Campbell's broken recall promise saves him a headache

Gordon Campbell should be celebrating one broken promise. If he had delivered on his New Era pledge to bring effective recall legislation to B.C., his government would be on the ropes today.
And it might have been gone by next spring.
The Liberals’ integrity and mandate are both being questioned —not surprisingly, given an election campaign that failed to mention plans for the HST, health care cuts, slashed grants and was based on a bogus budget. (And that’s just so far.)
The new sales tax, which will shift some $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals, has sparked a special outrage. Campbell’s claim that he just woke up one day a couple of weeks after the election and discovered the new tax was urgently
needed is, literally, incredible.
Some angry voters are looking for any way to throw out a government - including recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs. The theory is that eight successful recall campaigns, followed by eight NDP byelection victories, would bring a New Democrat majority government.
If Campbell had fulfilled his campaign promise to introduce workable recall legislation to make it “easier for citizens to hold their MLAs accountable,” it might have worked.
But he didn’t. That means recall campaigns have to meet the requirements set by the NDP government when it introduced the process in 1995.
So campaigns can’t start until 18 months after the election. Organizers have just 60 days to get the signatures of 40 per cent of the registered voters in the last election — not of actual voters, but of all those on the list.
Take a capital riding, Saanich North, as an example. Anyone who wants to oust Liberal Murray Coell, who eked out a 245-vote win over his New Democrat opponent, would have to get 17,460 signatures from people who were registered to vote.
Coell won with just 13,120 votes. Thousands of people will have moved or died. The challenge is enormous.
Unfair, said Campbell in opposition. He introduced amendments to allow recall efforts within six months of an election and gave proponents six months to get the signatures.
And his law would have seen an MLA ousted if opponents could collect petition signatures from the same number of people who voted for the candidate, plus one.
So instead of 17,460 signatures, proponents would need 13,121. Tough, but much more doable.
The changes, Campbell said in opposition, were desperately needed.
“One of the most critical issues that faces all of us in public institutions today is the re-establishment of trust and public accountability between elected officials and those who elect them,” he said in the legislature. “The current recall and referenda legislation fails on both counts.”
His version, Campbell said, would “bring true accountability to the legislature and give us an opportunity to give our constituents the real sense of control that they deserve to have over their elected representatives.”
That was all forgotten once the Liberals were elected.
There have been 20 recall efforts since then: 19 have failed and one was halted when the MLA - Paul Reitsma - resigned.
Even with little chance of success, recall campaigns have some political appeal. They keep the targeted MLAs on the defensive and provide a focus for protests. Kevin Falcon got big publicity for the Liberals and created headaches for New Democrats in 1999 simply by threatening a “Total Recall” campaign against the NDP. He couldn’t raise enough money to go ahead.
And, positively, perhaps recall efforts would encourage MLAs to make more of an effort to earn the continued support of their constituents. It’s embarrassing to think of all those Liberal MLAs who were as surprised as everyone else when the new HST was imposed without discussion or consultation.
It’s too bad Campbell didn’t improve recall legislation. It could offer a needed safety valve when people feel they have been cheated in the election process and, as he said,
Footnote: An Angus Reid Strategies poll confirmed the public anger. The Liberals, with 34 per cent support, trailed the NDP at 42 per cent. The Greens were at 12 per cent and the B.C. Conservative Party - which barely exists - was at seven per cent.

A sleazy attack on some of B.C.'s best kids

This is truly cruddy behaviour on the part of the government.
As Jeff Nagel reports here (and in Black Press papers across the province), the government has cancelled the Premier's Excellence Awards. The scholarship program has run since 1986, providing financial aid to some of B.C.'s top high school grads. The awards - bumped to $15,000 from $5,000 by the Liberals in 2005 - recognize academic excellence and community service. The application process is time-consuming - essays and the like - and the students really work at it. Finalists had been selected, and the 15 winners were to be announced mid-July.
But the government stalled and gave evasive answers and then - without notifying the students - cancelled the whole program.
Leaving aside the fact that education is supposed to be a priority with the government, this is simply sleazy. Students participated in good faith based on a government commitment, only to be betrayed weeks before their first year of post-secondary education.
The move is part of a $16-million cut in support for post-secondary students in B.C.
It will save $240,000 - less than the premier's last salary increase over the current four-year term.

What I think the utilities commission was saying about private power

The B.C. Utilities Commission deserves a slap upside the head for its ruling on B.C. Hydro's plans to sign deals with private power companies that will cost consumers billions of dollars.
Not for its substance. As far as I can tell, the murky, acronym-laden swamp of a decision makes sense.
But it's incomprehensibility - not just to dabbling journalists or interested readers, but to energy experts - is appalling.
The utilities commission exists to protect the public interest. B.C. Hydro is a monopoly. It sold $2.8 billion worth of electricity within the province last year - about $650 for every person in the province.
The commission, among other things, scrutinizes B.C. Hydro's operations and plans to make sure it isn't making mistakes that result in unnecessarily high electricity costs.
This decision ruled on B.C. Hydro's long-term plan to meet energy demand in the province.
And the utilities commission had some big doubts.
It had to look at several components of the plan, starting with B.C. Hydro's forecast of future energy demand. That was OK.
Then it reviewed B.C. Hydro's plans for reducing demand, through increased efficiency and conservation and off-peak power. Curbing demand can be cheaper than adding new dams or wind turbines.
Those didn't pass the commission's scrutiny. The corporation wasn't doing enough, it ruled.
Next the commission looked at how B.C. Hydro proposed to meet the province's energy demands in the coming decades. That matters because wrong decisions mean unnecessary costs for consumers and companies. If B.C. Hydro enters into a long-term deal to buy electricity from a company developing a big power project on a B.C. river system, for example, when it's not needed, consumers pay the price.
The utilities' commission rejected B.C. Hydro's long-term energy acquisition plan.
The Crown corporation, acting on government direction, has set three criteria for new power. It has to be green - hydro, wind or burning wood waste. It has to come from private companies, not B.C. Hydro's own projects. And the capacity has to be so great that no imports would be needed.
That's consistent with the government's decision, two years ago, that climate change was an over-riding issue.
But it comes at a cost. New, green energy from private companies is expensive. If B.C. Hydro commits to paying too much, or buying too much, energy prices will be higher than necessary.
The commission - based on my reading of an opaque 200-page decision - thought B.C. Hydro could be planning to buy more power than was necessary, building a large cushion into its plans.
And the corporation had reduced the potential capacity of Burrard Thermal, the gas-powered plant in the Lower Mainland. Burrard is old and inefficient and produces a lot of greenhouse gases. But it can provide cheap standby insurance power, an alternative to costly contracts with private power corporations.
The ruling baffled everyone. It didn't order a halt to the current call for new green power projects from private corporations. But it did reject B.C. Hydro's plans to reach power deals with those companies.
Plutonic Power, one of the big IPPs, saw its share fall 19 per cent on the day after the decision's release, making it worth about $35 million less.
The bottom line, I would say, is the utilities commission judged that B.C. Hydro is trying to buy too much expensive energy from private companies, at consumers' expense.
The Crown corporation is in an interesting spot. The government and the well-connected private power companies want it to go ahead with more long-term deals.
But the utilities commission has served notice that B.C. Hydro will be taking a risk if it goes ahead.
The commission might not allow those costs to be passed on to consumers, which would threaten the $500 million - more or less - the government expects in profits from B.C. Hydro.
Unless, of course, the government abandons its commitment to an independent utilities board and opts for political interference.
Footnote: Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom called some of the analysts for the big investment houses who track the private power companies operating in the province in the wake of the ruling. The ministry won't say who got the chats with the minister. No transcript exists of the briefing, the ministry says.

