell is out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Shutting down the legislature reinforces that impression.
And the timing, right after Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were pilloried for trying to avoid debating Green leader Elizabeth May, was a problem. It looks like Campbell is afraid of debating Carole James.
But the Liberals figure the risks of a session are greater. There is a lot of anger over the carbon tax, and it's being ramped up by Harper's attacks. Campbell still hasn't provided any justification for the massive hike in pay scales for senior government managers.
There are potential questions on a range of issues that could make the government look bad, from seniors care to forestry problems to the efforts to deny help to the disabled based on an arbitrary IQ level.
And there are smaller embarrassments, like Campbell's decision to fly to the Beijing Games on a private jet with a developer and party supporter.
Campbell says people have told him cabinet ministers and MLAs should be out in the ridings, talking with them.
But the legislature will have sat for only 47 days this year, among the fewest in a non-election year in more than two decades. If the fall session had lasted the full six weeks, MLAs would still have 180 working days free this year. That seems plenty of time to keep up with local concerns.
De Jong was right to say there's no point passing laws just to keep the legislature busy. But he can't really be saying that the government no longer cares about the bills it introduced in the spring and sees no need to update or improve any other legislation.
Still, that's that. MLAs lose their chance to speak for their constituents. The legislature will sit for about 19 days in the spring and then break for the election.
Not democratic, but it suits Campbell's political purposes.
Footnote: There's probably not a big political price for the decision to abandon the sitting. Most people aren't all that aware of where MLAs are or what they're doing. But the decision does reinforce the impression that Campbell doesn't really accept the idea of accountability and raises the perception of arrogance.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Harper carbon attacks bad news for Campbell
Among all the people who didn't want a federal election, Gordon Campbell has to be one of the unhappiest.
For the next five weeks, the Harper Conservatives are going to be attacking Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
And Campbell is going to be caught in the crossfire, unable to take cover or fire back as his supposed allies deliver wounding blows.
One of the Conservatives' big targets is going to be Dion's Green Shift, and especially the proposed carbon tax.
The "tax on everything" that would "screw everyone across the country," Harper has already called it.
And that's before things got rough.
And Dion's proposal is pretty much identical to the carbon tax that Campbell promised in the throne speech and brought in July 1. Use fuels that produce greenhouse gases, and you pay - 2.8 cents a litre on gasoline, for example, rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, and more after that.
The unpopular carbon tax has already given B.C. New Democrats a big boost, without Harper's help. They support a carbon tax in principle. But not the Campbell version, in what seems a rather contrived distinction.
The tax actually makes sense. If you accept that global warming is real, greenhouse gases are a factor and that market forces matter, then a tax on fossil fuels is an incentive to reduce consumption.
But the public isn't buying it, according to the polls. They think it won't work. And they consider it a tax grab, even though the provincial government has introduced offsetting tax cuts equal to the money it will take in from the carbon tax.
Campbell is now in a weirdly vulnerable position, with Stephen Harper and Carole James ganging up on him over a critical policy.
The provincial Liberals have worked hard at getting along with Ottawa - no matter who is in power -with reasonable results.
Partly, that's pragmatic. One of Campbell's real accomplishments is getting people who are passionate Conservatives and Liberals federally to work together in one provincial party. It's no mean feat; federal elections are hard fought and the scars are lasting. Campbell inspires people to check their baggage at the door.
That might be harder this time, especially with the carbon tax as a big issue and the federal stakes so high. Things could get nasty between the Harper and Dion troops in B.C.
It looked that way in the first days of the campaign this week as Harper came to the province. The federal Conservatives had tried to avoid criticizing the Campbell carbon tax directly since he announced it.
But no more. Harper's attacks might have been directed at Dion's tax, but they drew blood from Campbell too.
It was brutal and direct. Harper effectively challenged Campbell's honesty, rejecting the claim that revenue from the B.C carbon tax is balanced by offsetting tax cuts.
"Every politician in history who wants to impose a new tax claims that it's either revenue neutral or it's temporary. It's not true," Harper said. "Everybody knows - especially in British Columbia - that that kind of a carbon tax is not revenue neutral on the average working family."
Ouch. It's rhetoric straight from a Carole James' speech. But because the accusations are coming from Harper, the claims that Campbell is not to be trusted are getting a lot more attention.
The B.C. carbon tax was already a tough sell, especially given rising energy costs this summer.
Now the Conservatives - with bags of money and a good organization - are going to spend the next five weeks trashing the idea as an irresponsible tax grab.
Which will leave Campbell with just six months to try and undo that message before the provincial campaign starts.
And, of course, just six months to encourage federal Conservative members of his coalition to swallow a tax they have been attacking with vigour.
Footnote: The campaign also quickly got stupid. On Tuesday, a controversy over a cartoon on the Conservatives' website that showed a puffin pooping on Dion threatened to overshadow policy announcements and the NDP and Conservative efforts to bar Green leader Elizabeth May from the televised debates.
For the next five weeks, the Harper Conservatives are going to be attacking Stephane Dion and the Liberals.
And Campbell is going to be caught in the crossfire, unable to take cover or fire back as his supposed allies deliver wounding blows.
One of the Conservatives' big targets is going to be Dion's Green Shift, and especially the proposed carbon tax.
The "tax on everything" that would "screw everyone across the country," Harper has already called it.
And that's before things got rough.
And Dion's proposal is pretty much identical to the carbon tax that Campbell promised in the throne speech and brought in July 1. Use fuels that produce greenhouse gases, and you pay - 2.8 cents a litre on gasoline, for example, rising to 7.2 cents by 2012, and more after that.
The unpopular carbon tax has already given B.C. New Democrats a big boost, without Harper's help. They support a carbon tax in principle. But not the Campbell version, in what seems a rather contrived distinction.
The tax actually makes sense. If you accept that global warming is real, greenhouse gases are a factor and that market forces matter, then a tax on fossil fuels is an incentive to reduce consumption.
But the public isn't buying it, according to the polls. They think it won't work. And they consider it a tax grab, even though the provincial government has introduced offsetting tax cuts equal to the money it will take in from the carbon tax.
Campbell is now in a weirdly vulnerable position, with Stephen Harper and Carole James ganging up on him over a critical policy.
The provincial Liberals have worked hard at getting along with Ottawa - no matter who is in power -with reasonable results.
Partly, that's pragmatic. One of Campbell's real accomplishments is getting people who are passionate Conservatives and Liberals federally to work together in one provincial party. It's no mean feat; federal elections are hard fought and the scars are lasting. Campbell inspires people to check their baggage at the door.
