The wise Norman Ruff says it takes several days to declare a winner in a leaders' debate.
For starters, not that many people are actually watching. Especially at 5 p.m. on a spring Sunday, sunny here in Victoria.
About 37 per cent of the people in the Lower Mainland who were watching TV watched the debate in 2005. That was in primetime, on a Tuesday.
At most, one in six British Columbians watched even part of this year's debate.
Yet over a few days, based on media coverage and what people are saying at work or the playground, a sense will emerge of how did well, and who stumbled.
A few minutes after the debate, I'm thinking the Liberals should be nervous about how that consensus will shake out.
Gordon Campbell sounded a little defensive and, I have to say, looked a little crazy.
That's only partly his fault. The set, out of a high school TV station, had a black backdrop that left his head and white shirt floating like a low-budget special effect.
The format was tough for the party in power. The debate was structured around videos of questions from people around the province. They were pointed.
And Carole James was focused in her response and skillful in posing questions that Campbell had a hard time answering.
Green Leader Jane Sterk didn't really seem that relevant - sort of a polite heckler, offering occasional insights that would appeal to most rational voters, except for the reality that no Green candidate had a chance of being elected.
Campbell's pitch seemed to be that we face scary times ahead and he's the best person to have in charge. "I know British Columbians are worried," he said. "But we can get through this."
James doesn't have enough experience - especially business experience - to lead the province through a tough patch, Campbell suggested.
It's a little iffy as an argument, not least because Campbell has been a politician for the last 25 years. His business experience is dated.
James' pitch had two elements. The Liberals had a chance and had not delivered, she said, failing to invest in communities in the good time.
And she had a better sense of the problems faced by most British Columbians, James claimed. Her answers referred to people or groups she had met with and their struggles.
It was well done and fit nicely with poll results that indicated James is seen as more in touch with the priorities of average British Columbians.
The Liberals should have been in good shape heading toward the May 12 election. They have avoided big mistakes.
But it hasn't turned out that way. The latest poll suggests a close race.
And Campbell didn't win over undecided voters during the debate. He was stiff, defensive - a politician.
James was a politician, too, of course. But she appeared to understand the problems of ordinary people, whoever they are.
None of this matters for the committed Liberal or NDP voters.
But for a lot of people - those who are undecided, or the million-plus British Columbians who aren't likely to vote - the debate becomes part of the decision-making process.
That's not good for Campbell. James batted him around on several issues, from corruption to seniors care.
The leaders each got a chance to close out the debate.
Campbell talked about the economy and leadership. Jobs are at stake, he said. He looked worried.
James offered a plan for addressing five public policy issues, from taxes to education. She seemed positive.
Mostly, it seemed sad that this was the only debate of this long campaign.
Just 60 minutes, in a four-week campaign, to hear from the party leaders.
It's a strange way to choose a government and set the course for the province for the next four years.
Footnote: The most interesting point in the debate might have been about crime. Campbell and James talked about more police. Sterk talked about legalization of some drugs to talk the profits away from criminal gangs. She sounded sensible; they sounded delusional.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Beer and elections: Creating sorrows to drown
The campaign hoohaw about the price of beer should make you despair.
Private liquor stores are miffed at the NDP plan to roll back price breaks the Liberals have handed them in the last few years.
The bigger discounts cost taxpayers and enriched the well-connected private companies, who convinced the Liberals their profits weren't high enough. (You might try that - ask the store if it will cut prices for you because times a little tough.)
You can debate the largesse as a policy measure, but it's small potatoes in terms of election issues, unless you own a private liquor store.
Here's a primer. When the Liberals decided to allow private liquor stores in 2002, they said the operators could buy their stock at 10 per cent below the retail price in the province's liquor stores.
If a six-pack of beer sold for $10 in the government store, the private operator could buy it for $9 and mark it up to cover operating costs and leave a profit.
But the Liberals messed up the whole privatization effort. They told private operators the public stores would be closing.
Then - a little late, really - the government looked at the numbers. Closing the public stores would mean a big drop in government revenues, and thus higher taxes. There was no public advantage, just a big cost.
So the government reneged. That wasn't fair to the private operators, changing the rules after they had invested.
So to sweeten the deal, the government gave them a bigger discount - 12 per cent. For a store doing $2 million in sales, that meant an extra $40,000 a year in profits.
Not enough, said the stores. They kept lobbying and the next year got the discount raised to 13 per cent.
And, naturally enough, they kept lobbying - insider Patrick Kinsella was involved with one of the largest companies - and in 2007 John Les quietly gave the private stores another windfall. The discount jumped to 16 per cent.
There was no public benefit. Quite the opposite - every time the government increased the price break for private stores, it reduced its own revenues. And that means taxes had to go up.
And there was no economic case for the change. Stores weren't closing. In fact, in the year before the last gift, the number of private stores increased by 10 per cent and the leading company said it planned more expansion.
The government just offered a series of gifts to the private companies, at your expense. The discounts will mean more than $50 million a year transferred from government to a select group of private businesses.
The NDP, looking for revenue to support spending increases, said in its platform it would rescind the changes and take the discounts back to their original, 10-per-cent level. That would produce $155 million over three years, the party says.
Horrors, says the industry. The change would mean the companies would pay an extra 80 cents wholesale for a six pack of beer, which they would pass on to their customers. People seeking convenience would pay; the frugal would likely go to a government store.
The industry's bigger concern is the NDP plank to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Most jobs in the private liquor business are minimum wage; the industry believes having to pay staff $10 an hour would add 15 to 20 per cent to its operating costs.
Wiping out the whole discount is probably unfair. The initial increase, in 2003, was reasonable compensation for the way the Liberals changed the rules of the game after some private companies had entered the industry.
But the following two price breaks were simply gifts from the government to a group of well-connected private companies (and political donors). At taxpayers' expense.
Footnote: Private liquor store expansion has increased the number of alcohol outlets from 786 in 2002 to 1,294 in 2008. A report last year from the province's chief health officer noted that the expansion of private outlets had identified as a factor in increasing addiction and problem and youth drinking.
Private liquor stores are miffed at the NDP plan to roll back price breaks the Liberals have handed them in the last few years.
The bigger discounts cost taxpayers and enriched the well-connected private companies, who convinced the Liberals their profits weren't high enough. (You might try that - ask the store if it will cut prices for you because times a little tough.)
You can debate the largesse as a policy measure, but it's small potatoes in terms of election issues, unless you own a private liquor store.
Here's a primer. When the Liberals decided to allow private liquor stores in 2002, they said the operators could buy their stock at 10 per cent below the retail price in the province's liquor stores.
If a six-pack of beer sold for $10 in the government store, the private operator could buy it for $9 and mark it up to cover operating costs and leave a profit.
But the Liberals messed up the whole privatization effort. They told private operators the public stores would be closing.
Then - a little late, really - the government looked at the numbers. Closing the public stores would mean a big drop in government revenues, and thus higher taxes. There was no public advantage, just a big cost.
So the government reneged. That wasn't fair to the private operators, changing the rules after they had invested.
So to sweeten the deal, the government gave them a bigger discount - 12 per cent. For a store doing $2 million in sales, that meant an extra $40,000 a year in profits.
Not enough, said the stores. They kept lobbying and the next year got the discount raised to 13 per cent.
And, naturally enough, they kept lobbying - insider Patrick Kinsella was involved with one of the largest companies - and in 2007 John Les quietly gave the private stores another windfall. The discount jumped to 16 per cent.
There was no public benefit. Quite the opposite - every time the government increased the price break for private stores, it reduced its own revenues. And that means taxes had to go up.
And there was no economic case for the change. Stores weren't closing. In fact, in the year before the last gift, the number of private stores increased by 10 per cent and the leading company said it planned more expansion.
The government just offered a series of gifts to the private companies, at your expense. The discounts will mean more than $50 million a year transferred from government to a select group of private businesses.
The NDP, looking for revenue to support spending increases, said in its platform it would rescind the changes and take the discounts back to their original, 10-per-cent level. That would produce $155 million over three years, the party says.
Horrors, says the industry. The change would mean the companies would pay an extra 80 cents wholesale for a six pack of beer, which they would pass on to their customers. People seeking convenience would pay; the frugal would likely go to a government store.
The industry's bigger concern is the NDP plank to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Most jobs in the private liquor business are minimum wage; the industry believes having to pay staff $10 an hour would add 15 to 20 per cent to its operating costs.
Wiping out the whole discount is probably unfair. The initial increase, in 2003, was reasonable compensation for the way the Liberals changed the rules of the game after some private companies had entered the industry.
But the following two price breaks were simply gifts from the government to a group of well-connected private companies (and political donors). At taxpayers' expense.
Footnote: Private liquor store expansion has increased the number of alcohol outlets from 786 in 2002 to 1,294 in 2008. A report last year from the province's chief health officer noted that the expansion of private outlets had identified as a factor in increasing addiction and problem and youth drinking.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Where, and how much, will NDP, Liberals cut
We're sliding toward a fraudulent provincial election. And both the main political parties and their candidates are playing along.
Their plan appears to seek election with a bogus mandate and then do whatever they want.
Here's the nub. The Liberal budget in February called for two years of deficits. The New Democrats built their platform based on the budget projections. They project three years of deficits, due to some additional spending.
But the budget was way off and neither of the two main parties wants to admit it. So you're being asked to choose based on misinformation.
This is a big deal. The budget calls for a $495 million deficit this year and $245 million shortall next year before a return to balanced budgets.
It's a fantasy.
The budget is based on projections of 0.9 per cent reduction in the GDP in 2009 and 2.4 per cent growth in 2010. It assumed growth of one per cent last year.
But StatsCan just reported the B.C. economy shrank last year.
And two leading economists, both on the province's forecast council, said they now expect a sharper decline this year - perhaps 2.7 per cent.
The Finance Ministry reports on risks to the budget. Each one-point drop in economic growth chops $150 million to $250 million off the bottom line. So the new GDP forecast alone suggests the deficit will be some $320 million more than the budget projects.
That's conservative; the slowing economy hurts revenues in other areas and increases demand for services like welfare. Natural gas prices, for example, are far below the level the government projected in the budget, meaning a shortfall of of some $600 million.
Gordon Campbell says he won't allow the deficit to rise above the projected level. Meeting that target already required spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries. Most cuts are still being identified, though park and campground closures have already been announced.
The worsening economic results mean another $320 million in cuts from a new Liberal government.
Campbell hasn't specified how or where the cuts will come. Voters need to hear that, so they can make an informed choice. The Liberal plan already calls for 10 of 19 ministries to spend less in 2011 than they did in 2008, despite inflation and population increases.
If you believe that's realistic and won't hurt services you or family members rely on, no worries.
But it has been eight years since the Liberals promised to root out waste and unnecessary programs. You would think the services that have survived make a difference in peoples' lives.
Still, you know where Campbell stands.
That's not yet true for Carole James and the New Democrats. The NDP platform includes a fiscal plan and costs for its promises, though some numbers are questionable.
But it's still based on the Liberals' February budget and three-year-plan.