System just wasn't set up to help this baby

This is a third column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable parents who faced some big challenges.
He was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks. The basic problem was that they were too poor to find a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in a matter of months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken.
He's back with his parents today. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. But they're all doing OK, for now.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth, was asked by a legislative committee to review how this all happened.
The real problem was that the parents were poor. They couldn't afford a place to live. Income assistance stalled them, despite the babe in arms. So they stayed with relatives on a small First Nations reserve.
There were concerns about some of the people living in the house, leading to the child's apprehension.
One of Premier Gordon Campbell's earlier enthusiasms was for breaking down "silos" in government - ministries and departments operating in an unco-ordinated fashion, oblivious of their shared objectives.
In this case, parents were about to have their child taken by one ministry because they didn't have a safe place to live.
At the same time, another ministry turned down their request for emergency help finding adequate housing.
Oh, there was communication between the two.
On the day the child was taken from the mother, a Ministry for Children and Families employee called a counterpart in the Income Assistance Ministry.
Not to get help for the family, but to tell them the child had been taken into care in order "to ensure the child's mother would not apply for income assistance for the child as well."
The representative reports that members of the child's family and community thought the apprehension was rushed and other options for care within the family weren't considered.
That, I suppose, could be blamed indirectly to the media. If a protection worker delays taking a child into care and something bad happens, the decision is closely scrutinized. That's appropriate. But we should start with the assumption that workers are making hard decisions based on limited information and managing a big workload.
A friend I respect worries about columns like this. They might give the public the idea that there aren't successes or discourage frontline workers, she fears.
I have to disagree. What the workers helping this family needed was a mandate - and time - to work at a way of keeping the baby boy with his family.
In five months, the report found, at least six frontline ministry staff, a delegated aboriginal agency, a contract family services agency and income assistance were involved with the family. Everyone was clear about their role.
But, the report found, no one thought about how their role affected the little boy's life.
One week after the boy was taken from his parents, a Children's Ministry social worker said in court that the baby would be returned if they had place to live. But ministry staff did nothing to help the family take the one step that would bring their child back (and save the taxpayer money).
This is not an isolated case, the report suggests. It notes two ministry internal audits found 50 to 84 per cent compliance with its standards in the region where the boy lived while in care. The B.C. Association of Social Workers - representing frontline workers - said the report documents "the tragic consequences of a multi-directional systemic meltdown and a lack of supports, resources and anti-poverty measures."
And considering that this baby was taken from his parents and sent through a series of foster homes because his family was poor, it's notable that B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the past six years. This baby boy's rough life, sadly, wasn't an aberration.

A child taken away because his parents were poor

A child taken away because his parents were poor
This is a second column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable but challenged parents. But he was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks.
The basic problem was they couldn't afford a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in five months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken while living in the third foster home.
Now he's back with his parents. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. His disabilities are permanent. But they're all doing OK.
The Representative for Children and Youth examined the case to find out what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different ending.
The ministry has already done an internal review. It found that required steps in investigating child protection concerns were skipped, available information wasn't considered and there was too little effort to learn about the child's extended family.
Once the boy was taken from his parents, care was "not fully consistent with legislation, policy and service standards," the internal review reported vaguely. Assessment, training and monitoring of the foster home were he was living when injured were all "were not fully consistent" with policy and standards.
The review resulted in mushy recommendations to review plans and send out memos and hold meetings.
The representative didn't find that adequate. And Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond offered a reminder of what this was all about - a child a few months old, removed from his parents by the state, completely dependent on the adults in his life for all his needs.
The representative's report noted that only one thing blocked the parents from keeping their child - the lack of housing. Everyone acknowledged that.
But in the five months from the time a child protection concern was raised until the baby was hurt, no worker or agency addressed that problem.
The income assistance ministry turned the family away when they sought emergency help; the children and families ministry didn't address the housing issue. If they had been found a one-bedroom, safe apartment, even a motel room, everything might be different.
Helping the family into housing might have cost some money and time. But even at $800 a month, that would be at least 50 per cent cheaper than foster care,.
And, as the representative notes, because of the injuries "the lifelong cost of caring for this child is unknown." I'll guess though, at something well over $4 million.
But there was no evidence that the ministry considered finding a motel room or coming up with a housing subsidy as a better alternative for the baby than apprehension and foster care.
The problems - poverty and no or bad housing - aren't new. The Hughes report, in 2006, noted that poor families were far more likely to have their children apprehended. The First Nations community that was home to this family has a housing waiting list of 200 people.
The representative noted that in First Nations communities, a housing shortage means many family member share one home out of necessity. The ministry acts as if parents have a choice about where the live. So their children are apprehended "largely because they are unable to immediately create a living situation that they could not reasonably be expected to achieve."
Even if people can find their way to income assistance, the representative found, the housing allowance leaves them $200 to $400 a month short of what is needed. A family of three, like this baby boy's, is allowed $660 a month for rent. Check out the apartments and basement suites in your community and see what is available for that rent.
The result, the representative found, is that children are taken from their parents because they are poor. "This places the basic human rights of children in jeopardy and tears families apart in tragic way, especially aboriginal families trying to recover and rebuild," the report found.
The baby boy's parents kept working to reunite their family. They finally secured suitable housing in November 2008. "They deserve credit for their determination, but will now care for a developmentally disabled child while continuing to struggle with poverty," Turpel-Lafond said.
All because, instead of finding them a place to live, the state took their child away.
Next: Isolated case, or a systemic problem?