That might be harder this time, especially with the carbon tax as a big issue and the federal stakes so high. Things could get nasty between the Harper and Dion troops in B.C.
It looked that way in the first days of the campaign this week as Harper came to the province. The federal Conservatives had tried to avoid criticizing the Campbell carbon tax directly since he announced it.
But no more. Harper's attacks might have been directed at Dion's tax, but they drew blood from Campbell too.
It was brutal and direct. Harper effectively challenged Campbell's honesty, rejecting the claim that revenue from the B.C carbon tax is balanced by offsetting tax cuts.
"Every politician in history who wants to impose a new tax claims that it's either revenue neutral or it's temporary. It's not true," Harper said. "Everybody knows - especially in British Columbia - that that kind of a carbon tax is not revenue neutral on the average working family."
Ouch. It's rhetoric straight from a Carole James' speech. But because the accusations are coming from Harper, the claims that Campbell is not to be trusted are getting a lot more attention.
The B.C. carbon tax was already a tough sell, especially given rising energy costs this summer.
Now the Conservatives - with bags of money and a good organization - are going to spend the next five weeks trashing the idea as an irresponsible tax grab.
Which will leave Campbell with just six months to try and undo that message before the provincial campaign starts.
And, of course, just six months to encourage federal Conservative members of his coalition to swallow a tax they have been attacking with vigour.
Footnote: The campaign also quickly got stupid. On Tuesday, a controversy over a cartoon on the Conservatives' website that showed a puffin pooping on Dion threatened to overshadow policy announcements and the NDP and Conservative efforts to bar Green leader Elizabeth May from the televised debates.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Let’s make lost opportunity an election issue
I took a break from working on a look at big issues in the federal election campaign and flipped through some old newspapers sitting on a chair in the office.
They were from 1961. And they raised a question for all the political parties – how come we aren’t happier or better off than we were then?
Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion will go back and forth about crime and climate change and leadership. Those are all important. They will slag each other in quite nasty and unfair ways. That’s not so important.
But no one is going to talk about the sense that a lot of Canadians feel like things have got worse for them over the years.
The 1961 paper had a front-page story about a new contract for teachers. The top wage was to be $8,360. Today, the top teacher wage here is about $78,000.
Then I flipped to the classifieds. There was an ad for a four-bedroom house on a quiet street in Oak Bay for $10,000. I checked; it’s assessed today at $575,000. (Both prices are typical for the time.)
So an established teacher could figure on buying that home for 14 months’ salary. Mortgage payments would be one-sixth of his income.
Today, the same house, at $575,000, would cost the equivalent of more than seven year’s gross pay. The mortgage payments would consume more than 40 per cent of the income.
It’s not just teachers, of course. Forest workers, office staff, people on an assembly line or fixing cars, even journalists – they all faced a different, cheerier future in 1961. They could afford a house and new car and if not a cabin, at least a couple of weeks at one. Moms could stay home (or were forced to). Families expected things would be even better for their children. Things like the introduction of medicare were on the horizon.
Today, a lot of people see their kids facing a much tougher time than they did, or perhaps their parents did.
John Diefenbaker was prime minister in 1961; Lester Pearson led the Liberal opposition; Tommy Douglas was the leader of the truly New Democratic Party, formed that year. Not pantheonic, necessarily, but have we had three leaders who commanded similar respect in the last 20 years. Paul Martin? Brian Mulroney?
Maybe that’s what this election — and the provincial election next May, and the municipal elections in November — should be about. Which politicians understand the concerns of the average Canadian? Who among them thins things could be better, and has some ideas? Who, in Parliament or cabinet, wouldn’t disillusion or embarrass the people who voted for, and against, them?
Who would make the priority creating happier, more prosperous average Canadians?
It’s hard at this point to see which leader is going to step into that role. Stephen Harper comes off as kind of cranky and doesn’t seem to see government as responsible for bringing a better life to Canadians. There’s a sense that the Conservatives are too infatuated with the failed polices of American Republicans, from militarism to simplistic lock-em-up crime responses.
Stephane Dion seems barely in control of his own party, fuzzy on the direction his government would go and a little shell-shocked. Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe — none are likely to captivate voters with vision and plans.
Some voters, of course, would disagree. They are passionate in their belief that one party or another has the answers.
Most voters, I’d suggest, aren’t looking really forward to casting their ballots. Many have resigned themselves to voting against someone, rather than for a politician or platform they truly support.
Maybe we should keep that in mind over this election campaign. We can assess the issues and look at hard at the local candidates.
But it would be nice to hear a candidate or a leader acknowledge that for a lot of people, things seem harder than they did a few decades ago.
And that making them better was one of their concerns.
Footnote: B.C. should be a critical battleground in a close election. Some five Conservative seats and four seats each for the Liberals and the New Democrats, are likely in play. The Island and Lower Mainland should see most of the focus from the parties.
They were from 1961. And they raised a question for all the political parties – how come we aren’t happier or better off than we were then?
Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion will go back and forth about crime and climate change and leadership. Those are all important. They will slag each other in quite nasty and unfair ways. That’s not so important.
But no one is going to talk about the sense that a lot of Canadians feel like things have got worse for them over the years.
The 1961 paper had a front-page story about a new contract for teachers. The top wage was to be $8,360. Today, the top teacher wage here is about $78,000.
Then I flipped to the classifieds. There was an ad for a four-bedroom house on a quiet street in Oak Bay for $10,000. I checked; it’s assessed today at $575,000. (Both prices are typical for the time.)
So an established teacher could figure on buying that home for 14 months’ salary. Mortgage payments would be one-sixth of his income.
Today, the same house, at $575,000, would cost the equivalent of more than seven year’s gross pay. The mortgage payments would consume more than 40 per cent of the income.
It’s not just teachers, of course. Forest workers, office staff, people on an assembly line or fixing cars, even journalists – they all faced a different, cheerier future in 1961. They could afford a house and new car and if not a cabin, at least a couple of weeks at one. Moms could stay home (or were forced to). Families expected things would be even better for their children. Things like the introduction of medicare were on the horizon.
Today, a lot of people see their kids facing a much tougher time than they did, or perhaps their parents did.
John Diefenbaker was prime minister in 1961; Lester Pearson led the Liberal opposition; Tommy Douglas was the leader of the truly New Democratic Party, formed that year. Not pantheonic, necessarily, but have we had three leaders who commanded similar respect in the last 20 years. Paul Martin? Brian Mulroney?