Since those numbers are wrong, James has three choices. Like Campbell, she could pledge to make whatever cuts are necessary to meet her budget targets - to manage by the numbers. She could raise taxes to come up with more revenue. Or the NDP could decide a couple of extra years of bigger deficits would be reasonable. The Harper Conservatives have, after all, decided that four years of deficits are needed.
With barely a week left in the campaign, voters aren't getting straight talk on what should be one of the must fundamental issues in the election campaign.
The deficit is certainly going to be much greater than the budget projected. The way in which the new government deals with it will have an impact on the lives of almost everyone.
Campbell has said he would cut, but not where.
James hasn't offered any clear idea how an NDP government would deal with a projected deficit greater than the one forecast in its platform.
Voters need answers, fast.
Footnote: The fiscal plan also abandoned the Liberals' past practice of including a healthy "forecast allowance" as a cushion against the unexpected. A post-election budget crisis is almost certain. The unknown is how the parties would respond.
Their plan appears to seek election with a bogus mandate and then do whatever they want.
Here's the nub. The Liberal budget in February called for two years of deficits. The New Democrats built their platform based on the budget projections. They project three years of deficits, due to some additional spending.
But the budget was way off and neither of the two main parties wants to admit it. So you're being asked to choose based on misinformation.
This is a big deal. The budget calls for a $495 million deficit this year and $245 million shortall next year before a return to balanced budgets.
It's a fantasy.
The budget is based on projections of 0.9 per cent reduction in the GDP in 2009 and 2.4 per cent growth in 2010. It assumed growth of one per cent last year.
But StatsCan just reported the B.C. economy shrank last year.
And two leading economists, both on the province's forecast council, said they now expect a sharper decline this year - perhaps 2.7 per cent.
The Finance Ministry reports on risks to the budget. Each one-point drop in economic growth chops $150 million to $250 million off the bottom line. So the new GDP forecast alone suggests the deficit will be some $320 million more than the budget projects.
That's conservative; the slowing economy hurts revenues in other areas and increases demand for services like welfare. Natural gas prices, for example, are far below the level the government projected in the budget, meaning a shortfall of of some $600 million.
Gordon Campbell says he won't allow the deficit to rise above the projected level. Meeting that target already required spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries. Most cuts are still being identified, though park and campground closures have already been announced.
The worsening economic results mean another $320 million in cuts from a new Liberal government.
Campbell hasn't specified how or where the cuts will come. Voters need to hear that, so they can make an informed choice. The Liberal plan already calls for 10 of 19 ministries to spend less in 2011 than they did in 2008, despite inflation and population increases.
If you believe that's realistic and won't hurt services you or family members rely on, no worries.
But it has been eight years since the Liberals promised to root out waste and unnecessary programs. You would think the services that have survived make a difference in peoples' lives.
Still, you know where Campbell stands.
That's not yet true for Carole James and the New Democrats. The NDP platform includes a fiscal plan and costs for its promises, though some numbers are questionable.
But it's still based on the Liberals' February budget and three-year-plan.
Since those numbers are wrong, James has three choices. Like Campbell, she could pledge to make whatever cuts are necessary to meet her budget targets - to manage by the numbers. She could raise taxes to come up with more revenue. Or the NDP could decide a couple of extra years of bigger deficits would be reasonable. The Harper Conservatives have, after all, decided that four years of deficits are needed.
With barely a week left in the campaign, voters aren't getting straight talk on what should be one of the must fundamental issues in the election campaign.
The deficit is certainly going to be much greater than the budget projected. The way in which the new government deals with it will have an impact on the lives of almost everyone.
Campbell has said he would cut, but not where.
James hasn't offered any clear idea how an NDP government would deal with a projected deficit greater than the one forecast in its platform.
Voters need answers, fast.
Footnote: The fiscal plan also abandoned the Liberals' past practice of including a healthy "forecast allowance" as a cushion against the unexpected. A post-election budget crisis is almost certain. The unknown is how the parties would respond.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
One poll, and things different and a little strange
It's time to start paying attention to the election campaign.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll released this week raised a bunch of interesting issues beyond the headline news of a tie between the Liberals and the NDP.
That's significant, of course. The poll found the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of decided voters; the New Democrats 39 per cent; and the Greens 13 per cent.
Given the margin of error, that's pretty much a dead heat, with the May 12 vote coming fast.
People will spin the results. But Angus Reid has a good track record; the company's predictions in last year's federal election, for example, were extremely accurate.
So it's likely the parties are a lot closer than an earlier Mustel. It showed the Liberals 17 points ahead.
Good news for Carole James, obviously. The media perception was that the NDP campaign had been slow to launch and challenged by environmentalists' attacks over the party's opposition to the carbon tax.
But the poll results tell a different story. When the pollster asked about the tax, 30 per cent of respondents said it had moderately or severely affected their household finances; 62 per cent said it had made them less likely to vote Liberal.
The responses don't make much sense. The tax impact so far is minor and offset by other cuts. And the tax makes policy sense. But people don't like it.
Which leads to one of the interesting issues raised by the poll. Green support is at 13 per cent of decided voters, up four points from its actual support in 2005. But the poll found less than one-third of the Green support this time was definitely committed to the party. Angus Reid Strategies analysis predicts a shift of Green support to the NDP, but the carbon tax issue could be a barrier. The Liberals' problem is that attacking the NDP over the carbon tax might win Green support, but alienate other voters.
The poll has some encouraging news for the Liberals too.
Voters don't like or respect the performance of either Campbell or James. But 40 per cent of British Columbians think the Liberal leader would be the best premier, compared with 23 per cent who prefer James.
The findings on the most important issue facing B.C. are also good news for the Liberals. Some 34 per cent of respondents picked the economy. And Campbell got much higher ratings for being able to deal with that issue. (He also did somewhat better on crime.)
Both leaders should be chastened by the polls. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed thought Campbell inspired confidence; 19 per cent said James inspired confidence.
Campbell scored the biggest lead in the areas of strength and decisiveness and the worst ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. James' best relative grades were for understanding the problems of B.C. residents and being in sync with them on the issues.
Assuming the parties' private polls are producing similar results, the strategists should be having conniptions.
Should James try and emphasize competent management of the economy? Or play to her existing strength as someone who relates to average people?
Does Campbell keep attacking the NDP on economic issues, or show more concern for the needs of British Columbians?
It's interesting that what you could call government responsibility issues - health, poverty, homelessness, education and the like - rival the economy issue if taken together.
The poll also suggests a regional divide. Liberal support is softening in the North and Interior and fading on Vancouver Island (Pat Bell and Shirley Bond both might be in trouble, the pollster suggests).
But the Campbell party still has a 43 to 37 lead in Vancouver and its suburbs.
What it all means is that you should pay attention for the next 10 days and vote - unless you truly don't care which party governs for the next four years.
Footnote: You can review the results at here.
You should; it's both fascinating and an interesting chance to compare the data and the media coverage and make your own guesses at what it all means.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll released this week raised a bunch of interesting issues beyond the headline news of a tie between the Liberals and the NDP.
That's significant, of course. The poll found the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of decided voters; the New Democrats 39 per cent; and the Greens 13 per cent.
Given the margin of error, that's pretty much a dead heat, with the May 12 vote coming fast.
People will spin the results. But Angus Reid has a good track record; the company's predictions in last year's federal election, for example, were extremely accurate.
So it's likely the parties are a lot closer than an earlier Mustel. It showed the Liberals 17 points ahead.
Good news for Carole James, obviously. The media perception was that the NDP campaign had been slow to launch and challenged by environmentalists' attacks over the party's opposition to the carbon tax.
But the poll results tell a different story. When the pollster asked about the tax, 30 per cent of respondents said it had moderately or severely affected their household finances; 62 per cent said it had made them less likely to vote Liberal.
The responses don't make much sense. The tax impact so far is minor and offset by other cuts. And the tax makes policy sense. But people don't like it.
Which leads to one of the interesting issues raised by the poll. Green support is at 13 per cent of decided voters, up four points from its actual support in 2005. But the poll found less than one-third of the Green support this time was definitely committed to the party. Angus Reid Strategies analysis predicts a shift of Green support to the NDP, but the carbon tax issue could be a barrier. The Liberals' problem is that attacking the NDP over the carbon tax might win Green support, but alienate other voters.
The poll has some encouraging news for the Liberals too.
Voters don't like or respect the performance of either Campbell or James. But 40 per cent of British Columbians think the Liberal leader would be the best premier, compared with 23 per cent who prefer James.
The findings on the most important issue facing B.C. are also good news for the Liberals. Some 34 per cent of respondents picked the economy. And Campbell got much higher ratings for being able to deal with that issue. (He also did somewhat better on crime.)
Both leaders should be chastened by the polls. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed thought Campbell inspired confidence; 19 per cent said James inspired confidence.
Campbell scored the biggest lead in the areas of strength and decisiveness and the worst ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. James' best relative grades were for understanding the problems of B.C. residents and being in sync with them on the issues.
Assuming the parties' private polls are producing similar results, the strategists should be having conniptions.
Should James try and emphasize competent management of the economy? Or play to her existing strength as someone who relates to average people?
Does Campbell keep attacking the NDP on economic issues, or show more concern for the needs of British Columbians?
It's interesting that what you could call government responsibility issues - health, poverty, homelessness, education and the like - rival the economy issue if taken together.
The poll also suggests a regional divide. Liberal support is softening in the North and Interior and fading on Vancouver Island (Pat Bell and Shirley Bond both might be in trouble, the pollster suggests).
But the Campbell party still has a 43 to 37 lead in Vancouver and its suburbs.
What it all means is that you should pay attention for the next 10 days and vote - unless you truly don't care which party governs for the next four years.
Footnote: You can review the results at here.
You should; it's both fascinating and an interesting chance to compare the data and the media coverage and make your own guesses at what it all means.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Speeding, parks and post-election deep cuts
In one sense, the John van Dongen speeding scandal is a sideshow, a distraction from bigger issues.
But it was also telling, especially in light of two other campaign developments breaking at the time.
Van Dongen, who has never struck me as a wild man, turns out to be the kind of driver who makes highways more dangerous. His record was so bad that the superintendent of motor vehicles issued a four-month licence suspension.
That's bad for any politician, but especially for the solicitor general, responsible for both ICBC and road safety.
Van Dongen had promised to get tough on unsafe driving. "There is no excuse for racing or speeding." He said. "People who engage in behaviours like these can expect to face some of the most severe penalties and fines in Canada."
But when he got caught, van Dongen did offer excuses - he was busy and sometimes drove too fast, he said.
Gordon Campbell offered excuses too. The important thing, he said, was that van Dongen had acknowledged his mistake publicly.
Sort of. Van Dongen lost his licence a week before he told the premier. Only then was responsibility for road safety and ICBC taken from him. He initially would not say how many tickets he had received.
And Campbell said he wouldn't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet. (He obviously has a problem in all this. If the premier doesn't have to step down for drunk driving, why should cabinet ministers who lose their licences for speeding?)