A little boy, failed by the system and forgotten by the rest of us

It’s fitting, in a grimly symbolic way. 
Just when attention might be paid to the little boy who fared so badly in the government’s care, a swirl of bigger news stories pushed him into the shadows.
We don’t know his name. The little boy has a right to privacy. Not much else.
The representative for Children and Youth set out his story — how he went from a healthy baby boy to a three-year-old who had suffered devastating injuries that left him with cerebral palsy. He’s blind in one eye, can’t walk yet and faces a life of struggle.
The boy was born on July 9, 2006. His mom was 20; his dad 24. They were from the same First Nations community and had rough childhoods themselves.
But they loved their baby and were capable of nurturing him. They moved back into the boy’s grandparents’ home on an unidentified reserve to care for him.
It was not a great place for an infant. On July 28, someone called the ministry of children and families and said it was not a safe home for a child. Alcohol abuse, neglect, even physical abuse were possible.
The ministry responded admirably. Social workers checked the files and made immediate home visits. They checked on the baby boy, who was doing well. They explained to the parents why the grandparents’ home was not safe.
The mother understood. She said they were going to live with another relative as an interim measure.
There was a 200-person waiting list for reserve housing. To deal with the concerns, she needed help from the ministry of income assistance to get off-reserve housing.
And the mother applied for the help. The income assistance ministry told her to come back after the mandatory three-week wait, if she had found a place. She was denied interim financial assistance.
In September, the ministry received a report the family was back in the grandparents’ home and, apparently, other concerns were raised. The investigating social worker decided the risk was serious enough that the boy should be taken from his parents.
An RCMP officer and social workers from the ministry and the aboriginal agency that provided services found the mother walking her two-month-old son in a stroller.
She had been living in the grandparents’ home for a week because they had no money to live anywhere else, the young mother said. She had been in the hospital for several days and the boy’s father had been caring for him.
And the workers took the baby away.
He was placed in a foster home that day. (A relative who provided foster care offered to take him. That offer was apparently never followed up on.) The parents suggested two other relatives who could care for the child. The ministry says it couldn’t reach them; the family says they were never called.
The ministry came up with a risk-reduction plan that would allow the child to be returned to his parents, once housing was secured and support was provided. But it didn’t do the required plan of care for the child. This is tangled and difficult work, of course. The social worker referred the parents to family counselling. They didn’t go.
The first foster home placement was on a 30-day contract. When it ended on Oct. 2, the baby was moved to another foster home.
In early November, the boy’s mother requested the ministry return her child because she had found shared housing. It wasn’t safe enough, workers decided.
Meanwhile, the child’s second foster mother became ill. So on Dec. 12, he was moved to a third foster home.
It’s worth pausing to think about this. The baby was barely five months old and had been with his parents and in three different foster homes. All good intentions aside, as a parent or grandparent, how do you think a child you loved would handle those changes? How long would he cry for a missing blanket or a person he had come to associate with comfort?
On Dec. 18, the baby boy had a successful supervised visit with his parents. Two days later, it all went wrong. The foster home reported he was unwell. At B.C. Children’s Hospital, doctors said his injuries were consistent with having been shaken. Criminal charges were laid against a caregiver in the foster home and then later stayed.
After almost a month in hospital, the baby was sent to his fourth foster home in January 2007.
In July, he was returned to his parents and started receiving support because of his massive disabilities. He has been making progress in their care since then, but is struggling with permanent, severe disabilities.
Next: What did we learn from this family’s tragedy?

I am trying to break you heart

I know we're heading to a long summer weekend, but everyone should read this report from Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.
It's a review of the travails of a baby boy who was taken from his parents as a result of legitimate, but easily addressed concerns. All they really needed was help finding an apartment .
While living in his third foster home, and still not six months old, he suffered massive injuries, consistent, doctors said, with being shaken. He is back with his parents as a three-year-old with cerebral palsy, blind in one eye and unable to walk.
I have a friend who is troubled by the attention on these reports. She fears it slights or discourages the workers doing great things every day, in impossible circumstances.
I think paying real attention is the greatest honour we can do those people.

Is the recognition and reconciliation act really dead?

The unravelling of the proposed legislation setting out a new relationship with First Nations remains a fascinating mystery. In the spring, the government was on the brink of introducing the act, with the support of most provincial-level First Nations leaders.
Now, aboriginal support has collapsed and the letter below suggest they want to make sure the act is really quite sincerely dead, as they sing in the Wizard of Oz.


UBCIC Open Letter: Implementing the New Relationship and the Legislative Initiative
July 30, 2009


Dear Premier Campbell and Ministers,

We are writing to clarify the UBCIC’s position regarding pursuing Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation based on the Discussion Paper on Implementing the New Relationship (the “discussion paper”).