Maybe that’s what this election — and the provincial election next May, and the municipal elections in November — should be about. Which politicians understand the concerns of the average Canadian? Who among them thins things could be better, and has some ideas? Who, in Parliament or cabinet, wouldn’t disillusion or embarrass the people who voted for, and against, them?
Who would make the priority creating happier, more prosperous average Canadians?
It’s hard at this point to see which leader is going to step into that role. Stephen Harper comes off as kind of cranky and doesn’t seem to see government as responsible for bringing a better life to Canadians. There’s a sense that the Conservatives are too infatuated with the failed polices of American Republicans, from militarism to simplistic lock-em-up crime responses.
Stephane Dion seems barely in control of his own party, fuzzy on the direction his government would go and a little shell-shocked. Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe — none are likely to captivate voters with vision and plans.
Some voters, of course, would disagree. They are passionate in their belief that one party or another has the answers.
Most voters, I’d suggest, aren’t looking really forward to casting their ballots. Many have resigned themselves to voting against someone, rather than for a politician or platform they truly support.
Maybe we should keep that in mind over this election campaign. We can assess the issues and look at hard at the local candidates.
But it would be nice to hear a candidate or a leader acknowledge that for a lot of people, things seem harder than they did a few decades ago.
And that making them better was one of their concerns.
Footnote: B.C. should be a critical battleground in a close election. Some five Conservative seats and four seats each for the Liberals and the New Democrats, are likely in play. The Island and Lower Mainland should see most of the focus from the parties.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Poll suggests big problems for Campbell, Liberals
It's not the fact that the Liberals and NDP are tied in a recent poll that raises doubts about a third term for Gordon Campbell after next May's elections.
Poll results bounce around and people often have reasons for being irked at the party in power.
But the poll - and the reaction - raises a couple of more profound issues for the B.C. Liberals.
The poll itself reveals a grim assessment of Campbell as leader, and the party's direction under his rule.
And the reaction, based on an unscientific and unrepresentative survey, suggests that a lot of the Liberals core supporters are dangerously unhappy.
The poll, by Angus Reid Strategies, found the NDP had the support of 41 per cent of British Columbians, compared with 38 per cent for the Liberals. That's within the margin of error; practically, the parties are tied. (The Green party is at 14 per cent.)
That's still good news for Carole James and the NDP. For most of her term as leader, the party has lagged at least 10 points behind the Liberals. Another defeat seemed inevitable.
The poll, conducted Aug. 21-25, was likely affected by what could-be short-term issues - the carbon tax, which took effect July 1, and the massive raises for senior government managers this month.
But the company also asked some broader questions that revealed deeper, much harder to deal with issues for the Liberals.
The biggest revelation, assuming the poll accurately reflects public opinion, is what a liability Campbell is with an election only nine months away.
The pollster asked respondents a number of questions about the leaders of the two main parties. The judgment of Campbell was harsh and involved perceptions that would be hard to turn around at this point.
Parties and leaders can always launch new policy directions to get out from under an unpopular issue. But turning things around once people have decided they just don't trust someone is harder.
And it appears they don't trust Campbell. If the poll reflects reality, they really don't trust him.
Only 18 per cent of those polled believed Campbell is honest and trustworthy; 60 per cent said he isn't to be trusted. (Almost half - 45 per cent - said James is honest and trustworthy; only 16 per cent said she isn't.)
Does Campbell inspire confidence? Sixty per cent said no. Does Campbell understand the problems of British Columbians? Again, 59 per cent said no. Agree with you on issues you care about? Sixty per said no.
Campbell scores high for having a vision, but the poll found 43 per cent of British Columbians think the province is on the wrong track. The visionary thing might not be a plus.
And he is rated significantly more highly than James in two important areas. Campbell is seen as significantly stronger and more decisive, qualities that are over-rated by voters. And he's seen as able to manage the provincial economy effectively.
But overall, James was seen as the person who would make best premier by 35 per cent of those surveyed; 31 per cent said Campbell would do the best job. (Leaving a critical 34 per cent who weren't sure.)
Sixty per said the Liberals hadn't delivered the promised "new hope and prosperity." More people though the province is on the track than supported the government's direction
And 58 per cent said it's time for a new party to govern; only 29 per cent said the Liberals should be re-elected.
Polls this far out don't necessarily reflect the way people will actually vote.
But it was a pretty damning view of the current government. And, based on a scan of blogs and comment streams, a lot of people who identify themselves as right-wing are incensed with Campbell. It's been assumed those voters had nowhere else to go, but some seemed ready to stay home next May 12.
Footnote: Campbell has been seen as a one-man government, certainly setting the agenda on big issues like climate change, which adds to the problems if people decide he's the wrong guy. Don't expect any real talk of replacing him, but the poll suggests some big challenges ahead for the Liberals.\
Poll results bounce around and people often have reasons for being irked at the party in power.
But the poll - and the reaction - raises a couple of more profound issues for the B.C. Liberals.
The poll itself reveals a grim assessment of Campbell as leader, and the party's direction under his rule.
And the reaction, based on an unscientific and unrepresentative survey, suggests that a lot of the Liberals core supporters are dangerously unhappy.
The poll, by Angus Reid Strategies, found the NDP had the support of 41 per cent of British Columbians, compared with 38 per cent for the Liberals. That's within the margin of error; practically, the parties are tied. (The Green party is at 14 per cent.)
That's still good news for Carole James and the NDP. For most of her term as leader, the party has lagged at least 10 points behind the Liberals. Another defeat seemed inevitable.
The poll, conducted Aug. 21-25, was likely affected by what could-be short-term issues - the carbon tax, which took effect July 1, and the massive raises for senior government managers this month.
But the company also asked some broader questions that revealed deeper, much harder to deal with issues for the Liberals.
The biggest revelation, assuming the poll accurately reflects public opinion, is what a liability Campbell is with an election only nine months away.
The pollster asked respondents a number of questions about the leaders of the two main parties. The judgment of Campbell was harsh and involved perceptions that would be hard to turn around at this point.
Parties and leaders can always launch new policy directions to get out from under an unpopular issue. But turning things around once people have decided they just don't trust someone is harder.
And it appears they don't trust Campbell. If the poll reflects reality, they really don't trust him.
Only 18 per cent of those polled believed Campbell is honest and trustworthy; 60 per cent said he isn't to be trusted. (Almost half - 45 per cent - said James is honest and trustworthy; only 16 per cent said she isn't.)
Does Campbell inspire confidence? Sixty per cent said no. Does Campbell understand the problems of British Columbians? Again, 59 per cent said no. Agree with you on issues you care about? Sixty per said no.