After a weekend of criticism - especially from the families of people killed by drunk driving - van Dongen did the right thing and resigned from cabinet.
It was wrong, by his standards, to stay, he said. (He also acknowledged nine speeding tickets in five years, including two for being way over the limit.)
Campbell apparently has lower standards.
Carole James, after two weeks of sputtering campaigning, seized on the premier's position as an example of arrogance, lack of transparency and hypocrisy. (Campbell had called for an NDP candidate to drop out of the race after he posted some stupid pictures on his Facebook page; the man did.)
Which leads to the two other developments. The news that the government is planning to close provincial campgrounds this summer and lay off park wardens to cut spending.
And a Statistics Canada report that, rather than growing as the government expected, B.C.'s GDP actually declined last year by 0.3 per cent, the first decline in 25 years. Only Ontario fared worse in 2008.
The campground closures and job cuts, according to Environment Minister Barry Penner, are to reduce spending. The Environment Ministry is among eight of 20 ministries to face budget cuts next year,
By 2011, the last year in the three-year plan, the Liberals are projecting that half the ministries - 10 - will have budgets lower than they had last year, despite inflation and population increases.
That reflects the Liberals' pledge to run small deficits for two years before returning to balanced budgets. Campbell has also pledged during the campaign to stick to the deficits forecast in the budget.
That leads to the StatsCan growth figures. The budget is based on growth of one per cent last year and a decline of 0.9 per cent in 2009.
The 2008 number is apparently wrong, off by 1.3 per cent. The 2009 number is suspect.
And lower growth means lower government revenues - about $150 million to $250 million for each percentage point.
Which would leave a returning government, given Campbell's commitment, with no alternative but even more cuts.
If the government is willing to cut family camping opportunities and lay off park wardens at a time when employment is an issue, what lies ahead?
And if accountability on issues like speeding cabinet ministers is a low priority for Campbell, then the public might worry about accountability on bigger issues after the election.
Footnote: The New Democrats also need to come up with answers. Their fiscal plan is based on the Liberal budget. If the budget has inflated revenues, the party needs to say how it will address the issue - spending cuts, more taxes or bigger deficits. The NDP now proposes three deficit years as opposed to the Liberals' two.
But it was also telling, especially in light of two other campaign developments breaking at the time.
Van Dongen, who has never struck me as a wild man, turns out to be the kind of driver who makes highways more dangerous. His record was so bad that the superintendent of motor vehicles issued a four-month licence suspension.
That's bad for any politician, but especially for the solicitor general, responsible for both ICBC and road safety.
Van Dongen had promised to get tough on unsafe driving. "There is no excuse for racing or speeding." He said. "People who engage in behaviours like these can expect to face some of the most severe penalties and fines in Canada."
But when he got caught, van Dongen did offer excuses - he was busy and sometimes drove too fast, he said.
Gordon Campbell offered excuses too. The important thing, he said, was that van Dongen had acknowledged his mistake publicly.
Sort of. Van Dongen lost his licence a week before he told the premier. Only then was responsibility for road safety and ICBC taken from him. He initially would not say how many tickets he had received.
And Campbell said he wouldn't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet. (He obviously has a problem in all this. If the premier doesn't have to step down for drunk driving, why should cabinet ministers who lose their licences for speeding?)
After a weekend of criticism - especially from the families of people killed by drunk driving - van Dongen did the right thing and resigned from cabinet.
It was wrong, by his standards, to stay, he said. (He also acknowledged nine speeding tickets in five years, including two for being way over the limit.)
Campbell apparently has lower standards.
Carole James, after two weeks of sputtering campaigning, seized on the premier's position as an example of arrogance, lack of transparency and hypocrisy. (Campbell had called for an NDP candidate to drop out of the race after he posted some stupid pictures on his Facebook page; the man did.)
Which leads to the two other developments. The news that the government is planning to close provincial campgrounds this summer and lay off park wardens to cut spending.
And a Statistics Canada report that, rather than growing as the government expected, B.C.'s GDP actually declined last year by 0.3 per cent, the first decline in 25 years. Only Ontario fared worse in 2008.
The campground closures and job cuts, according to Environment Minister Barry Penner, are to reduce spending. The Environment Ministry is among eight of 20 ministries to face budget cuts next year,
By 2011, the last year in the three-year plan, the Liberals are projecting that half the ministries - 10 - will have budgets lower than they had last year, despite inflation and population increases.
That reflects the Liberals' pledge to run small deficits for two years before returning to balanced budgets. Campbell has also pledged during the campaign to stick to the deficits forecast in the budget.
That leads to the StatsCan growth figures. The budget is based on growth of one per cent last year and a decline of 0.9 per cent in 2009.
The 2008 number is apparently wrong, off by 1.3 per cent. The 2009 number is suspect.
And lower growth means lower government revenues - about $150 million to $250 million for each percentage point.
Which would leave a returning government, given Campbell's commitment, with no alternative but even more cuts.
If the government is willing to cut family camping opportunities and lay off park wardens at a time when employment is an issue, what lies ahead?
And if accountability on issues like speeding cabinet ministers is a low priority for Campbell, then the public might worry about accountability on bigger issues after the election.
Footnote: The New Democrats also need to come up with answers. Their fiscal plan is based on the Liberal budget. If the budget has inflated revenues, the party needs to say how it will address the issue - spending cuts, more taxes or bigger deficits. The NDP now proposes three deficit years as opposed to the Liberals' two.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Cuts are coming - how deep, and where?
Columnist Dave Obee has an interesting- and accurate - piece in the Times Colonist warning that given the wild optimism of the February fiscal plan big cuts are coming in government after the election. Worth reading here.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Van Dongen's bad driving
Four thoughts.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Residential care for seniors should be big issue
Eight years in power, and the Liberals are still fumbling the issue of residential care for seniors. The Liberal New Era campaign pledge in 2001 was clear - an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. It was an important promise. When the time comes that you, or your parents, can't live independently, you want desperately to have residential care available, close to friends and family. That was far from certain when the Liberals took over, because there just weren't enough spaces.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Comparing the Liberal and NDP platforms
Plow through the Liberal and NDP platforms and you will find a surprising amount in common.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Test drive STV for your area
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't vote yes in the electoral reform referendum and try an alternative to the current system which has served us so dismally. Sure, the single transferable vote system isn't perfect, but look at the way we elect governments and our representatives now. It's an abomination.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A look at the Liberal platform
A useful Victoria Times Colonist editorial today on the Liberal platform.
On election day, will you be a happy sheep?
Barely back from a 2,800-mile road trip, and I was greeted by the first election signs.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Camped in a casino RV lot...
And one day from home after a great road trip to Yosemite and Death Valley and many great points along the way. Struck, as always, by the consistent kindness, openness and generosity of individual Americans despite their political inability to develop policies that deal with real problems or elect governments that reflect their own values.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Thanks, I'm fine
Better than fine, as this is a fun break. But thanks for fretting a little. It's much appreciated.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Campbell's 'province of losers' warning comes true
Should a responsible government really be trying to entice people into casinos to chase their lottery losses on slot machines?
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
B.C. Rail Kinsella memo to be revealed Thursday in court, NDP predicts
MEDIA ADVISORY
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
Friday, March 20, 2009
Running a wire on the police
The Times Colonist has been following an interesting case. Victoria police stopped a driver, in case, they said, his car was stolen.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
Nurses find way around coming wage freeze
It looks like the B.C. Nurses Union has retired Solidarity Forever in favour of Take the Money and Run as a rallying song.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Uranium a glowing problem for government
The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Questions unanswered about BC Rail payments to Liberal insider
Sure, a lot was happening in the Liberals' first term. But it's hard to see why a Crown corporation had to pay $297,000 to a Liberal insider for help understanding the new government.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Finance ministry records included faked B.C. Rail sale e-mails
A few days ago, I posted e-mails from finance ministry files that indicated former New Democrat MLAs Paul Ramsey, Gordon Wilson, Helmut Geisbrecht and others plotting to attack Gordon Campbell's B.C. Rail sale.
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Binder 5: E-mails fake says, ex-Liberal MLA
Paul Nettleton also says the finance ministry e-mail files allegedly showing a campaign against the BC Rail are fakes.
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
BC Rail paid firms of Liberal campaign co-chair for services
The New Democrats asked about questions yersterday about $297,000 in payments from B.C. Rail to the consulting firms of Patrick Kinsella, the Liberals' campaign co-chair in 2001 and 2005. Sean Holman sets out the details here. It's worth searching on Kinsella on publiceyeonline.com for background.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Binder 5: Paul Ramsey says he's never seen the e-mails referred to in the post below
Former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey says he's never seen, and certainly didn't write, any of the e-mails in Finance Ministry files that supposedly include comments from him on the B.C. Rail deal.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
Binder 5: New Democrats plot against the B.C. Rail sale, and the government gets the e-mails
Note: See post above. Paul Ramsey says he's never seen and didn't write any of these e-mails. Which raises a whole lot of questions about how bogus e-mails ended up in Finance Ministry files.
But how did e-mails supposedly between former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey, ex-Liberal leader and later New Democrat Gordon Wilson and defeated NDP backbencher Helmut Giesbrecht end up in finance ministry files? Wilson was replaced as Liberal leader by Gordon Campbell; Ramsey represented a Prince George riding until 2001, and Giesbrecht represented Skeena until 2001.
Assuming the trio were not keen on telegraphing their plans to attack the sale of B.C. Rail, how did the Liberals get their hands on the 2003 e-mail exchange?
A mole in their midst? Carelessness? Or are the e-mails faked?
The e-mails are among some 8,000 pages of material — much of it blanked out — released to defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption case under FOI requests. The NDP has posted them here .
“We should fine tune our strategy on rail,” Wilson allegedly wrote in a July 10 e-mail to Ramsey and Giesbrecht. “It will go to cabinet on July 23. Believe me gentlemen this is going to be more controversial than the Coq deal. We have the potential to really nail the coffin shut. Its clear the only thing Campbell cares about is the bottom line. We need to hit them fast and hard on this.” Wilson says cabinet will give the sale the “green light” at the meeting. “It is obvious from what I have seen from our friends, the tax advantages make it almost certain that CN will be the only suitor for B.C. Rail. Paul have you spoken to Joy or Lois? Even the stuff on raiding pension funds is good. Campbell won’t be able to find a place to hide. He will regret his promise not to sell bcr. Everywhere you look the word sale is mentioned.”
Giesbrecht's supposedly sent a response to Ramsey and Wilson within 15 minutes.
“I agree with you. Our good fortune is really hard to comprehend. I spoke to Lois the other day she is working hard with the unions. She spoke to nettleton yesterday and convinced him to write a strongly worded letter to reid. Once the negotiating team is given their obvious bottom line mandate, that will be the time to crank things up considerably. The order of the bids is not what I would have expected. Campbell will dread the word ‘sale’ every time it is mentioned!” (Reid likely refers to then transportation minister Judith Reid and Nettleton to Prince George MLA Paul Nettleton, who by then had been bounced from the Liberal caucus. Lois would be former Prince George NDP MLA Lois Boone.)