The UBCIC has fought long and hard for the recognition by the Crown of Aboriginal title in British Columbia, and for respect for our laws and governments. The New Relationship is regarded as a good step in the right direction, and our communities watched and waited with much hope, for the implementation of the Vision. To our bitter disappointment, the Province failed to implement the spirit and intent of the New Relationship. By way of examples, notwithstanding the decisions of the Court, including the Huu-ay-aht case, where the Court found that the revenue and benefit sharing formula for the FRAs/FROs constituted bad faith negotiations, the Province refused to even discuss revenue and benefit sharing for forestry agreements on any other basis. Nor has the Province been prepared to discuss the sharing of a percentage of gaming revenue as an example of a commitment to revenue sharing to accommodate the economic component of title. There has been no implementation of the jurisdictional component of title, either. The present Environmental Assessment Review Process is the most blatant example of unilateral Crown decision making which is used to veto our Aboriginal title and rights interests as big projects are permitted to proceed, over our objections and often to the detriment of the land itself. The Province continues to rely on discredited terra nullius theories in litigation defences – such as in the Jules and Wilson litigation, where the Province pleads that the Browns Creek Watersheds are vacant Crown land.

When the conduct of the Province did not produce concrete and far-reaching change on the ground, the UBCIC supported legislative change as a tool to bring about systemic change in Provincial Crown conduct from denial to title recognition. This led to the discussion paper.

The discussion paper has been brought to our members for discussion, and we have had considerable feedback at Regional Forums, community meetings, and at meetings held by the UBCIC. The response from our members is clear: there are concerns about concepts in the discussion paper, and UBCIC members do not support legislative drafting based on it. This point was made most emphatically at the last Chiefs Council meeting. A resolution, designed to improve the process for First Nations’ review and debate of any proposed legislation was defeated, based on a debate which was in opposition to the discussion paper initiative. The Chiefs stated that the process which led to the discussion paper and which was proposed for legislative drafting was not sufficiently inclusive.

The UBCIC has now made clear to our members, and we wish to make it clear to you and to your Government, that the UBCIC has withdrawn from the legislative initiative based on the discussion paper. We will continue to attend the Regional Forums and other community meetings as observers, to witness and listen to the concerns of the community membership and leaders. UBCIC also continues to support the spirit and intent of the Leadership Accord, and all other initiatives attached to this collective effort, including the Forestry Council, Fisheries Council, Economic Development Council, Energy and Mining Council, Children and Family Wellness Council and Health Council.

We will now consider all options for the implementation of the New Relationship at the upcoming All Chiefs forum in August, and the UBCIC General Assembly scheduled for mid-September. Make no mistake; the UBCIC shall continue to utilize all means to achieve a just resolution of the Land Question in B.C.

Over the summer, we ask you to consider solutions so that we might have success in our future conversations. The problem which has been expressed many times in discussions about the discussion paper is a widespread distrust of the Province. This has been said a number of ways – but what is disturbing, even enraging, to those who raise this concern, is the Province’s inability or unwillingness to substantively change from status quo behaviour, especially since 2005. First Nation leaders point out correctly that while there are systemic shifts that might best be achieved through legislation, legislation is not needed for the Province to change its conduct, by providing different honourable recognition-based negotiation and litigation mandates consistent with the New Relationship Vision and decisions of the Courts. Outdated Provincial denial policies can give way today, to the policy expressed in the New Relationship. Engaging in discussions with the FNLC is not a substitute or reason for the Province to delay. New opportunities for reconciliation must emerge. First Nations are waiting for the Province to engage with them respecting Aboriginal title, including our laws and jurisdictions, sharing lands and resources and revenue and benefits derived from our lands and resources, and addressing past and ongoing interferences. The Province should have taken such actions a century ago, and there is no honourable basis for not doing so today.

Sincerely,

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip

President

Is running B.C. Ferries really a $940,000 a year job?

The provincial government announced a review of the operations of B.C. Ferries and TransLink yesterday.
If you're wondering about the timing, Jordan Bateman at langleypolitics.com notes that the ferry corporation filed its report on executive compensation this week, revealing CEO David Hahn received $940,000 in base bay and bonuses, plus another $96,000 in pension contributions. The pay was approved by the board, which is appointed by the government. Read Hansen's comments and the details here.

The Liberal campaign and a sick democracy

Is this really democracy?
The whole election process now looks like a sham. The Liberals rejected a harmonized sales tax during the campaign, less then three months ago.
Not part of their plans, period. The association that represents restaurant owners asked all parties about the harmonized tax prior to the election.
The Liberals said the tax would cover too many items that were currently tax-exempt and prevent future sales tax changes. It was not of their plans.
And then, with no consultation, it was announced last week. Anyone who voted for the Liberals on the basis of that commitment has been played for a sap.
There is actually much to recommend the tax change.
But in a real democracy, a party would make those arguments and let the voters decide.
Not in B.C.
The Liberals pledged during the campaign that the deficit this fiscal year would not be more than the $495 million forecast in the February budget.
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen both committed, less than three months ago, to that number. You could believe the budget, they said.
The claims were ridiculous. Every economist and analyst - and anyone who looked at the budget - knew the deficit would be much, much larger.
After the election, Campbell revealed the deficit would be much larger. The explanation - that income and corporate tax transfers from the federal government were lower than expected - was ludicrous.
Almost all the main assumptions underlying the budget - housing starts, natural gas prices, economic growth, welfare rolls - were overly optimistic. Within hours of the budget, independent analysts were saying the deficit would be much larger.
The NDP was complicit in this scam. Carole James unveiled a platform and spending plan based on the Liberals’ budget assumptions. The New Democrats said they had to accept the forecast. It was also politically safer to build a budget based on optimistic numbers than to face reality. (Though straight talk might have had advantages. If one in 30 non-voters had been inspired by an honest NDP plan, the party could have been in government now. Or, of course, the plan could have cost the party existing support.)
Back to the Liberal campaign’s distance from reality. They left the door open for cuts to programs and services, but didn’t say which ones would be chopped.
Campbell did pledge that health care and education would be protected.
Less than three months later, health care is being cut significantly. Here on Vancouver Island, the health authority plans to do five per cent fewer surgeries to save money. That means 3,160 people who would have been helped by surgery in the 12 months will now wait.
The story is similar in other health authorities where cuts are being made to the number of patients treated and the level of care.
A politician could try to make the case that it makes fiscal sense to deny timely treatment. When government revenues are down, people should expect a lower standard of health care.
But the Liberals did not make that case. Campbell promised to protect health care, and then didn’t.
You have to wonder about all those MLAs, who ran on platforms that have now been abandoned. They told people in their communities what would happen if their party formed government.
It was not true. They misled the voters.
It adds up to a grim scenario. About 51 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in May and about 24 per cent of eligible voters supported the Liberals.
They were supporting a $495-million deficit, no health cuts, no new sales tax.
None of those are part of the Liberals’ real plans.
The election wasn’t really about policies or platforms. It was about electing a dictator or, at least, a leader who would do much as he chose for the next four years.
That’s a form of democracy. But not the one Canadians have been promised.
Footnote: Hansen says the Liberals didn’t scam voters on the HST. The new tax was “not on our radar” during the election campaign, he said. (Although Ontario had introduced the same tax earlier in the spring.) It defies reason to claim that the government suddenly looked around and noticed the need to make a huge shift in tax burden from business to consumers.