Campbell scores high for having a vision, but the poll found 43 per cent of British Columbians think the province is on the wrong track. The visionary thing might not be a plus.
And he is rated significantly more highly than James in two important areas. Campbell is seen as significantly stronger and more decisive, qualities that are over-rated by voters. And he's seen as able to manage the provincial economy effectively.
But overall, James was seen as the person who would make best premier by 35 per cent of those surveyed; 31 per cent said Campbell would do the best job. (Leaving a critical 34 per cent who weren't sure.)
Sixty per said the Liberals hadn't delivered the promised "new hope and prosperity." More people though the province is on the track than supported the government's direction
And 58 per cent said it's time for a new party to govern; only 29 per cent said the Liberals should be re-elected.
Polls this far out don't necessarily reflect the way people will actually vote.
But it was a pretty damning view of the current government. And, based on a scan of blogs and comment streams, a lot of people who identify themselves as right-wing are incensed with Campbell. It's been assumed those voters had nowhere else to go, but some seemed ready to stay home next May 12.
Footnote: Campbell has been seen as a one-man government, certainly setting the agenda on big issues like climate change, which adds to the problems if people decide he's the wrong guy. Don't expect any real talk of replacing him, but the poll suggests some big challenges ahead for the Liberals.\
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Harper chose fall election over principle
Stephen Harper seems about to force an election on Canadians on completely bogus grounds.
And, at the same time, he's breaking a key promise from the last election campaign.
Harper has launched a blizzard of phony excuses over the last few days to try and justify an election.
But really, this is just about political opportunism. It's exactly the kind of abuse of power Harper promise to end in two election campaigns. Once the Conservatives won, as part of his commitment to improve democracy, he followed B.C.'s lead and established four-terms for governments.
"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties."
So the Conservatives passed a law. The next election was to be Oct. 19, 2009.
But Harper's law is full of holes and now he's decided short-term political advantage isn't so bad after all.
The Liberals don't have much money and aren't really ready for an elections.
And things could get worse for the Conservatives, especially on the economy, by next fall.
So Harper looks ready to call an election. He's tried to come up with justifications, but the arguments are empty, and kind of insulting.
Parliament has become "dysfunctional," he says, whatever that means. There has been "impasse" on a range of issues, the prime minister complains. The Liberals have different policies than the Conservatives.
It's all apparently just too much.
Except there is no deadlock. The Conservatives haven't been stopped from governing. Their budget and tax program passed. Crime bills have made their way through Parliament. The Conservatives have made changes in ministries and at least a start on increasing military capability.
Even the commitment to keep fighting in Afghanistan until 2011 was reached in a way that suited the Harper government. For a minority government, the Conservatives have had a pretty free hand, thanks in large part to the Liberals' disarray.
There has been lots of bad behaviour and partisan jockeying, particularly in Parliamentary committees.
But the Conservatives have contributed their share to the shabbiness; the Prime Minister's Office gave committee chairs a manual on how disrupt and delay things to make sure that nothing would come out that embarrassed the government.
Those are peripheral. The main point is that the Conservatives have been able to govern. They have never lost a vote on a significant bill, let alone a confidence vote.
It's possible they have felt constrained by being a minority government. Harper hinted at that this week, saying that even if an election produced another minority government, the party in power will have a "mandate to proceed and to proceed quite aggressively for some period of time." (That might make some voters nervous.)
But this is the Parliament that Canadians chose - Conservative minority, with strong counterbalancing forces. Harper has shown no reason to ignore the will of the public.
It might be better if Harper took a more candid approach, and just said he decided he'd made a mistake in giving up the political advantage by committing to fixed election dates. The Liberals are weak and it's a good time to try for a majority, he could argue.
Harper mentor Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political science professor, thinks the goal is more strategic. The Liberals are having trouble raising money. An election would be expensive. Another leadership race, if leader Stephane Dion got dumped, would require more fundraising and divide the party.
As long as the Conservatives keep win at least minority governments, they could plunge the Liberals into years of hard times.
The parties are all pretending to be ready and eager for an election, though that's not likely too.
The big losers are the Canadian people. The election will cost some $200 million, a fair chunk of it from taxpayers. And there is no indication the public is looking for a chance to pick a new government.
Footnote: So what would the election be about? Mostly, it seems likely, about how bad the other guys are. Harper will talk about Dion's carbon tax and say he's too free-spending. Dion will say Harper has forgotten ordinary Canadians and is too right-wing. It won't be pretty.
And, at the same time, he's breaking a key promise from the last election campaign.
Harper has launched a blizzard of phony excuses over the last few days to try and justify an election.
But really, this is just about political opportunism. It's exactly the kind of abuse of power Harper promise to end in two election campaigns. Once the Conservatives won, as part of his commitment to improve democracy, he followed B.C.'s lead and established four-terms for governments.
"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties."
So the Conservatives passed a law. The next election was to be Oct. 19, 2009.
But Harper's law is full of holes and now he's decided short-term political advantage isn't so bad after all.
The Liberals don't have much money and aren't really ready for an elections.
And things could get worse for the Conservatives, especially on the economy, by next fall.
So Harper looks ready to call an election. He's tried to come up with justifications, but the arguments are empty, and kind of insulting.
Parliament has become "dysfunctional," he says, whatever that means. There has been "impasse" on a range of issues, the prime minister complains. The Liberals have different policies than the Conservatives.
It's all apparently just too much.
Except there is no deadlock. The Conservatives haven't been stopped from governing. Their budget and tax program passed. Crime bills have made their way through Parliament. The Conservatives have made changes in ministries and at least a start on increasing military capability.
Even the commitment to keep fighting in Afghanistan until 2011 was reached in a way that suited the Harper government. For a minority government, the Conservatives have had a pretty free hand, thanks in large part to the Liberals' disarray.
There has been lots of bad behaviour and partisan jockeying, particularly in Parliamentary committees.
But the Conservatives have contributed their share to the shabbiness; the Prime Minister's Office gave committee chairs a manual on how disrupt and delay things to make sure that nothing would come out that embarrassed the government.
Those are peripheral. The main point is that the Conservatives have been able to govern. They have never lost a vote on a significant bill, let alone a confidence vote.
It's possible they have felt constrained by being a minority government. Harper hinted at that this week, saying that even if an election produced another minority government, the party in power will have a "mandate to proceed and to proceed quite aggressively for some period of time." (That might make some voters nervous.)