Ramsey allegedly responds to Wilson and Giesbrecht that evening.
“I spoke to Lois yesterday. She is beginning to ratchet up the pressure. I advised her to lay low until cabinet decides on july 23. The comments by cibc have been incredibly helpful. That just confirmed to me this was already a done deal. The job losses will be staggering… I can’t believe our stroke of luck. Please ensure you do not pass those documents to anybody else. Let’s keep them under wraps. I have put a call into Lois. I did speak to Joy. She called ron cannan to touch base and stir the pot some more. When I hear what transpired I will fill you in. It’s my understanding Campbell will be trying to sell this to his cabinet up in sechelt. Let’s hope they don’t develop a backbone overnight.”
(CIBC World Markets had been hired to organize the sale and a company analyst had caused a stir by suggesting CN was the logical buyer. Ron Cannan was then a Kelowna councilor who opposed the sale; now he’s a Conservative MP. The cabinet met in Sechelt on July 15; Reid did a telephone press call that day to try and ease fears about the sale and potential job losses.)
Finally, Giesbrecht is supposed to have e-mailed 10 former NDP MLAs on July 11 – Jom Doyle, Lois Boone, Corky Evans, David Zirnhelt, Erda Walsh, Steve Orcherton, Pietro Calendino, Glenn Robertson. Bill Goodacre and Moe Sihota.
“This is the latest. When we get a decision after July 23 I will follow up at that time.”
And there the record stops.
But how did e-mails supposedly between former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey, ex-Liberal leader and later New Democrat Gordon Wilson and defeated NDP backbencher Helmut Giesbrecht end up in finance ministry files? Wilson was replaced as Liberal leader by Gordon Campbell; Ramsey represented a Prince George riding until 2001, and Giesbrecht represented Skeena until 2001.
Assuming the trio were not keen on telegraphing their plans to attack the sale of B.C. Rail, how did the Liberals get their hands on the 2003 e-mail exchange?
A mole in their midst? Carelessness? Or are the e-mails faked?
The e-mails are among some 8,000 pages of material — much of it blanked out — released to defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption case under FOI requests. The NDP has posted them here .
“We should fine tune our strategy on rail,” Wilson allegedly wrote in a July 10 e-mail to Ramsey and Giesbrecht. “It will go to cabinet on July 23. Believe me gentlemen this is going to be more controversial than the Coq deal. We have the potential to really nail the coffin shut. Its clear the only thing Campbell cares about is the bottom line. We need to hit them fast and hard on this.” Wilson says cabinet will give the sale the “green light” at the meeting. “It is obvious from what I have seen from our friends, the tax advantages make it almost certain that CN will be the only suitor for B.C. Rail. Paul have you spoken to Joy or Lois? Even the stuff on raiding pension funds is good. Campbell won’t be able to find a place to hide. He will regret his promise not to sell bcr. Everywhere you look the word sale is mentioned.”
Giesbrecht's supposedly sent a response to Ramsey and Wilson within 15 minutes.
“I agree with you. Our good fortune is really hard to comprehend. I spoke to Lois the other day she is working hard with the unions. She spoke to nettleton yesterday and convinced him to write a strongly worded letter to reid. Once the negotiating team is given their obvious bottom line mandate, that will be the time to crank things up considerably. The order of the bids is not what I would have expected. Campbell will dread the word ‘sale’ every time it is mentioned!” (Reid likely refers to then transportation minister Judith Reid and Nettleton to Prince George MLA Paul Nettleton, who by then had been bounced from the Liberal caucus. Lois would be former Prince George NDP MLA Lois Boone.)
Ramsey allegedly responds to Wilson and Giesbrecht that evening.
“I spoke to Lois yesterday. She is beginning to ratchet up the pressure. I advised her to lay low until cabinet decides on july 23. The comments by cibc have been incredibly helpful. That just confirmed to me this was already a done deal. The job losses will be staggering… I can’t believe our stroke of luck. Please ensure you do not pass those documents to anybody else. Let’s keep them under wraps. I have put a call into Lois. I did speak to Joy. She called ron cannan to touch base and stir the pot some more. When I hear what transpired I will fill you in. It’s my understanding Campbell will be trying to sell this to his cabinet up in sechelt. Let’s hope they don’t develop a backbone overnight.”
(CIBC World Markets had been hired to organize the sale and a company analyst had caused a stir by suggesting CN was the logical buyer. Ron Cannan was then a Kelowna councilor who opposed the sale; now he’s a Conservative MP. The cabinet met in Sechelt on July 15; Reid did a telephone press call that day to try and ease fears about the sale and potential job losses.)
Finally, Giesbrecht is supposed to have e-mailed 10 former NDP MLAs on July 11 – Jom Doyle, Lois Boone, Corky Evans, David Zirnhelt, Erda Walsh, Steve Orcherton, Pietro Calendino, Glenn Robertson. Bill Goodacre and Moe Sihota.
“This is the latest. When we get a decision after July 23 I will follow up at that time.”
And there the record stops.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Who is paying lawyers for Basi and Virk?
The New Democrats have posted most of the 8,000-odd pages of material released to the defence in the B.C. Rail sale corruption case here .
I suggested it was a good chance to test citizen journalism; take a look and see if there's something you find noteworthy, and post it here - or anywhere else.
Having slogged through Binder 3, I note that Vaughn Palmer certainly makes people in government nervous.
And that taxpayers are, apparently, picking up the spectacular legal expenses for Dave Basi and Bob Virk. Documents in the binder say the deputy minister of finance and the deputy attorney general approved the indemnity in July 2005.
Taxpayers would pick up the tab for legal costs "in criminal procedures against them arising from conduct that was in the course of their employment as ministerial assistants." The reasons, offered in a briefing note, have been kept secret.
Another memo says, "Both of these individuals were told, as part of the correspondence related to the termination of their employment, that the province would consider giving them indemnity."
Which seems reasonable. If you're doing your job and end up in facing criminal charges related to your work, your employer should support unless clearly improper behaviour has taken place. That certainly hasn't been established.
And it's especially critical in this case. The prosecution appears to have a limitless budget, with a number of lawyers under special prosecutor Bill Beradino working on the case.
And, of course, remember that Glen Clark's legal costs were paid by the public, as they should have been.
I suggested it was a good chance to test citizen journalism; take a look and see if there's something you find noteworthy, and post it here - or anywhere else.
Having slogged through Binder 3, I note that Vaughn Palmer certainly makes people in government nervous.
And that taxpayers are, apparently, picking up the spectacular legal expenses for Dave Basi and Bob Virk. Documents in the binder say the deputy minister of finance and the deputy attorney general approved the indemnity in July 2005.
Taxpayers would pick up the tab for legal costs "in criminal procedures against them arising from conduct that was in the course of their employment as ministerial assistants." The reasons, offered in a briefing note, have been kept secret.
Another memo says, "Both of these individuals were told, as part of the correspondence related to the termination of their employment, that the province would consider giving them indemnity."
Which seems reasonable. If you're doing your job and end up in facing criminal charges related to your work, your employer should support unless clearly improper behaviour has taken place. That certainly hasn't been established.
And it's especially critical in this case. The prosecution appears to have a limitless budget, with a number of lawyers under special prosecutor Bill Beradino working on the case.
And, of course, remember that Glen Clark's legal costs were paid by the public, as they should have been.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Time to become a reporter
The New Democrats have posted most of the 8,000-odd pages of material released to the defence in the B.C. Rail sale corruption case here . It's your chance to be a reporter. Spend some time, find something interesting and post it as a comment, or somewhere else. Wikijournalism, you could call it.
Can the RCMP survive with its credibility gone?
I covered court in Alberta for a little while. RCMP officers often testified. Sometimes, they were a little evasive or obviously coached.
But almost invariably, I assumed you could trust their version of events.
More importantly, so did judges and juries.
Now the Dziekanski inquiry evidence shows that is no longer true.
The inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death is on a two-week break. But the evidence so far has been devastating for the RCMP’s credibility.
Three of the four officers involved have testified. Their actions seemed to me reckless and unnecessary; their response to the dying man unprofessional. But those are judgment calls the inquiry will make.
Two other things have been much more alarming.
The first is the conflict between what really happened, captured on a video that has been played over and over, second by second, and what the officers - and the RCMP said - happened.
Officers will make mistakes given the quick judgments and stresses of police work.
But we expect them to be reliable, competent, honest witnesses, even in stressful times. We believe their notes, “made in their own handwriting, at the time,” as they say in court, reflect what really happened.
The three officers who have testified at the inquiry failed that test. And the false information they provided, in their notes and in interviews that night and the next day with RCMP investigators, was self-serving. It would probably by the accepted record, if a Victoria traveller hadn’t kept his video camera rolling throughout the deadly encounter.
Const. Gerry Rundel was the first to testify at the inquiry. He told the RCMP homicide officers investigating the death that Dzienkanski had waved a stapler above his head in a threatening way.
But the video showed that never happened. Dzienkanski picked up the stapler, but never brandished it as a weapon or held it above waist height.
Const. Bill Bentley wrote in his notes that night that “subject grabbed stapler and came at officers screaming.” He told the investigators that Dziekanski “came at the police screaming.”
Bentley said that as soon as they arrived, Dziekanski started backing away, looking for something to grab. He had picked up something and “kind of swung it at us.”
The video, he conceded at the inquiry, showed that none of those things actually happened.
Bentley also told the homicide investigators Dziekanski was “fighting through” the Taser so the officers had to wrestle him to the ground. That didn’t happen either. The video shows Dziekanski being hit and falling on his back instantly. Police jumped on top of after that.
Const. Kwesi Millington told investigators Dziekanski had raised the stapler in the air and stepped toward the police in a “threatening manner.” The video showed that didn’t happen.
Millington, who fired the Taser, told investigators Dziekanski didn’t go down when he was hit. He had to be shot again and wrestled to the ground by the three officers.
The video showed Dziekanski fell immediately. The second Taser shot came literally one second later as he lay on his back, legs in the air. The officers didn’t wrestle him to the ground.
It could be understood if there were small errors in their notes and evidence. It was a stressful night.
But police are trained observers. How could they recall three officers wrestling a man to the ground, or someone charging at them screaming, when those things just didn’t happen?
Either the officers are terribly incompetent, or they were dishonest. And without the video - which the RCMP tried to suppress - their stories would not likely have been questioned.
The other troubling aspect of their testimony was the statements by all three that they had followed policy and their training. They would do nothing different if confronted with the same situation, they testified.
The RCMP’s credibility is essential to its effectiveness. It is now in tatters.
Footnote: The inquiry is on a two-week break. The fourth RCMP officer will testify on March 23, when it resumes. Crown prosecutors decided against charging the officers with any offences after receiving the report from RCMP investigators. It’s not known how significant the officers’ inaccurate statements were in that process.
But almost invariably, I assumed you could trust their version of events.
More importantly, so did judges and juries.
Now the Dziekanski inquiry evidence shows that is no longer true.