The HST, Gordon Campbell and the Clark government

The "harmonized tax" plan makes me wonder if the Campbell government has lost its way.
It's not the plan's substance, in fact, though there a lot of questions about the costs and benefits for different groops.
It's the way Gordon Campbell, with no warning or consultation, imposed a major tax change. The new tax system will shift taxes from business to individuals. Some industries will win and some - like the restaurant business - will lose.
The tax plan wasn't mentioned in the election campaign three months ago. There have been no discussion papers or reports. The Liberals rejected calls for the harmonized tax and said the change wasn't on the agenda.
And then imposed it.
Here are the basics. Right now, individuals and businesses pay seven-per-cent provincial sales tax and five-per-cent federal GST on most goods and services they buy.
The federal government - and many business groups - would like to see one harmonized tax. Three provinces have already merged the GST and provincial sales tax - Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Campbell proposes to follow them with a 12-per-cent merged GST and PST, effective next July 1. The tax will go to Ottawa, and B.C. will be sent its share.
But that's just the start. Businesses can deduct GST they pay from their tax bill. Now they will be able to deduct PST as well, as it is included in the harmonized tax.
That will save them - and cost the government - about $1.9 billion in what had been provincial sales tax. That's a 37-per-cent drop in PST revenue.
But Campbell said the change would be revenue neutral. The overall money coming into government, needed to pay for schools and hospitals, would not go down.
Which means someone else is going to have to pay the $1.9 billion that business will be saving.
Most likely you. The new tax will apply to a long list of things that you didn't pay PST on. Heating oil and natural gas, cable and telephone, restaurant meals and non-prescription medicine. Movie and airline tickets and real estate commissions and dry cleaning and new house prices. You get the picture.
The theory is that while you will pay more in taxes, the companies will pass on their tax savings to you. It will work out.
Uh-uh.
There are benefits. Companies say that filing one sales tax return will cut their costs.
The federal government will give the province $1.6 billion for making the change, part of a national incentive plan.
And Campbell said that as other provinces give tax breaks to business in this way, B.C. had to follow.
The three Atlantic provinces aren't significant. But Ontario is proposing a harmonized tax for July 1, 2010 - the date B.C. now proposes to introduce its version.
Ontario's approach is strikingly different. Premier Dalton McGuinty started talking about the harmonized tax in January. The proposal was set out in the budget in March, with reports on the effects on business and families. The government pledged to use the federal incentive payment to cushion the impact of the change - most families would get transitional payments of $1,000 - and to exempt many goods. It also pledged to help affected industry sectors - tourism, for example would get an extra $40 million a year for marketing efforts.
Even the language was different. McGuinty's budget said the tax changes would be made "pending legislative approval and Ontario and Canada signing a tax co-ordination agreement."
Campbell presented a done deal. MLAs, both Liberal and New Democrats, might as well be cardboard cutouts. The public's views were not of any interest.
Campbell said the harmonized tax issue wasn't even on the radar for him at the time of the election campaign. Odd, since Ontario had announced its intention before that.
So, in a little over two months, the premier noticed tax harmonization and worked out a whole plan.
It reminds me of the last couple of years of the Glen Clark government. Too much certainty, too little planning, too bold enthusiasms and too little interest in the views of anyone outside the inner circle.
And that, we know, ended in tears.

Rolling the GST and PST into one tax

Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen left a lot of questions with the announcement of a Harmonized Sales Tax that would - mostly - combine the GST and PST into one 12-per-cent tax.
It's the kind of big change that could have been debated during the election campaign, except it wasn't on the radar for him three months ago, Campbell said. (Which raises questions about how well the details have been thought through.)
It also could have been useful to invite public comments on such a sweeping tax change.
There are benefits and drawbacks, which I'll write about once there is a little more information.
For now, there are more questions. For example, the premier says the change will reduce sales taxes for business by about $1.9 billion.
And he says the change overall will be - more or less - revenue neutral.
So who is going to pay $1.9 billion more to make up for the cut for business?
More to come. . .