But this is the Parliament that Canadians chose - Conservative minority, with strong counterbalancing forces. Harper has shown no reason to ignore the will of the public.
It might be better if Harper took a more candid approach, and just said he decided he'd made a mistake in giving up the political advantage by committing to fixed election dates. The Liberals are weak and it's a good time to try for a majority, he could argue.
Harper mentor Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political science professor, thinks the goal is more strategic. The Liberals are having trouble raising money. An election would be expensive. Another leadership race, if leader Stephane Dion got dumped, would require more fundraising and divide the party.
As long as the Conservatives keep win at least minority governments, they could plunge the Liberals into years of hard times.
The parties are all pretending to be ready and eager for an election, though that's not likely too.
The big losers are the Canadian people. The election will cost some $200 million, a fair chunk of it from taxpayers. And there is no indication the public is looking for a chance to pick a new government.
Footnote: So what would the election be about? Mostly, it seems likely, about how bad the other guys are. Harper will talk about Dion's carbon tax and say he's too free-spending. Dion will say Harper has forgotten ordinary Canadians and is too right-wing. It won't be pretty.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
STV and the legislative goon show
Sometimes Gregor Robertson had this slightly dazed expression on his face in the legislature, like someone who has shown up at a party, realizes he's the only sober person in a crowd full of rowdy drunks and isn't sure how long he has to stay.
Carole Taylor had a different look, sitting serenely at her desk with an expression that hinted she wasn't even prepared to acknowledge the party-goers dancing in the koi pond in their droopy underwear.
David Cubberley's look - a half-embarrassed smile - suggested he'd decided to be a good sport about the whole weird business.
All three were keen on being MLAs in 2005, when they were first elected. And barely three years later, they've had enough. None of the three is running again.
That should worry us. It suggests that our style of politics, and in some part the abusive, stupid things that go to often in the legislative chambers, are driving sensible people from the job.
Robertson was billed as a rising NDP star in the 2005 election. A youngish, good-looking, earnest guy who had started a successful wholesome juice business - he was a dream candidate.
But he never made an impact, at least a public one. And it certainly looked like he found the legislature foolishness somewhere between inexplicable and repugnant.
Taylor made much more of an impact as finance minister. She just refused to participate in the foolishness and acted like a serious, courteous person who had an important job to do. And as a result, did it well. But only for one term.
Cubberley, a NDP MLA for the Victoria area, should have thrived in the job. He'd spent years in government on the policy side and more than decade as municipal councillor. But he didn't last either.
All three had good reasons for not running again, as did the other MLAs packing it in.
And there are lots of drawbacks to the work, from long hours to the required adherence to the party line, often dictated without much consultation.
But still, the legislature itself - especially question period - is both part of the problem and a symptom.
It is really appalling most of the time. Shouting, insults, bad questions and worse non-answers. Most days, at least some MLAs act out in ways that get them kicked out of a Grade 6 class. Almost none of them would act in the same way around the kitchen table or at a meeting back in their ridings. It's irritating or embarrassing, depending on the day.
And it's got to be demoralizing for a sensible MLA.
It doesn't have to be such a horror show. In fact, after the 2005 election - perhaps because there were so many new MLAs - the tone wasn't bad for a while. But things deteriorated in time.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the referendum, to be held at the same time as next May's provincial election, on changing the way governments are elected in B.C.
This is a repeat of the 2005 referendum. A majority of voters - 58 per cent - wanted to change to a single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation.
But the referendum law required 60-per-cent support. The proposal failed.
Premier Gordon Campbell, to his credit, said that because the results were so close, the public should get another chance to vote on the change in May.
It will take a separate column to look at all aspects of the STV option. But one huge advantage is that candidates' qualities and reputations would become more important. It would not be enough to be a New Democrat in a traditionally left-leaning riding; you would have to be seen as the best representative from several NDP candidates.
And that would mean, I hope, a different kind of legislature - one where the loud and obnoxious no longer felt at home.
Footnote: Some of the enthusiasm for electoral reform might have faded since Campbell launched the project in 2001, after the second straight election that produced wildly unrepresentative results. This time, however, the yes and no sides will both have provincial funding to make their cases.
Carole Taylor had a different look, sitting serenely at her desk with an expression that hinted she wasn't even prepared to acknowledge the party-goers dancing in the koi pond in their droopy underwear.
David Cubberley's look - a half-embarrassed smile - suggested he'd decided to be a good sport about the whole weird business.
All three were keen on being MLAs in 2005, when they were first elected. And barely three years later, they've had enough. None of the three is running again.
That should worry us. It suggests that our style of politics, and in some part the abusive, stupid things that go to often in the legislative chambers, are driving sensible people from the job.
Robertson was billed as a rising NDP star in the 2005 election. A youngish, good-looking, earnest guy who had started a successful wholesome juice business - he was a dream candidate.
But he never made an impact, at least a public one. And it certainly looked like he found the legislature foolishness somewhere between inexplicable and repugnant.
Taylor made much more of an impact as finance minister. She just refused to participate in the foolishness and acted like a serious, courteous person who had an important job to do. And as a result, did it well. But only for one term.
Cubberley, a NDP MLA for the Victoria area, should have thrived in the job. He'd spent years in government on the policy side and more than decade as municipal councillor. But he didn't last either.
All three had good reasons for not running again, as did the other MLAs packing it in.
And there are lots of drawbacks to the work, from long hours to the required adherence to the party line, often dictated without much consultation.
But still, the legislature itself - especially question period - is both part of the problem and a symptom.
It is really appalling most of the time. Shouting, insults, bad questions and worse non-answers. Most days, at least some MLAs act out in ways that get them kicked out of a Grade 6 class. Almost none of them would act in the same way around the kitchen table or at a meeting back in their ridings. It's irritating or embarrassing, depending on the day.
And it's got to be demoralizing for a sensible MLA.
It doesn't have to be such a horror show. In fact, after the 2005 election - perhaps because there were so many new MLAs - the tone wasn't bad for a while. But things deteriorated in time.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the referendum, to be held at the same time as next May's provincial election, on changing the way governments are elected in B.C.
This is a repeat of the 2005 referendum. A majority of voters - 58 per cent - wanted to change to a single-transferable-vote system of proportional representation.
But the referendum law required 60-per-cent support. The proposal failed.
Premier Gordon Campbell, to his credit, said that because the results were so close, the public should get another chance to vote on the change in May.
It will take a separate column to look at all aspects of the STV option. But one huge advantage is that candidates' qualities and reputations would become more important. It would not be enough to be a New Democrat in a traditionally left-leaning riding; you would have to be seen as the best representative from several NDP candidates.