The inquiry into Robert Dziekanski’s death is on a two-week break. But the evidence so far has been devastating for the RCMP’s credibility.
Three of the four officers involved have testified. Their actions seemed to me reckless and unnecessary; their response to the dying man unprofessional. But those are judgment calls the inquiry will make.
Two other things have been much more alarming.
The first is the conflict between what really happened, captured on a video that has been played over and over, second by second, and what the officers - and the RCMP said - happened.
Officers will make mistakes given the quick judgments and stresses of police work.
But we expect them to be reliable, competent, honest witnesses, even in stressful times. We believe their notes, “made in their own handwriting, at the time,” as they say in court, reflect what really happened.
The three officers who have testified at the inquiry failed that test. And the false information they provided, in their notes and in interviews that night and the next day with RCMP investigators, was self-serving. It would probably by the accepted record, if a Victoria traveller hadn’t kept his video camera rolling throughout the deadly encounter.
Const. Gerry Rundel was the first to testify at the inquiry. He told the RCMP homicide officers investigating the death that Dzienkanski had waved a stapler above his head in a threatening way.
But the video showed that never happened. Dzienkanski picked up the stapler, but never brandished it as a weapon or held it above waist height.
Const. Bill Bentley wrote in his notes that night that “subject grabbed stapler and came at officers screaming.” He told the investigators that Dziekanski “came at the police screaming.”
Bentley said that as soon as they arrived, Dziekanski started backing away, looking for something to grab. He had picked up something and “kind of swung it at us.”
The video, he conceded at the inquiry, showed that none of those things actually happened.
Bentley also told the homicide investigators Dziekanski was “fighting through” the Taser so the officers had to wrestle him to the ground. That didn’t happen either. The video shows Dziekanski being hit and falling on his back instantly. Police jumped on top of after that.
Const. Kwesi Millington told investigators Dziekanski had raised the stapler in the air and stepped toward the police in a “threatening manner.” The video showed that didn’t happen.
Millington, who fired the Taser, told investigators Dziekanski didn’t go down when he was hit. He had to be shot again and wrestled to the ground by the three officers.
The video showed Dziekanski fell immediately. The second Taser shot came literally one second later as he lay on his back, legs in the air. The officers didn’t wrestle him to the ground.
It could be understood if there were small errors in their notes and evidence. It was a stressful night.
But police are trained observers. How could they recall three officers wrestling a man to the ground, or someone charging at them screaming, when those things just didn’t happen?
Either the officers are terribly incompetent, or they were dishonest. And without the video - which the RCMP tried to suppress - their stories would not likely have been questioned.
The other troubling aspect of their testimony was the statements by all three that they had followed policy and their training. They would do nothing different if confronted with the same situation, they testified.
The RCMP’s credibility is essential to its effectiveness. It is now in tatters.
Footnote: The inquiry is on a two-week break. The fourth RCMP officer will testify on March 23, when it resumes. Crown prosecutors decided against charging the officers with any offences after receiving the report from RCMP investigators. It’s not known how significant the officers’ inaccurate statements were in that process.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Not all sex trade workers are on the street
It's easy to fall into cliche and stereotype when it comes to sex workers. And false assumptions usually work to push many of them farther into the margins. Jody Paterson highlights a good example here .
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Heeding threats and playing nice with government not best course
Today, a lesson for everyone who deals with government, courtesy of John Les and the rural stores that sell alcohol.
The stores' owners believed they were being treated unfairly a few years ago.
The government had cut wholesale prices for private liquor stores, boosting their profits (at taxpayers' expense). But the rural agents hadn't got the same break.
Keep quiet, Les warned them in 2007, and I might get you a better deal.
But if the issue hit the media or was raised in the legislature, they could forget about getting anything done.
"One more question in QP [question period] or an article in the paper and it's over," said Les, then the solicitor general.
So the stores' owners stayed quiet, for two years. Until finally, this year, the owners decided they had been played for saps. Staying quiet for two years got them nothing.
It's a dilemma, for businesses and social service agencies and municipalities and anyone else who think they're getting a bad deal from government.
Play nice with the party in power, work quietly and hope things turn out OK.
Or raise the problems publicly, so the government feels political pressure to deal with the issue.
It's a scary decision. Government's have immense power. A school district or social service agency or business worries about reprisals if it makes waves. What if funding disappears?
Most reporters have talked with people representing organizations who feel they're being hurt by poor government policies, but are afraid to air their concerns.
Better to work within the system, most decide
The rural liquor agents said they took Les's 2007 comments as a threat. It wasn't right, some said, but they decided to keep things quiet.
It does sound much like that.
"All this talk and e-mails flying around is not helpful," Les wrote. "It will get out to those who are not helpful and a huge fuss will break out and I won't be able to help you."
If the store owners let anyone know they felt they were being treated unfairly, that would be it, Les said. They would be shut out, their concerns ignored.
Which is interesting, in that another group - an association of home inspectors - had earlier claimed Les threatened them, not because they went public, but because the premier with their concerns.
Les, the home inspectors said in a subsequent letter to the premier, had responded by calling them stupid. He warned that if they "ever wrote to the premier again, he would drop the issue of consumer protection for B.C. homebuyers." Les denied the claims.
Here's where the lesson gets meaningful. The home inspectors went public, made their case and, after almost three years, won their goal - licensing and government regulation.
The liquor agents played along with Les and the Liberals. They got nothing. While the private liquor stores - much better politically connected - have received financial help from the government, the liquor agents have been left out of the generosity. (That's probably the right decision. The businesses signed on to sell liquor based on the existing price structure. If they don't like the deal, they can give up the business.)
It's an example that others should consider, especially as we head into what looks like a year of cuts to services and supports. The politicians from the party in power always urge silence and patience. Just work with us, they say. And behind the vague promises, lies the implied threat that making waves will kill any hopes of progress on the issue.
But it didn't work out that way in these examples.
Which seems understandable. Governments are moved by public pressure. And as long as problems are hushed up, they're more apt to ignore them and concentrate on other priorities.
Working to persuade government is useful. But the threat of a little public heat can help make things happen as well.
Footnote: Meanwhile, Les remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in relations to land deals when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the 1990s. A special prosecutor has been on the case for 20 months. It is unfair to the public - and especially to Les - that the investigation is taken so long to come up with any conclusions.
The stores' owners believed they were being treated unfairly a few years ago.
The government had cut wholesale prices for private liquor stores, boosting their profits (at taxpayers' expense). But the rural agents hadn't got the same break.
Keep quiet, Les warned them in 2007, and I might get you a better deal.
But if the issue hit the media or was raised in the legislature, they could forget about getting anything done.
"One more question in QP [question period] or an article in the paper and it's over," said Les, then the solicitor general.
So the stores' owners stayed quiet, for two years. Until finally, this year, the owners decided they had been played for saps. Staying quiet for two years got them nothing.
It's a dilemma, for businesses and social service agencies and municipalities and anyone else who think they're getting a bad deal from government.
Play nice with the party in power, work quietly and hope things turn out OK.
Or raise the problems publicly, so the government feels political pressure to deal with the issue.
It's a scary decision. Government's have immense power. A school district or social service agency or business worries about reprisals if it makes waves. What if funding disappears?
Most reporters have talked with people representing organizations who feel they're being hurt by poor government policies, but are afraid to air their concerns.
Better to work within the system, most decide
The rural liquor agents said they took Les's 2007 comments as a threat. It wasn't right, some said, but they decided to keep things quiet.
It does sound much like that.
"All this talk and e-mails flying around is not helpful," Les wrote. "It will get out to those who are not helpful and a huge fuss will break out and I won't be able to help you."
If the store owners let anyone know they felt they were being treated unfairly, that would be it, Les said. They would be shut out, their concerns ignored.
Which is interesting, in that another group - an association of home inspectors - had earlier claimed Les threatened them, not because they went public, but because the premier with their concerns.
Les, the home inspectors said in a subsequent letter to the premier, had responded by calling them stupid. He warned that if they "ever wrote to the premier again, he would drop the issue of consumer protection for B.C. homebuyers." Les denied the claims.
Here's where the lesson gets meaningful. The home inspectors went public, made their case and, after almost three years, won their goal - licensing and government regulation.
The liquor agents played along with Les and the Liberals. They got nothing. While the private liquor stores - much better politically connected - have received financial help from the government, the liquor agents have been left out of the generosity. (That's probably the right decision. The businesses signed on to sell liquor based on the existing price structure. If they don't like the deal, they can give up the business.)
It's an example that others should consider, especially as we head into what looks like a year of cuts to services and supports. The politicians from the party in power always urge silence and patience. Just work with us, they say. And behind the vague promises, lies the implied threat that making waves will kill any hopes of progress on the issue.
But it didn't work out that way in these examples.
Which seems understandable. Governments are moved by public pressure. And as long as problems are hushed up, they're more apt to ignore them and concentrate on other priorities.
Working to persuade government is useful. But the threat of a little public heat can help make things happen as well.
Footnote: Meanwhile, Les remains under investigation by a special prosecutor in relations to land deals when he was mayor of Chilliwack in the 1990s. A special prosecutor has been on the case for 20 months. It is unfair to the public - and especially to Les - that the investigation is taken so long to come up with any conclusions.
Taxpayers supporting Liberal attack campaign
Here's what the NDP transportation critic said about the Port Mann bridge project in question period yesterday.
M. Karagianis: Well, the minister cannot be serious about that. But listen. The reality is the project is late, it's massively over budget, and the financing scheme has collapsed. This isn't just a failure, but it's an embarrassment for the minister and it's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. My question to the minister is simply: will he reveal to British Columbians the cost of this embarrassing failure? How much are we paying because he ignored the warnings, blindly pursued a privatization scheme, wasted time on his failed financing deal and pushed the costs through the roof?
And here's the resulting news release from the Liberal caucus, produced by government employees.
BC Liberal Government Caucus
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009
NDP CALL PORT MANN 'A COLOSSAL WASTE'
VICTORIA -NDP transportation critic Maurine Karagianis continues to reject the new Port Mann Bridge and the 8,000 jobs that will be created during construction.
The NDP's opposition to the bridge was reconfirmed in today's Question Period at the B.C. Legislature, when Karagianis called the Port Mann Bridge project: "...a colossal waste of taxpayers' money."
It seems dishonest, the kind of activity that brings politics and politicians into disrepute.
And it raises the question of why, when the government is citing a desperate need to cut spending, taxpayers' money is being used for this kind of activity instead of for health care or commun ity safety.
M. Karagianis: Well, the minister cannot be serious about that. But listen. The reality is the project is late, it's massively over budget, and the financing scheme has collapsed. This isn't just a failure, but it's an embarrassment for the minister and it's also a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. My question to the minister is simply: will he reveal to British Columbians the cost of this embarrassing failure? How much are we paying because he ignored the warnings, blindly pursued a privatization scheme, wasted time on his failed financing deal and pushed the costs through the roof?
And here's the resulting news release from the Liberal caucus, produced by government employees.