Latest secret cuts hurt those who most need help

It seems bad public policy - even dumb and destructive - to cut supports that help people get off welfare and into jobs just as more people are being forced onto income assistance.
Or to cut efforts to improve literacy, one of Gordon Campbell's "five great goals" of 2005.
But those are among the measures the provincial government has chosen to deal with its botched budget.
The NDP released leaked documents this month that show the government knew in early June that its income assistance caseload projections were wildly inaccurate.
The budget was based on the assumption that 112,000 people would be on welfare by the next fiscal year; the documents show the caseload is now expected to "to peak at 147,000 in June 2010."
That's 24 per cent higher than the forecast, an increase that represents suffering for individuals and families and a $100-million budget overrun. (The revelation comes after the government's public affairs bureau intervened to suppress the regular monthly release of income assistance caseloads during the election campaign. The statistics - which were released during the last two campaigns - would have showed a 50 per cent jump in the number of employable people on income assistance in just six months.)
The documents also reveal the government is attempting to deal with its errors by cutting needed services.
A June 5 memo announced an immediate freeze on "direct purchase" funding for people on income assistance. That's a ministry program intended to help people on welfare find and keep work.
In areas where there is no contractor supplying employment programs to government, for example, income assistance workers have been able to approve job readiness training for clients who were capable and keen to work, but needed help.
Direct payments were also available for literacy training for people on income assistance and to cover small costs like textbooks and transportation. They were used to cover high school level upgrading courses for people whose lack of education was preventing them from finding work.
And in all cases, funding was only available if the person on welfare had demonstrated commitment, motivation and ability in the hunt for a job.
What sensible person could think these cuts make sense?
Income assistance rates are desperately low in B.C. A single person who is considered employable receives $375 a month for shelter and $235 a month for every other expense - that's less than $8 a day for food, transportation, clothes and everything else.
Which leaves no money for the basics required for job hunting. Direct payments were the solution, a small amount of money available to provide needed help in making the transition from welfare to work.
Cutting it is cruel, of course.
It's also foolish. Helping people off income assistance reduces the long-term costs substantially.
And as Campbell has noted, the longer a person is on income assistance the greater difficulty they have in escaping.
The literacy cuts show a similar short-sightedness.
Last year, the government announced funding for 16 regional literacy co-ordinators.
Advanced Education Minister Murray Coell said the co-ordinators would help make improvements urged by the auditor general. "Regions are often faced with challenges matching up people with the programs and services they need and making all the various literacy programs work together efficiently," Coell said.
Now the jobs are being cut to try to keep the deficit down.
It's an odd approach for a government that has identified literacy as a key to the province's future - and the need for economic stimulus. Firing people and weakening the literacy effort hardly accomplishes either goal.
Add in the news - revealed by Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com - that libraries across the province face funding cuts and reports that support for university and college students is being chopped, and a pattern is emerging.
The greater worry is that these cuts are just symptoms of rushed, arbitrary and ill-considered efforts to slash programs and jobs across government at great cost to people and communities now, and the province's future.
Footnote: None of these cuts are being announced publicly. The government is proceeding by stealth - a great contrast to the flood of pre-election announcements of tiny funding programs and a betrayal of commitments to "openness and accountability."

Reconciliation act is dead on the vine - what next?

The provincial government had high hopes its proposed recognition and reconciliation act would bring "seismic change" to relations with First Nations in the province.
But the plan has collapsed in the face of native concerns, as this memo shows, and its back to the drawing board.


July 14, 2009

Dear UBCIC Chiefs Council,

Re: Proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation Process-to-Date and Next Steps

The UBCIC Executive takes this opportunity to provide an update regarding the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Legislation.

The legislative initiative was a step which the UBCIC, First Nations Summit and BCAFN mandated the FNLC to advance with the Province, designed to compel the Province to implement commitments contained in the New Relationship (2005), including to recognize Aboriginal title and rights, to respect First Nations' laws and responsibilities, to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions, and to close the socio-economic gap through agreements about revenue and benefit sharing.

In February 2009, a "Discussion Paper on Instructions for Implementing the New Relationship" (the "Discussion Paper") was released to generate dialogue on the proposed legislative initiative. A series of regional sessions and community visits to explore the content of the Discussion Paper have been held with First Nations across the Province, and these are continuing.

In many ways, the first several community/Tribal group visits represented a 'test drive' of the original discussion paper. Based on the feedback, it is clear that many concepts expressed in the Discussion Paper are unacceptable. Concerns have been raised, including that 'reconstitution' will interfere with self-determination; that the Indigenous Nation Commission could become another bureaucracy; that there is risk of including Aboriginal title recognition in legislation which also recognizes Crown title in any form; that the nature, scope and substance of the title being recognized will weaken the title recognition within s. 35. We have heard questions raised whether the Province has jurisdiction to pass such legislation, and doubts expressed whether they will implement it. Questions have also been raised about the absence of Canada.

We have also heard expressed the opportunities which title recognition could bring. Consistently we heard the message, "we generally accept and support the concept of the need to achieve recognition, but not in its current form". In other words, not as currently articulated in the original Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper has done its job, but it has now become an impediment to carrying forward a constructive and productive dialogue.

Consequently, on June 25th, the FNLC made a decision to 'set aside' the discussion paper to provide the space and opportunity to carry on an inclusive and cohesive dialogue. The Recognition Working Group ("RWG"), who had been instructed to develop with the Province language that might serve as detailed instructions to legislative drafters, has been directed to stop that work and not engage in any legislative drafting.

We believe our decision has significantly improved the tone of our dialogue; both politically and legally. When we finalize our Regional and community sessions, we will be in a position to deliver a summary report to the delegates of a Provincial-wide meeting at the end of August.

We welcome the formation of a lawyers' caucus comprised of First Nations' lawyers who wish to participate, who are working together to prepare other options for consideration at the All Chiefs' Assembly this summer.

We are at an important time in answering the land question. We have an opportunity unlike any other in our history. The Province has been compelled through law and politics to agree to recognition of title. We must use this opportunity well. Through recognition legislation or other initiatives, we must now compel the provincial government and every civil servant to act based on recognition and not denial of Aboriginal title. Now it is time to listen to our communities. We believe we will be given clear direction in terms of a 'forward looking' mandate when we next meet.

United we stand; divided we perish. We will work together to identify consensus for the steps we will collectively take together.

Sincerely,

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President

Chief Robert Shintah
Vice-President

Chief Robert Chamberlin
Secretary-Treasurer

The uranium file

Although professionally predisposed to have an opinion on anything, I'm uncertain on uranium mining. If global warming is a real issue, nuclear power beats coal-fired plants. And without uranium, you can't nuclear power.
The provincial government is more certain. It has taken two shots at discouraging development of potentially significant deposits, in part because they're in the Okanagan. People don't want to retire to uranium country.
New junior minister for mines Randy Hawes told Sean Holman, on CFAX 1070's Public Eye, that the public doesn't want uranium mining and the government accepts that. Hawes refused an invitation to see Saskatchan's uranium mines.
Meanwhile, a second mining company has sued the government over the pre-election uranium mining ban, arguing their rights were expropriated and they are owed compensation.