And that would mean, I hope, a different kind of legislature - one where the loud and obnoxious no longer felt at home.
Footnote: Some of the enthusiasm for electoral reform might have faded since Campbell launched the project in 2001, after the second straight election that produced wildly unrepresentative results. This time, however, the yes and no sides will both have provincial funding to make their cases.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Harper’s drug flyers a dishonest abuse of tax dollars
The federal Conservatives seem set on confirming many people’s worst fears with their sleazy, dishonest and just plain stupid direct mail pieces to millions of Canada homes.
And at the same time, they’re playing fast and loose with taxpayers’ money, pretending that partisan promotional material is legitimate communication between MPs and the public.
You’ve seen them. The flyers are cheap looking single sheets, with a picture or two of Steven Harper and a headline on some issue. Then there’s a ballot, with an arrow aimed at Harper’s name.
And the flyer likely came to your mailbox from some Conservative MP you’ve never heard of in another province.
MPs can send mail at no cost; the government compensates Canada Post. The intent is to let them keep their constituents informed. (You can write MPs without putting stamps on the envelopes too.)
But these aren’t information pieces. And they’re not going to the people MPs represent. They’re political ads, masquerading as legitimate communications.
A lot of people voted for Harper’s party because they were sick of seeing these kinds of abuses. They wanted a moral, conservative government that respected the rules and the need to spend taxpayers’ money responsibly. They expected better.
And other people voted for them because recent Liberal governments appalled them. Some worried a Conservative government might impose an aggressive social conservative agenda, but decided to trust Harper.
And a flyer that has attracted a lot of attention has made a lot of them figure that was a mistake.
It has a picture on the outside of a syringe laying a playground, and a big headline: “Safe?”
Inside, there’s a jail door and more headlines: “Junkies and drug pushers don’t belong near children and families. They should be in rehab or behind bars.”
The Liberals let thugs and drug pushers write the rules, the flyer says. The Conservatives will “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets.”
It’s really offensive, perhaps mostly because the flyer assumes Canadians are both dumb and lacking in basic compassion. While many Canadians might be sick of dealing with the effects of addiction, they are not stupid.
The language in the flyers tells part of the story. A junkie is someone you sweep off the street, into the garbage. An addict, someone with a mental illness, they are people – someone’s son or daughter. And most of us – most of the time – see that.
And the wording of “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets” is plain dishonest on two levels.
No party – including the Conservatives – has called for compulsory detention and treatment for people with addictions.
It wouldn’t work, it raises a slew of rights issues and Canadians wouldn’t stand for government round ups of thousands of people in B.C. alone.
The capital region has 1,500 to 2,000 injection drug users, and thousands more with other addictions. Would a Harper majority government send squadrons out to drag them all off to rehab?
And where, exactly, would they go? There are about 100 residential spaces for the entire Vancouver Island. How would the Conservatives increase treatment capacity 40 or 50 times?
While the government is promising to lock up thousands of people, addicts who want to get clean today and seek help are being told there is no space for them and sent back to the streets.
And this all came as Health Minister Tony Clement accused the Canadian Medical Association members of unethical conduct because the organization supports safe injection sites. All the legitimate research shows the sites reduce sickness and death and connect users with other services, including treatment. There are no negative consequences.
But Clement doesn’t like the idea, so Canada’s doctors are accused of acting unethically.
There is a lot to be said for a true conservative party – one that respects individual rights and taxpayers’ money and approaches problems pragmatically.
Too bad Canada doesn’t have one.
Footnote: It’s odd, really. The Conservatives’ dishonest flyers might be appealing to a minority who already would likely vote for them. But in the process, there are scaring away the voters Harper needs to win a majority – moderate Canadians who just want competent, pragmatic government.
And at the same time, they’re playing fast and loose with taxpayers’ money, pretending that partisan promotional material is legitimate communication between MPs and the public.
You’ve seen them. The flyers are cheap looking single sheets, with a picture or two of Steven Harper and a headline on some issue. Then there’s a ballot, with an arrow aimed at Harper’s name.
And the flyer likely came to your mailbox from some Conservative MP you’ve never heard of in another province.
MPs can send mail at no cost; the government compensates Canada Post. The intent is to let them keep their constituents informed. (You can write MPs without putting stamps on the envelopes too.)
But these aren’t information pieces. And they’re not going to the people MPs represent. They’re political ads, masquerading as legitimate communications.
A lot of people voted for Harper’s party because they were sick of seeing these kinds of abuses. They wanted a moral, conservative government that respected the rules and the need to spend taxpayers’ money responsibly. They expected better.
And other people voted for them because recent Liberal governments appalled them. Some worried a Conservative government might impose an aggressive social conservative agenda, but decided to trust Harper.
And a flyer that has attracted a lot of attention has made a lot of them figure that was a mistake.
It has a picture on the outside of a syringe laying a playground, and a big headline: “Safe?”
Inside, there’s a jail door and more headlines: “Junkies and drug pushers don’t belong near children and families. They should be in rehab or behind bars.”
The Liberals let thugs and drug pushers write the rules, the flyer says. The Conservatives will “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets.”
It’s really offensive, perhaps mostly because the flyer assumes Canadians are both dumb and lacking in basic compassion. While many Canadians might be sick of dealing with the effects of addiction, they are not stupid.
The language in the flyers tells part of the story. A junkie is someone you sweep off the street, into the garbage. An addict, someone with a mental illness, they are people – someone’s son or daughter. And most of us – most of the time – see that.
And the wording of “keep junkies in rehab and off the streets” is plain dishonest on two levels.
No party – including the Conservatives – has called for compulsory detention and treatment for people with addictions.
It wouldn’t work, it raises a slew of rights issues and Canadians wouldn’t stand for government round ups of thousands of people in B.C. alone.
The capital region has 1,500 to 2,000 injection drug users, and thousands more with other addictions. Would a Harper majority government send squadrons out to drag them all off to rehab?
And where, exactly, would they go? There are about 100 residential spaces for the entire Vancouver Island. How would the Conservatives increase treatment capacity 40 or 50 times?
While the government is promising to lock up thousands of people, addicts who want to get clean today and seek help are being told there is no space for them and sent back to the streets.
And this all came as Health Minister Tony Clement accused the Canadian Medical Association members of unethical conduct because the organization supports safe injection sites. All the legitimate research shows the sites reduce sickness and death and connect users with other services, including treatment. There are no negative consequences.
But Clement doesn’t like the idea, so Canada’s doctors are accused of acting unethically.