BC Liberal Government Caucus
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
March 2, 2009
NDP CALL PORT MANN 'A COLOSSAL WASTE'
VICTORIA -NDP transportation critic Maurine Karagianis continues to reject the new Port Mann Bridge and the 8,000 jobs that will be created during construction.
The NDP's opposition to the bridge was reconfirmed in today's Question Period at the B.C. Legislature, when Karagianis called the Port Mann Bridge project: "...a colossal waste of taxpayers' money."
It seems dishonest, the kind of activity that brings politics and politicians into disrepute.
And it raises the question of why, when the government is citing a desperate need to cut spending, taxpayers' money is being used for this kind of activity instead of for health care or commun ity safety.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Now you can be in the scrums
The NDP has started mining the 8,000 pages of FOI material that defence lawyers in the B.C. Rail corruption trial obtained from the government. The first revelations dealt with the public affairs bureau tactics in controlling the news agenda when the legislature is sitting and allegations government employees are working on Liberal party fundraising. You can check Hansard for today's question period to get the highlights, or go here .
But I wanted to draw your attention publiceyeonline.com's video of Attorney General Wally Opall's response to the issue. Sean Holman has begun posting video from scrums. It's a great service. People can now see exactly what their elected representatives are saying about the issues, no matter where they are in the province. And instead of half-a-dozen reporters assessing the answers, experts and those on the front lines can respond to the politicians' claims.
It is a great step forward in political reporting.
But I wanted to draw your attention publiceyeonline.com's video of Attorney General Wally Opall's response to the issue. Sean Holman has begun posting video from scrums. It's a great service. People can now see exactly what their elected representatives are saying about the issues, no matter where they are in the province. And instead of half-a-dozen reporters assessing the answers, experts and those on the front lines can respond to the politicians' claims.
It is a great step forward in political reporting.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Falcon wrong; taxpayers will pay for Port Mann
No to appear smug, but when the government announced a few weeks ago that the Port Mann bridge cost had doubled to $3.3 billion and that taxpayers would loan more than $1 billion to the public-private partnership because no private lender would take the risk, I raised some concerns. One was that the numbers no longer made sense - that the $3 tolls, rising with inflation, would not be enough to cover construction and operating costs and taxpayers would end up subsidizing the private partners.
No way, said the enthusiastic Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. Full speed ahead.
Now the public-private partnership has fallen apart, because - in large measure - the companies didn't think the future tolls would cover their cost. (Which raises the question of how I could do the numbers and Falcon couldn't.) Either tolls wil be higher, or taxpayers will be paying for the bridge, contrary to Falcon's repeated commitments.
Public-private partnerships can be a sound choice. The costs are potentially higher, but the risks of overruns and delays - the norm in megaprojects - can be largely transferred to the private partners.
But if the private sector walks away from the projects with too much risk, questions can be asked about whether government should be looking harder at traditional approaches for projects - even large ones - where risks are manageable.
One area of debate about public-private partnerships has been the extra cost of corporate borrowing compared to the government's low rate. Jeff Nagel nailed down the premium in this case and learned interest costs will be reduced by $200 million now that the Port Mann is not a P3. Again, that could be a worthwhile investment in risk reduction in some cases, but not for every project.
No way, said the enthusiastic Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. Full speed ahead.
Now the public-private partnership has fallen apart, because - in large measure - the companies didn't think the future tolls would cover their cost. (Which raises the question of how I could do the numbers and Falcon couldn't.) Either tolls wil be higher, or taxpayers will be paying for the bridge, contrary to Falcon's repeated commitments.
Public-private partnerships can be a sound choice. The costs are potentially higher, but the risks of overruns and delays - the norm in megaprojects - can be largely transferred to the private partners.
But if the private sector walks away from the projects with too much risk, questions can be asked about whether government should be looking harder at traditional approaches for projects - even large ones - where risks are manageable.
One area of debate about public-private partnerships has been the extra cost of corporate borrowing compared to the government's low rate. Jeff Nagel nailed down the premium in this case and learned interest costs will be reduced by $200 million now that the Port Mann is not a P3. Again, that could be a worthwhile investment in risk reduction in some cases, but not for every project.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Child care "system in crisis" starved in budget
Let us begin with four realities.
It's bad to be a kid in the government's care - in foster care or group homes. No matter how well it goes - and statistically, it likely won't - the care of the state is not the same as a family home.
It's challenging to give kids in care a real chance. When parents can't care for a child, things have usually already gone wrong. Children born into neglect, abuse, poverty, illness, disability - or simply unlucky - wear some scars.
It's certain that things will go wrong, sometimes with terrible consequences. Child protection workers, for example, make huge decisions based on their best professional judgments. Leave a child with a struggling family or send her off, with a little suitcase, to a home of strangers? Either way, the outcome can be bad.
And how we do in helping these children is one of those fundamental tests of whether we are a successful society, or a collection of self-interested individuals. There is no moral difference between walking past a lost toddler in the street and failing to pay attention to the life of a four-year-old in care.
The NDP had a leaked government report this week that suggested that, in some form, that's what we're doing.
The ministry of children and families had noticed that residential costs for the some 9,000 children in care were rising, even though the number of children being raised was stable and they weren't doing any better.
So it set up a group to look at why costs were going up.
They did good work, although the recommendations focus heavily on process and more study.
The report, completed last summer, found costs were rising for a lot of reasons.
The level of support required for children in care has risen. They are more likely to have serious health and behavioural problems. That could be seen as a positive, of course, because it might mean children with fewer problems are being supported with their homes.
Compensation, for foster parents and care home workers, has fallen behind. The ministry report noted that the pays is the same for hosting an international student, with few responsibilities, or a troubled 14-year-old foster child with attitude to burn.
Foster parents were either aging, or inexperienced. (About 12 per cent per cent were over 60.) Either way, they really weren't able to foster the more challenging children.
And schools, facing their own pressures, have become more inclined to expel or suspend students, the report found. That's obviously bad for the children and also increases the costs of providing care.
The results of all this compound the problems. The report found social workers were scrambling to deal with the lack of resources. That means less attention to the needs of the children - barely one in four children in care have the required plans for their development. And it means more foster parents give up in frustration.
The number of foster homes fell by eight per cent across B.C. in the 18 months prior to the report. In the North and on Vancouver Island about 15 per cent fewer homes were available; in the Interior, about 11 per cent.
As a result, foster homes often had more children than ministry guidelines called for and costly alternative placements became more common.
The report, done by the ministry's own staff, highlights real problems. It concludes that the review "revealed a system in crisis and in need of innovation."
You would expect some specific actions in response, starting with the most obvious - additional funding to deal with the problems.
But the provincial budget for child and family development is effectively frozen for the coming year - it will increase less than one-quarter of one per cent. The budget increases for the following two years are about the same.
It's no response to a "system in crisis."
Footnote: Child and Youth Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislative officer tasked with monitoring the ministry as a result of the Hughes report, said she had asked for any reports dealing with financial pressures. This report had not been provided by the ministry. Christensen could not say why.
It's bad to be a kid in the government's care - in foster care or group homes. No matter how well it goes - and statistically, it likely won't - the care of the state is not the same as a family home.
It's challenging to give kids in care a real chance. When parents can't care for a child, things have usually already gone wrong. Children born into neglect, abuse, poverty, illness, disability - or simply unlucky - wear some scars.
It's certain that things will go wrong, sometimes with terrible consequences. Child protection workers, for example, make huge decisions based on their best professional judgments. Leave a child with a struggling family or send her off, with a little suitcase, to a home of strangers? Either way, the outcome can be bad.
And how we do in helping these children is one of those fundamental tests of whether we are a successful society, or a collection of self-interested individuals. There is no moral difference between walking past a lost toddler in the street and failing to pay attention to the life of a four-year-old in care.
The NDP had a leaked government report this week that suggested that, in some form, that's what we're doing.
The ministry of children and families had noticed that residential costs for the some 9,000 children in care were rising, even though the number of children being raised was stable and they weren't doing any better.
So it set up a group to look at why costs were going up.
They did good work, although the recommendations focus heavily on process and more study.
The report, completed last summer, found costs were rising for a lot of reasons.
The level of support required for children in care has risen. They are more likely to have serious health and behavioural problems. That could be seen as a positive, of course, because it might mean children with fewer problems are being supported with their homes.
Compensation, for foster parents and care home workers, has fallen behind. The ministry report noted that the pays is the same for hosting an international student, with few responsibilities, or a troubled 14-year-old foster child with attitude to burn.
Foster parents were either aging, or inexperienced. (About 12 per cent per cent were over 60.) Either way, they really weren't able to foster the more challenging children.
And schools, facing their own pressures, have become more inclined to expel or suspend students, the report found. That's obviously bad for the children and also increases the costs of providing care.
The results of all this compound the problems. The report found social workers were scrambling to deal with the lack of resources. That means less attention to the needs of the children - barely one in four children in care have the required plans for their development. And it means more foster parents give up in frustration.
The number of foster homes fell by eight per cent across B.C. in the 18 months prior to the report. In the North and on Vancouver Island about 15 per cent fewer homes were available; in the Interior, about 11 per cent.
As a result, foster homes often had more children than ministry guidelines called for and costly alternative placements became more common.
The report, done by the ministry's own staff, highlights real problems. It concludes that the review "revealed a system in crisis and in need of innovation."
You would expect some specific actions in response, starting with the most obvious - additional funding to deal with the problems.
But the provincial budget for child and family development is effectively frozen for the coming year - it will increase less than one-quarter of one per cent. The budget increases for the following two years are about the same.
It's no response to a "system in crisis."
Footnote: Child and Youth Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the legislative officer tasked with monitoring the ministry as a result of the Hughes report, said she had asked for any reports dealing with financial pressures. This report had not been provided by the ministry. Christensen could not say why.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Balancing the budget at the expense of kids in care
The budget for child and family services is neffectively frozen in the budget, with token increases averaging less tahn 0ne-half per cent per year.
Yet a ministry working group reported last year that children are already being hurt - and social workers swamped - because of inadequate residential care for many of the more than 9,000 children in care. A Times Colonist editorial looks at the betrayal.
Yet a ministry working group reported last year that children are already being hurt - and social workers swamped - because of inadequate residential care for many of the more than 9,000 children in care. A Times Colonist editorial looks at the betrayal.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Bleak moments in the legislature
A video from Hansard of so-called debate in the legislature that is worth viewing. The dispute came as Kevn Krueger, always a loyal foot soldier, refused to answer even the most simple questions about spending in his ministry, looking increasing a person who had lost all contact with reality. It ends with a spectator getting kicked out for an outburst about Krueher's bizarre performance. The only wonder is that people aren't moved to shouted protests more often.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Games security secrecy, overruns and taxpayer abuse
One of the surreal moments in last week's budget lock-up came when Finance Minister Colin Hansen was asked about Olympic security costs.
Yes, there was extra money in the budget for Games security, he said.
But the amount was secret.
So was where it had been hidden in the hundreds of pages of budget documents. The federal government wanted the costs to be kept from the public for now, Hansen said.
Two days later - on the day Barack Obama visited Ottawa and grabbed all the media attention - the federal government came clean.