E-mails might, finally, move B.C. Rail case forward

Slowly — so slowly — British Columbians might be moving closer to some answers in the B.C. Rail corruption case.
It’s been a dismal performance from the courts and the politicians. More than five years after police raided legislature officers and talked about the long reach of organized crime, the affair hangs over the government and the three accused.
That might change with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett’s ruling that the government must produce e-mails from Premier Gordon Campbell and a clutch of current and former cabinet ministers and their staff.
Or it might sink the whole affair even deeper into an ethical and legal quagmire.
We’ll find that out, perhaps, Aug. 17. That’s when the government’s lawyer will tell the court whether the e-mails exist, or if some or all have been destroyed. (An astonishing number of lawyers — all taxpayer-funded — are involved in the case. Costs have been estimated at more than $10 million and counting.)
The government’s story has been changing.
Last month, its lawyer introduced a deposition from an official saying the e-mails from 2002 to 2005 and all backups had been erased.
That appeared to violate government policy, which calls for records to be kept for seven years. (Transitory e-mails — like a message confirming a lunch date — are exempted.)
Last week, the government offered a new deposition from the same officials saying that at least some of the relevant e-mails had existed but were ordered destroyed in May, during the election campaign.
If true, that’s serious on several levels.
First, destroying evidence is a criminal offence. The relevance of the e-mails to the trial should have been obvious since the raids. It was certainly clear once the defence lawyers asked for the documents in 2007. The RCMP has already been asked to review the information to see if an investigation is warranted.
Second, if the evidence is gone, defence lawyers have a reasonable argument that the charges should be dismissed due to the government’s abuse of the process. That would leave the questions unanswered.
Third, the government would face a political crisis. Campbell has pledged complete openness and co-operation with the investigation since the days after the raid.
Barring some remarkable explanation — I can’t even think of an example — the destruction of the e-mails being sought by the court would look like a cover-up. And while governments can escape a great many failings and missteps, cover-ups tend to taint their reputations and relationships with the public permanently.
It’s a potentially toxic mess, stemming from the broken 2001 campaign promise not to sell B.C. Rail but spreading to include questions about the influence of well-connected Liberal insiders, the legitimacy of the bidding process and, now, the missing evidence.
The Crown is alleging Dave Basi, ministerial assistant to then finance minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, who held the same position with transport minister Judith Reid, accepted benefits from Omnitrax, one of the B.C. Rail bidders. In return, the Crown says, they provided inside information about the bidding process.
The defence denies that and says the two were actually acting on behalf of their political masters. The bidding was rigged all along to ensure CN got B.C. Rail, the defence alleges. The government wanted Omnitrax kept involved to preserve the appearance of a real bidding process. (CP Rail had dropped out because it believed the bidding process was unfair; a partner bidding with Omnitrax had pulled the plug for the same reason.)
And all of this, remember, after a promise by Campbell not to sell B.C. Rail.
It is a bizarre situation that two provincial elections have been held since the raids and allegations of corruption, with no answers for the public and only silence from the government.
And, if the e-mails have been destroyed and the case is thrown out, those answers might still be years away — particularly if the investigation into the destruction of evidence moves at the same halting pace.
Footnote: The NDP will undoubtedly seek a public inquiry if the case is thrown out. But Campbell has so far stonewalled on the case and the vanished e-mails. The tactic has worked and it’s unlikely that he would now accept an independent inquiry into the scandal.

A dissident hero speaks for democracy

Not in China or Iran, but in Alberta, where a Conservative MLA has decided to put his constituents ahead of his party.
Party discipline is part of our system. Members of a party are supposed to share some broad principles and policies.
But they are not supposed to be robotic public boosters of their bosses reciting talking points written by staffers at the direction of the leader. They should not stand foolishly silent when government actions damage their own communities. (For example, like Liberal cabinet ministers Murray Coell and Ida Chong, when their government enriched a forest company while opening vast amounts of green space and protected land for development.)
Our system was based on MPs and MLAs having the power to dump a distant or inattentive leader; they have abandoned that power and chosen docility.
Except for this guy.

The purposes of journalism

"The stenographers of power will always find work. As will the trumpeters of fame. I.F. Stone wrote not to create a sensation, or to promote himself (or his 'brand'), but to change the world." John Ibbitson quotes from D.D. Guttenplan's Stone biography in a review in today's Globe.

Health cuts unnecessary and a broken promise

The Campbell government has decided the province’s sick and injured should carry a chunk of the recession’s burden.
The health authorities - more than three months into the fiscal year - have been told to make $360 million in spending cuts.
They’re looking for administrative savings, of course.
But they are also planning layoffs, longer waits for surgery and cuts in acute and residential care.
The government has decided that keeping the deficit small is more important than maintaining health care at the current level. People should limp longer with their bad knees or wait longer for care.
Governments can do what they want. But we’ve just been through an election campaign. And the Liberals did not talk about reducing the level of health care in the interests of fiscal responsibility. (And the other parties and media, myself included, did not raise the issue effectively.)
Quite the contrary. They promised to protect health care.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon wrote to the health authorities Wednesday. (Or, more accurately, public affairs staff drafted a dozen versions of a letter really aimed at managing media coverage.)
After 535 words setting out all the great things had been done in the last few years, Falcon got to the point.
The authorities had submitted budgets based on maintaining care. The government wanted $360 million cut.
That’s a 3.5-per-cent cut. After years of funding shortfalls, the health authorities and hospitals have ground costs out of the system. There are always savings to be had — you can stop cutting the lawns, cut corners on cleaning costs or cancel travel.
But those won’t add up to $360 million.
Vancouver Coastal plans to reduce surgeries by three per cent and Fraser Health is cutting the number of elective surgeries and limiting MRIs.
The Interior Health Authority is looking at capping or reducing community care and making people wait longer for elective surgery. It’s also cutting jobs and freezing clinical hours. The Northern Health Authority is reducing nursing care.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority is putting off maintenance, freezing programs and plans to reduce “volumes of elective surgeries, procedures and diagnostics” to stay within the funding. (It also plans to sell off property to make up for the operating deficit, much like selling the furniture to pay the mortgage. The next payment comes, and then what?)
The authorities have acknowledged that care will suffer — fewer surgeries, for example, means people will wait longer. That sounds OK, unless you’re the one limping on a horribly painful kneee.
You could make the case for health cuts. The recession means less revenue for government. Why shouldn’t people accept reduced care?
But that is not what the Liberals promised during the campaign
So where is the mandate for reduced health care - longer waits for surgery, delays in tests to determine what treatment is, or isn’t, needed?
This is about $360 million. What would be wrong with an increase in MSP premiums — which are graduated to the ease the burden on low-income families — to make up the shortfall. For a singe person, all that would be needed would be a $12-per-month increase to maintain health care at last year’s level; for a four, about $3.50 a person a month.
We can afford it. Health care costs have been increasing faster than the overall inflation rate. But we’re older and the treatments have got slicker and more expensive. We still want them for our family members.
And health care remains a bargain. In 1995, health costs consumed about 6.6 of provincial GDP. Last year - 13 years on - it was seven per cent. There are cost pressures that have to be addressed in the coming years, but no crisis.
But, for whatever reasons, the government has decided that it’s time to go backwards on health care for British Columbians.
Footnote: The NDP challenged the timing of the announcement, accusing the Liberals of hiding the cuts until after the provincial election. The delay – whatever the cause – results in deeper cuts as savings must be found in the remaining months of the fiscal year.