There is a lot to be said for a true conservative party – one that respects individual rights and taxpayers’ money and approaches problems pragmatically.
Too bad Canada doesn’t have one.
Footnote: It’s odd, really. The Conservatives’ dishonest flyers might be appealing to a minority who already would likely vote for them. But in the process, there are scaring away the voters Harper needs to win a majority – moderate Canadians who just want competent, pragmatic government.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Campbell’s raises a poke in eye for public
There is no way in the world Gordon Campbell can justify the giant pay increases just handed to government senior managers.
Not that he bothered to try.
No owner of private business would throw his own money around so irresponsibly. A corporate exec who did would be grilled by the board.
About 150 people are eligible the big increases. Assistant deputy ministers are in line for retroactive raises of 22 per cent, in one jump. The new top rate of pay for the job is $195,000.
Deputy ministers - the chief operating officers of ministries - are in line for 35-per-cent raises, taking them to $299,215.
And the deputy minister to the premier, the top manager in government, gets a 43-per-cent raise in pay scale, from $240,000 to $348,600. That's a $108,600 raise, equivalent to seven years of full-time work at minimum wage.
Organizations sometimes have to pay big money to get the best talent. That's why some NHL team will end up paying Mats Sundin $8 million a year to play hockey.
And market forces could apply equally to the need to pay a big premium to attract the best scientists, doctors - or managers.
But well-managed organizations only spend the money when they have to.
The Campbell government has offered no argument that it needs to send salaries skyward to attract competent people. The only justification offered in the news release on the increases was a desire to make B.C.'s pay scale for top managers one of the highest of any government in Canada.
In fact, the government didn't issue the release until a Friday after the increases had already taken effect. Campbell was off in China, unable to explain or defend the huge pay hikes. The best other government reps could do was note that not all senior managers would necessarily get the raises.
There was apparently some sort of salary review, but the government hasn't released it.
These are not catch-up increases, needed because pay scales have been neglected.
Managers have been getting raises every year. And just two years ago, the government announced major increases and the promise that the pay scales would stand until 2010.
In that round of raises, the top pay for deputy ministers was increased by nine per cent and for assistant deputy ministers by 40 per cent.
So, since the 2005 election the government has handed senior managers pay scale increases of 50 per cent to 70 per cent.
But there has been no evidence of high turnover or difficulty filling these positions. While some of the jobs are demanding, the compensation - before these extraordinary increases - put them in the top one or two per cent of wage earners. And many of the jobs don't pose the kind of challenges that justify the pay scale.
And the incumbents all took the jobs knowing what the pay scales were and presumably considering it acceptable.
The cost of the increases is estimated at some $4 million a year.
But that's just the start. The government increased pay for MLAs by 29 per cent - and the premier by 54 per cent - last year. Defenders of the increase noted that elected representatives were falling behind the bureaucrats. This opens the door for more increases.
And everyone working in government, starting with managers one level below, can now make the argument that they too need increases for just the same reasons.
The raises, and the way they were introduced, show a remarkable disdain for the public. Campbell had to know that there would be anger and concern.
Yet he made no effort to explain, defend or justify the extraordinary windfall for those at the top of the public service period. There was no indication that government even felt a need to justify its actions.
It's a far cry from the political party that campaigned in 2001 on the need for accountability and responsibility in spending taxpayers' money.
Footnote: The whole affair should be discouraging for the NDP, which has made a questionable pledge to roll back the increases. It suggests the Liberals feel they can thumb their noses at the public and still win next May's election.
Not that he bothered to try.
No owner of private business would throw his own money around so irresponsibly. A corporate exec who did would be grilled by the board.
About 150 people are eligible the big increases. Assistant deputy ministers are in line for retroactive raises of 22 per cent, in one jump. The new top rate of pay for the job is $195,000.
Deputy ministers - the chief operating officers of ministries - are in line for 35-per-cent raises, taking them to $299,215.
And the deputy minister to the premier, the top manager in government, gets a 43-per-cent raise in pay scale, from $240,000 to $348,600. That's a $108,600 raise, equivalent to seven years of full-time work at minimum wage.
Organizations sometimes have to pay big money to get the best talent. That's why some NHL team will end up paying Mats Sundin $8 million a year to play hockey.
And market forces could apply equally to the need to pay a big premium to attract the best scientists, doctors - or managers.
But well-managed organizations only spend the money when they have to.
The Campbell government has offered no argument that it needs to send salaries skyward to attract competent people. The only justification offered in the news release on the increases was a desire to make B.C.'s pay scale for top managers one of the highest of any government in Canada.
In fact, the government didn't issue the release until a Friday after the increases had already taken effect. Campbell was off in China, unable to explain or defend the huge pay hikes. The best other government reps could do was note that not all senior managers would necessarily get the raises.
There was apparently some sort of salary review, but the government hasn't released it.
These are not catch-up increases, needed because pay scales have been neglected.
Managers have been getting raises every year. And just two years ago, the government announced major increases and the promise that the pay scales would stand until 2010.
In that round of raises, the top pay for deputy ministers was increased by nine per cent and for assistant deputy ministers by 40 per cent.
So, since the 2005 election the government has handed senior managers pay scale increases of 50 per cent to 70 per cent.
But there has been no evidence of high turnover or difficulty filling these positions. While some of the jobs are demanding, the compensation - before these extraordinary increases - put them in the top one or two per cent of wage earners. And many of the jobs don't pose the kind of challenges that justify the pay scale.
And the incumbents all took the jobs knowing what the pay scales were and presumably considering it acceptable.
The cost of the increases is estimated at some $4 million a year.
But that's just the start. The government increased pay for MLAs by 29 per cent - and the premier by 54 per cent - last year. Defenders of the increase noted that elected representatives were falling behind the bureaucrats. This opens the door for more increases.
And everyone working in government, starting with managers one level below, can now make the argument that they too need increases for just the same reasons.
The raises, and the way they were introduced, show a remarkable disdain for the public. Campbell had to know that there would be anger and concern.
Yet he made no effort to explain, defend or justify the extraordinary windfall for those at the top of the public service period. There was no indication that government even felt a need to justify its actions.
It's a far cry from the political party that campaigned in 2001 on the need for accountability and responsibility in spending taxpayers' money.
Footnote: The whole affair should be discouraging for the NDP, which has made a questionable pledge to roll back the increases. It suggests the Liberals feel they can thumb their noses at the public and still win next May's election.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Government stalling on broken police complaints process
It could have been funny, if it weren't such a serious issue.