Games security, which was to cost $175 million, is now forecast at $900 million. The cost might go higher and the figure doesn't cover all the Games-related security costs.
It's the kind of trick governments play when they hope to get away with something. If there's bad news - and a 500-per-cent increase in security costs is bad news - they try and release it on a day when there's a bigger story, or late on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.
Hansen then came clean on the province's contribution. It's the kind of deal that would make most corporate CFOs nervous.
This gets a little hard to follow - always a bad sign when it comes to organizations' financial wheeling and dealing.
The original agreement was that the federal and provincial governments would each pay half of the $175 million.
As the real costs rose higher and higher, the governments secretly wrangled about how much the province should pay. B.C. feared being stuck with paying for new equipment or training exercises that weren't really needed for the Games.
Everyone played nice and B.C. agreed to pay about 22 per cent of the excess costs, instead of half - about $163 million on top of the already committed $87.5 million.
That was still bad news, since both Hansen and Premier Gordon Campbell had insisted the security budget was adequate.
The promised cap of $600 million on provincial Olympic spending - a total misrepresentation itself - had also been broken.
The Games are now, even by Campbell's accounting, more than 25 per cent over budget.
But here it gets weirder. The deal won't see the province actually write a cheque to Ottawa for the extra costs.
Instead, it cut a side deal. The federal government and B.C. have about $2 billion worth of cost-shared infrastructure projects in the works. The province will increase its contribution to those by $163 million; the federal share will be reduced.
On the plus side, it lets the province spread the spending over the next three years.
But the deal also distorts the province's budgets. You're supposed to record expenses as they occur. The Games security costs would have been included in the budget that Hansen just introduced. That would have pushed the projected deficit from $495 million to $650 million.
The whole Games security costs should be a significant scandal.
The $175-million security budget was part of the package used to sell the Games to British Columbians. The IOC said it was inadequate almost from the outset of the process. The auditor general warned six years ago that more money would likely be needed. The RCMP sounded the alarm.
But Hansen and Campbell continued to insist the funding was adequate. Even last year Hansen told the legislature he didn't expect the province to contribute more than $87.5 million for security.
So either the costs increased 500 per cent in the last few months, the government wasn't paying adequate attention or it wasn't being open and straightforward with the public. Or perhaps some combination of the three.
The big political problem is the secrecy and evasions. The Games' costs have actually been well-managed, particularly venue construction.
An early admission of problems with the security budget, along with a straightforward willingness to acknowledge all the real Games costs, would have headed off the scandal.
Footnote: How ridiculous was it to keep defending the original $175-million security budget? Consider that security in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Games cost twice that amount. By the Turin Games four years ago, the security budget had reached $1.4 billion. Yet B.C. still claimed that protecting the scattered sites in Vancouver and Whistler would cost far less.
Yes, there was extra money in the budget for Games security, he said.
But the amount was secret.
So was where it had been hidden in the hundreds of pages of budget documents. The federal government wanted the costs to be kept from the public for now, Hansen said.
Two days later - on the day Barack Obama visited Ottawa and grabbed all the media attention - the federal government came clean.
Games security, which was to cost $175 million, is now forecast at $900 million. The cost might go higher and the figure doesn't cover all the Games-related security costs.
It's the kind of trick governments play when they hope to get away with something. If there's bad news - and a 500-per-cent increase in security costs is bad news - they try and release it on a day when there's a bigger story, or late on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.
Hansen then came clean on the province's contribution. It's the kind of deal that would make most corporate CFOs nervous.
This gets a little hard to follow - always a bad sign when it comes to organizations' financial wheeling and dealing.
The original agreement was that the federal and provincial governments would each pay half of the $175 million.
As the real costs rose higher and higher, the governments secretly wrangled about how much the province should pay. B.C. feared being stuck with paying for new equipment or training exercises that weren't really needed for the Games.
Everyone played nice and B.C. agreed to pay about 22 per cent of the excess costs, instead of half - about $163 million on top of the already committed $87.5 million.
That was still bad news, since both Hansen and Premier Gordon Campbell had insisted the security budget was adequate.
The promised cap of $600 million on provincial Olympic spending - a total misrepresentation itself - had also been broken.
The Games are now, even by Campbell's accounting, more than 25 per cent over budget.
But here it gets weirder. The deal won't see the province actually write a cheque to Ottawa for the extra costs.
Instead, it cut a side deal. The federal government and B.C. have about $2 billion worth of cost-shared infrastructure projects in the works. The province will increase its contribution to those by $163 million; the federal share will be reduced.
On the plus side, it lets the province spread the spending over the next three years.
But the deal also distorts the province's budgets. You're supposed to record expenses as they occur. The Games security costs would have been included in the budget that Hansen just introduced. That would have pushed the projected deficit from $495 million to $650 million.
The whole Games security costs should be a significant scandal.
The $175-million security budget was part of the package used to sell the Games to British Columbians. The IOC said it was inadequate almost from the outset of the process. The auditor general warned six years ago that more money would likely be needed. The RCMP sounded the alarm.
But Hansen and Campbell continued to insist the funding was adequate. Even last year Hansen told the legislature he didn't expect the province to contribute more than $87.5 million for security.
So either the costs increased 500 per cent in the last few months, the government wasn't paying adequate attention or it wasn't being open and straightforward with the public. Or perhaps some combination of the three.
The big political problem is the secrecy and evasions. The Games' costs have actually been well-managed, particularly venue construction.
An early admission of problems with the security budget, along with a straightforward willingness to acknowledge all the real Games costs, would have headed off the scandal.
Footnote: How ridiculous was it to keep defending the original $175-million security budget? Consider that security in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Games cost twice that amount. By the Turin Games four years ago, the security budget had reached $1.4 billion. Yet B.C. still claimed that protecting the scattered sites in Vancouver and Whistler would cost far less.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Truth in budgeting
I did not think the Liberals would stumble like this . The government has earned good marks for financial transparency and - except for the excessive conservatism that produced excessive surpluses - reasonable projections.
But last week's budget underestimates expenses and, according to at least one respected economist, inflates revenues.
What's particularly strange is that this is all unnecessary. As Stephen Harper showed, deficits are considered OK in the face of the economic slide. (As they should be.)
But last week's budget underestimates expenses and, according to at least one respected economist, inflates revenues.
What's particularly strange is that this is all unnecessary. As Stephen Harper showed, deficits are considered OK in the face of the economic slide. (As they should be.)
Friday, February 20, 2009
The effectiveness of Patrick Kinsella
The client list of adviser Patrick Kinsella - former provincial Liberal election campign co-chair - is impressive. So was his dismissal of B.C.'s lobbyist registry as, ultimately, a failure.
Sean Holman has identified another interesting client .
Once you've read the piece, search Holman's site on Patrick Kinsella and read the other posts.
Sean Holman has identified another interesting client .
Once you've read the piece, search Holman's site on Patrick Kinsella and read the other posts.
Budget looks more hopeful than credible
The more time I spend with the government's numbers, the more improbable the budget looks.
The plan - especially in years two and three - looks to rely heavily on optimism. The claim that budgets will be balanced by the 2011 fiscal year, after small two deficits, is shaky at best.
Unless, that is, the government is prepared to do some heavy slashing and burning in programs and services.
It's a touchy subject for both main parties. In 1996, the NDP tabled a budget that claimed two successive surpluses - in the fiscal year just about to end and the new budget year.
The claims were false, based largely on unrealistic revenue forecasts. A lot of Liberals believe the NDP stole that election. It still rankles.
Now, on the eve of another election, the Liberals are projecting a skinny surplus this year and two years of small deficits before a legislated return to balanced budgets.
The surplus this year should be attainable. There are less than two months until the March 31 fiscal year-end and a big contingency fund.
And the government might be able to hit its projected $495-million deficit in the coming year.
But there are questions even about that.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen has abandoned one of the symbols of Liberal prudence. Budgets have included "forecast allowances" of about $800 million - a cushion against surprises.
There is no forecast allowance for the next three years. If something goes wrong, spending must be cut or deficits will rise.
And spending cuts would be difficult.
The three-year-plan sees overall expenses rising by about two per cent on average.
But that's mostly health spending. Strip away health and education, and government spending is to be cut almost four per cent this year, three per cent next and then frozen at the lower level in the third year, resulting in a barely balanced budget.
Which, as you run options through a spreadsheet, might seem perfectly possible.
But the Environment Ministry, for example, faces a five-per-cent budget cut this year, and then another one per cent cut in each of the next two years. By 2011, the ministry responsible for environmental protection and climate change action, will have seven per cent less resources than it does today.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has been batted around in the legislature in the days since the budget.
With good reason. His budget calls for cuts to prosecutors and court services, at a time when gangs are doing their best to act out Scarface on Vancouver streets. The 767 people working on prosecution services are to be cut to 661 over the next three years.
Pressed in a scrum, the lightly prepared Oppal said the budget numbers for the last two years of the three-year plan were flexible. If the ministry needed more money, it would spend it.
But that means either cuts somewhere else or a deficit instead of the promised balanced budget in 2011.
And there really isn't anywhere else to cut. The Ministry of Children and Families gets increase of one per cent, one per cent and zero. It plans to cut almost 200 positions in child and family development work.
There's less money for housing, forests, tourism, at a time when needs are acute.
The budget documents even highlight the problems.
The finance deputy minister notes that the budget includes $250 million more in spending cuts by 2011/12 that have yet to be identified.
It's weird, really. Instead of deficits of $495 million and $245 million, big risks and harsh cuts, the government could have gone with $1.2-billion deficits each year and put off a balanced budget for an extra year.
The debt increase wouldn't have been significant, especially if the government's prediction of a quick return to growth is accurate.
And services and the Liberals' credibility would have both been protected.
Footnote: Politically, the budget makes no sense. If Stephen Harper has embraced five years of deficits, surely three years in B.C. would be acceptable. And why raise the spectre of a hidden agenda of cuts to programs and services?
The plan - especially in years two and three - looks to rely heavily on optimism. The claim that budgets will be balanced by the 2011 fiscal year, after small two deficits, is shaky at best.
Unless, that is, the government is prepared to do some heavy slashing and burning in programs and services.
It's a touchy subject for both main parties. In 1996, the NDP tabled a budget that claimed two successive surpluses - in the fiscal year just about to end and the new budget year.
The claims were false, based largely on unrealistic revenue forecasts. A lot of Liberals believe the NDP stole that election. It still rankles.
Now, on the eve of another election, the Liberals are projecting a skinny surplus this year and two years of small deficits before a legislated return to balanced budgets.
The surplus this year should be attainable. There are less than two months until the March 31 fiscal year-end and a big contingency fund.
And the government might be able to hit its projected $495-million deficit in the coming year.
But there are questions even about that.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen has abandoned one of the symbols of Liberal prudence. Budgets have included "forecast allowances" of about $800 million - a cushion against surprises.
There is no forecast allowance for the next three years. If something goes wrong, spending must be cut or deficits will rise.
And spending cuts would be difficult.
The three-year-plan sees overall expenses rising by about two per cent on average.