B.C.'s police complaints process is broken. Four years after the police complaints commissioner started changes were badly needed to make the system work better, and 18 months after a review recommended 91 changes, the government hasn't acted to fix it.
So the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other groups that help people who feel they have been wronged by police announced a boycott.
From now on, they will encourage people with complaints to sue the officers or force involved.
Police don't like the idea. Tom Stamatakis, head of the Vancouver police union, warned the court process would be costly and time-consuming. It would take too long to get decisions, he added. "By the time you get to an outcome, you lose the opportunity to learn from it."
Stamatakis should spend some time with Thomas McKay and his family.
On April 23, 2004, McKay was celebrating the end of the college year. He was arrested for causing a disturbance and being intoxicated in public. At the police cells, in handcuffs, he was pushed or tripped to the floor. He suffered a serious head injury.
McKay's father believed unnecessary force had been used. Within four days, he filed a complaint with the Victoria Police Department. That's the start of the current process.
But there are no timelines in the legislation. Victoria police didn't complete their internal investigation for 19 months - an inexplicable delay. The officer had done nothing wrong, the force found.
Police complaints commissioner Dirk Ryneveld examined the internal review and concluded further investigation was required. That's part of the process too.
He took only three weeks to ask for the review. But it took Victoria police 10 months to review their own investigation - and come back with the same conclusion.
That's 2 1⁄2 years, with little to show.
The police complaints commissioner still wasn't satisfied with internal review and ordered a public hearing on the complaint.
That began last month, more than four years after McKay's father went to police with a complaint his son had mistreated and injured. (The hearing was adjourned until fall because of McKay's continuing problems from his head injury.)
It's not likely the McKays would be buy Stamatakis' argument that the current system delivers results in a timely way.
The case is not an aberration. Delays are the norm.
Those aren't the only problems.
In February 2007, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood delivered a review of the complaints process the province had commissioned.
On a key point, his report pleased police. He didn't feel that B.C., like four other provinces, should create a separate investigative unit to deal with complaints.
Police could continue to investigate themselves, with officers from another department doing the review in some cases.
But he also recommended 91 changes.
Woods also audited 294 complaints against the 11 municipal police departments covered by the provincial policy as part of his review. (RCMP detachments, even those providing municipal policing, do not accept the province's complaint process.)
He found 19 per cent of the complaints had not been properly investigated. In some cases, complaints that clearly should have been upheld were dismissed.
The more serious the complaint, the greater chance of a flawed or incomplete internal review by police.
Wood's audit found, for example, that 38 per cent - more than one-third - of complaints that police used excessive force weren't properly investigated.
The finding makes it hard to accept the recommendation that police should continue to investigate themselves.
What's even harder to accept is the government's inaction on Wood's recommendations and the changes sought by Ryneveld.
With a fall legislative session unlikely, change could be put off until next year, 2010 or indefinitely.
We ask police to do a tough, sometimes dangerous job and give them considerable powers. It's necessary that their be a process to guard against abuse of those powers.
And in B.C., that process isn't working.
Footnote: The RCMP won't accept the B.C. complaints process and its own is hopelessly inadequate. Those who feel they have been wronged can complain to the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints. But the commission relies on the RCMP's own investigation and the top Mountie routinely rewrite its reports to eliminate criticism of officers' actions.
B.C.'s police complaints process is broken. Four years after the police complaints commissioner started changes were badly needed to make the system work better, and 18 months after a review recommended 91 changes, the government hasn't acted to fix it.
So the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other groups that help people who feel they have been wronged by police announced a boycott.
From now on, they will encourage people with complaints to sue the officers or force involved.
Police don't like the idea. Tom Stamatakis, head of the Vancouver police union, warned the court process would be costly and time-consuming. It would take too long to get decisions, he added. "By the time you get to an outcome, you lose the opportunity to learn from it."
Stamatakis should spend some time with Thomas McKay and his family.
On April 23, 2004, McKay was celebrating the end of the college year. He was arrested for causing a disturbance and being intoxicated in public. At the police cells, in handcuffs, he was pushed or tripped to the floor. He suffered a serious head injury.
McKay's father believed unnecessary force had been used. Within four days, he filed a complaint with the Victoria Police Department. That's the start of the current process.
But there are no timelines in the legislation. Victoria police didn't complete their internal investigation for 19 months - an inexplicable delay. The officer had done nothing wrong, the force found.
Police complaints commissioner Dirk Ryneveld examined the internal review and concluded further investigation was required. That's part of the process too.
He took only three weeks to ask for the review. But it took Victoria police 10 months to review their own investigation - and come back with the same conclusion.
That's 2 1⁄2 years, with little to show.
The police complaints commissioner still wasn't satisfied with internal review and ordered a public hearing on the complaint.
That began last month, more than four years after McKay's father went to police with a complaint his son had mistreated and injured. (The hearing was adjourned until fall because of McKay's continuing problems from his head injury.)
It's not likely the McKays would be buy Stamatakis' argument that the current system delivers results in a timely way.
The case is not an aberration. Delays are the norm.
Those aren't the only problems.
In February 2007, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood delivered a review of the complaints process the province had commissioned.
On a key point, his report pleased police. He didn't feel that B.C., like four other provinces, should create a separate investigative unit to deal with complaints.
Police could continue to investigate themselves, with officers from another department doing the review in some cases.
But he also recommended 91 changes.
Woods also audited 294 complaints against the 11 municipal police departments covered by the provincial policy as part of his review. (RCMP detachments, even those providing municipal policing, do not accept the province's complaint process.)
He found 19 per cent of the complaints had not been properly investigated. In some cases, complaints that clearly should have been upheld were dismissed.
The more serious the complaint, the greater chance of a flawed or incomplete internal review by police.
Wood's audit found, for example, that 38 per cent - more than one-third - of complaints that police used excessive force weren't properly investigated.
The finding makes it hard to accept the recommendation that police should continue to investigate themselves.
What's even harder to accept is the government's inaction on Wood's recommendations and the changes sought by Ryneveld.
With a fall legislative session unlikely, change could be put off until next year, 2010 or indefinitely.
We ask police to do a tough, sometimes dangerous job and give them considerable powers. It's necessary that their be a process to guard against abuse of those powers.
And in B.C., that process isn't working.
Footnote: The RCMP won't accept the B.C. complaints process and its own is hopelessly inadequate. Those who feel they have been wronged can complain to the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints. But the commission relies on the RCMP's own investigation and the top Mountie routinely rewrite its reports to eliminate criticism of officers' actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