But that's mostly health spending. Strip away health and education, and government spending is to be cut almost four per cent this year, three per cent next and then frozen at the lower level in the third year, resulting in a barely balanced budget.
Which, as you run options through a spreadsheet, might seem perfectly possible.
But the Environment Ministry, for example, faces a five-per-cent budget cut this year, and then another one per cent cut in each of the next two years. By 2011, the ministry responsible for environmental protection and climate change action, will have seven per cent less resources than it does today.
Attorney General Wally Oppal has been batted around in the legislature in the days since the budget.
With good reason. His budget calls for cuts to prosecutors and court services, at a time when gangs are doing their best to act out Scarface on Vancouver streets. The 767 people working on prosecution services are to be cut to 661 over the next three years.
Pressed in a scrum, the lightly prepared Oppal said the budget numbers for the last two years of the three-year plan were flexible. If the ministry needed more money, it would spend it.
But that means either cuts somewhere else or a deficit instead of the promised balanced budget in 2011.
And there really isn't anywhere else to cut. The Ministry of Children and Families gets increase of one per cent, one per cent and zero. It plans to cut almost 200 positions in child and family development work.
There's less money for housing, forests, tourism, at a time when needs are acute.
The budget documents even highlight the problems.
The finance deputy minister notes that the budget includes $250 million more in spending cuts by 2011/12 that have yet to be identified.
It's weird, really. Instead of deficits of $495 million and $245 million, big risks and harsh cuts, the government could have gone with $1.2-billion deficits each year and put off a balanced budget for an extra year.
The debt increase wouldn't have been significant, especially if the government's prediction of a quick return to growth is accurate.
And services and the Liberals' credibility would have both been protected.
Footnote: Politically, the budget makes no sense. If Stephen Harper has embraced five years of deficits, surely three years in B.C. would be acceptable. And why raise the spectre of a hidden agenda of cuts to programs and services?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Budget, third thoughts
Attorney General Wally Oppal has a tougher time staying on message than most politicians. His candour, or lack of preparation can lead to blurts and admissions in the public interest. Of course, that means political staffers cringe in terror whenever he stands up to speak.
This week, Oppal raised questions about how real the numbers are in years two and three of the budget plan — the ones that show the path to a return to balanced bnudgets.
Confronted with the fact that the budget calls for staff cuts in the justice system just as the public is concerned about gang crime, Oppal said there is nothing to worry about. The numbers are just projections anyway. If they need to spend more, they will.
But that's not what the budget is supposed to be. It's supposed to be prudent and an accurate forecast of government plans. Unless, of course, that got lost in the rush to paint a picture that showed only two, small deficits.
This week, Oppal raised questions about how real the numbers are in years two and three of the budget plan — the ones that show the path to a return to balanced bnudgets.
Confronted with the fact that the budget calls for staff cuts in the justice system just as the public is concerned about gang crime, Oppal said there is nothing to worry about. The numbers are just projections anyway. If they need to spend more, they will.
But that's not what the budget is supposed to be. It's supposed to be prudent and an accurate forecast of government plans. Unless, of course, that got lost in the rush to paint a picture that showed only two, small deficits.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Budget, second thoughts
I've been having second thoughts about the budget column. Mostly, I'm looking at ministry service plans and thinking that cuts will be deeper than it first appeared. Sean Holman has some interesting reports on the budget and a memo from public sector head Jessica McDonald to employees suggesting significant layoffs are possible.
Budget '09: Timidity trumps vision
We got a timid provincial budget Tuesday, when boldness would have been welcome.
The good news, for most British Columbians, is that health care spending has been protected. It will increase by about six per cent a year through the budget period.
That's not enough to allow improvements, given population growth and inflation, but things shouldn't get worse.
But except for health, the Liberal government worried too much about keeping deficits small and brief and too little about economic stimulus and the needs of British Columbians.
Across the rest of ministries, taken as a whole, spending will be pretty much frozen in the coming year, rising by about one-half of one per cent.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen hopes that administrative savings - travelling less, or using fewer consultants - can be found to avoid program cuts.
The big guys always say that. The reality is usually different.
The budget for children and families, for example, is effectively frozen, despite increasing demand, rising costs and frustrations about inadequate services now. B.C. Housing spending will be cut by $92 million - about 15 per cent.
Funding for police will rise 5.1 per cent this year, mainly to cover RCMP contract costs, and then be frozen for the following two years. Aboriginal Affairs will lose 18 per cent of its funding this year; Community Services about 17 per cent.
The focus on "belt-tightening," as Hansen described it, is misplaced.
The Liberals' commitment to balanced budgets was laudable in normal times. In this kind of slowdown, it risks further damage to the economy, individuals and communities.
The budget projects a deficit of $495 million and $245 million in the following year before being exactly balanced in 2011/12.
Those projections - for the first time in years - include no forecast allowance. Typically, the government has included at least $750 million as a cushion against the unexpected.
Hansen points to infrastructure spending as the province's preferred form of economic stimulus. But the budget basically included already scheduled projects, plus about $2 billion in new spending as a result of the federal stimulus package.
But at the same time, the government appears to have turned its back on other forms of stimulus that doesn't involve paving or building bridges.
Arts and culture spending, for example, will be cut in half by the 2010 budget year. That means lost jobs, but also lost economic opportunities as festivals and community events fold.
The budget also comes up short on measures specifically aimed at B.C. communities outside the Lower Mainland. (Although that might change, if the infrastructure funding details include money for throne speech commitments in the north, like the Cariboo Connector and new power transmission lines.'
It's also unclear how much this budget will ultimately matter. The government will shut down the legislature before it is voted on. A new version, possibly quite different, will be introduced in September.
The budget is also based on a quick economic recovery for B.C., something that is far from assured.
It was also striking how little this looked like a pre-election budget. There's no theme, no grand vision, just a commitment to health care and caution. It suggests a Liberal election campaign built upon the argument that they are more prudent and trustworthy than the NDP in tough times.
The Liberals, despite Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent policy enthusiasms, have sometimes appeared focused on cutting government rather than in exploiting its potential to make life better for citizens.
And there is a sense in this budget of a government that is somewhat adrift. Past priorities, like the Heartland and children and even climate change, are scarcely mentioned. It portrays a model of governing as a series of administrative functions, with little vision.
Of course, that vision thing can create big problems, as the former NDP government demonstrated with the fast ferries and grand, unmanaged initiatives like the Jobs for Timber Accord. (And the current government demonstrated with the Vancouver convention centre.)
But this was a time for leadership. The government's cautious budget falls short.
Footnote: The government plans to impose a two-year wage freeze when the current public sector contracts expire in a little more than a year. It does not, however, appear to plan significant staff reductions or layoffs.
The good news, for most British Columbians, is that health care spending has been protected. It will increase by about six per cent a year through the budget period.
That's not enough to allow improvements, given population growth and inflation, but things shouldn't get worse.
But except for health, the Liberal government worried too much about keeping deficits small and brief and too little about economic stimulus and the needs of British Columbians.
Across the rest of ministries, taken as a whole, spending will be pretty much frozen in the coming year, rising by about one-half of one per cent.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen hopes that administrative savings - travelling less, or using fewer consultants - can be found to avoid program cuts.
The big guys always say that. The reality is usually different.
The budget for children and families, for example, is effectively frozen, despite increasing demand, rising costs and frustrations about inadequate services now. B.C. Housing spending will be cut by $92 million - about 15 per cent.
Funding for police will rise 5.1 per cent this year, mainly to cover RCMP contract costs, and then be frozen for the following two years. Aboriginal Affairs will lose 18 per cent of its funding this year; Community Services about 17 per cent.
The focus on "belt-tightening," as Hansen described it, is misplaced.
The Liberals' commitment to balanced budgets was laudable in normal times. In this kind of slowdown, it risks further damage to the economy, individuals and communities.
The budget projects a deficit of $495 million and $245 million in the following year before being exactly balanced in 2011/12.
Those projections - for the first time in years - include no forecast allowance. Typically, the government has included at least $750 million as a cushion against the unexpected.
Hansen points to infrastructure spending as the province's preferred form of economic stimulus. But the budget basically included already scheduled projects, plus about $2 billion in new spending as a result of the federal stimulus package.
But at the same time, the government appears to have turned its back on other forms of stimulus that doesn't involve paving or building bridges.
Arts and culture spending, for example, will be cut in half by the 2010 budget year. That means lost jobs, but also lost economic opportunities as festivals and community events fold.
The budget also comes up short on measures specifically aimed at B.C. communities outside the Lower Mainland. (Although that might change, if the infrastructure funding details include money for throne speech commitments in the north, like the Cariboo Connector and new power transmission lines.'
It's also unclear how much this budget will ultimately matter. The government will shut down the legislature before it is voted on. A new version, possibly quite different, will be introduced in September.
The budget is also based on a quick economic recovery for B.C., something that is far from assured.
It was also striking how little this looked like a pre-election budget. There's no theme, no grand vision, just a commitment to health care and caution. It suggests a Liberal election campaign built upon the argument that they are more prudent and trustworthy than the NDP in tough times.
The Liberals, despite Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent policy enthusiasms, have sometimes appeared focused on cutting government rather than in exploiting its potential to make life better for citizens.
And there is a sense in this budget of a government that is somewhat adrift. Past priorities, like the Heartland and children and even climate change, are scarcely mentioned. It portrays a model of governing as a series of administrative functions, with little vision.
Of course, that vision thing can create big problems, as the former NDP government demonstrated with the fast ferries and grand, unmanaged initiatives like the Jobs for Timber Accord. (And the current government demonstrated with the Vancouver convention centre.)
But this was a time for leadership. The government's cautious budget falls short.
Footnote: The government plans to impose a two-year wage freeze when the current public sector contracts expire in a little more than a year. It does not, however, appear to plan significant staff reductions or layoffs.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Just be quiet, and everything will be fine
Interesting Times Colonist story on former solicitor general John Les and liquor agents - small-town stores that sell gin along with groceries and hardware.
Worth a column, but two points now. First, many groups are silenced by a cabinet minister who says, 'play nice, and I might be able to help you. Raise a fuss, and you're toast.' They buy it, even though, like the liquor agencies, they get nothing in return foir silence.
Second, it is interesting that private liquor stores, with much tighter ties to the Liberals - former minister Gary Collins is a director of one major player - have succeeded in winning big cash windfalls from the government.
The gifts to private liquor stores have added up to about $50 million a year in extra profits. And, of course, that is $50 million less in revenue for government, that taxpayers have to come up with.
Worth a column, but two points now. First, many groups are silenced by a cabinet minister who says, 'play nice, and I might be able to help you. Raise a fuss, and you're toast.' They buy it, even though, like the liquor agencies, they get nothing in return foir silence.
Second, it is interesting that private liquor stores, with much tighter ties to the Liberals - former minister Gary Collins is a director of one major player - have succeeded in winning big cash windfalls from the government.
The gifts to private liquor stores have added up to about $50 million a year in extra profits. And, of course, that is $50 million less in revenue for government, that taxpayers have to come up with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