To steal a head, RailGate A-Go-Go.....Who Knew What When?

A useful look at the destruction of potential evidence in the B.C. Rail corruption trial is to be found here.

Come on. This can't be happening in an advanced democracy in 2009.

IHA chair thinks two-tier care just fine

The Interior Health Authority chair, responsible for an organization delivering care to 720,000 British Columbians, believes two-tier care should be allowed in Canada.
And he doesn't see why the health care system should be providing residential care for frail seniors who can't live on their own any longer.
You have to admire Norm Embree's candour in raising such radical positions.
And he made it clear he was expressing his personal opinions.
But it's hard to see how most people living in the interior could feel comfortable with Embree as the health authority chair.
There are some big challenges ahead for all the health authorities. Provincial funding isn't enough to meet the care needs. The five regional authorities have to cut $320 million.
Embree's comments raise doubts about his commitment to the basic values and functions of our health care system.
His opinions are legitimate, if extreme, contributions to the discussion on health care. But they raise questions, coming from a B.C. health care leader.
In an interview with Don Plant of the Kelowna Daily Courier, Embree said it might be time to abandon the principles of medicare and allow people to pay for faster, better care.
"We're already multi-tier - we already go to Washington for private care - why not have it here,'' he asked.
Embree, to his credit, took the same position a few days later in an interview with Robert Koopman of the Kamloops Daily News when the issue of two-tier care came up.
"I have no problem with it. We've had two tiers for years, but nobody wants to admit it," he said, citing the ability of patients to the U.S. for speedier treatment.
Not every could afford that, Embree acknowledged.
"That's the nature of two tier - if you can, you do it. If you can't you hang in there," he said. "I've got nothing philosophically against it. As long as we maintain universal access and portability, I've got no problems with it."
That's one view of health care.
The Canadian view, expressed in the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, has been that your income shouldn't determine the kind of health care you receive.
If two little girls are sick, each should get the same care. The fact that one had poor parents wouldn't put her at greater risk. Embree's approach would see the poor child "just hang in there."
Embree's views on residential care for seniors raise as many questions.
"The Canada Health Act doesn't say anything about providing housing for everyone," he said. "Now everyone expects the health-care system to provide a room and a place."
It's true. The Canada Health Act doesn't include residential care and intermediate level nursing home care in the category of covered services.
But more than 5,500 Interior residents are in residential care or assisted living beds. If providing that care is not considered part of the health system, how are they to afford the $4,500 a month for a private care home? Pensions are a fraction of that amount and savings would quickly be exhausted.
So what becomes of the people who can't care for themselves and need help with meals or medical care or bathing?
They get worse and worse, I suppose, until they are admitted to an acute care hospital bed. That's a far more costly option, poorer for the senior and those beds aren't available for the patients who need them. (Between 10 and 15 per cent of acute care beds are already occupied by people waiting for long-term care.)
Embree's comments follow Health Minister Kevin Falcon's musings about allowing two-tier care in an interview with the Vancouver Sun. He later said he only meant for non-essential treatment.
A full debate on health care is welcome. But it's hard to see how the public can have confidence on a government-appointed health authority board chair who doesn't support the most basic principle of Canadian health care.
Footnote: Kelowna radio station AM 1150 tried to find out what Falcon thought of Embree's comments. They were told the minister was not available for comment on the topic "today, tomorrow, next week or indefinitely."

IHA chair backs two-tier care, less support for frail seniors

Interior Health Authority chair Norm Embree told the Kelowna Daily Courier this week that he sees nothing wrong with two-tier heath care. Why shouldn't a person with money be able to buy faster, better treatment if they're sick or injured, he said? (Aside from the provincial and federal laws that say health care should be available based on medical need - that one sick six-year-old shouldn't be treated while a neighbour suffers just because of an accident of birth.)
Embree also said he doesn't see why the health system should provide residential care for sick or frail seniors who can't live on their own.
I wondered if he would retreat. But Embree repeated the positions in an interview with the Kamloops Daily News here.
And columnist Susan Duncan outlines why pushing old people onto the streets is a bad idea here.
Embree also confirmed cuts to services are coming because of underfunding by the province. Expect to hear more on that in the next few days as Health Minister Kevin Falcon gives the health authorities their marching orders.

Budget bad news and big cuts ahead

I resent being treated like I'm stupid. Sure, I'm capable of dumb moments and bad decisions, but, mostly, I'm a responsible, competent person.
That's why the release of the province's public accounts - the final version of the financial statements of the last fiscal year - was irksome.
There are four things to take away from the event.
First, the province avoided a deficit in the fiscal year that ended March 31. The surplus was small - $58 million by the government's reckoning, $8 million, according to the auditor general.
But a surplus, even if tiny, is important for the government's legitimacy.
Second, the government is finally inching toward honesty about the budget projection of a $495-million deficit for this fiscal year.
It's bogus. The revenue assumptions are hopelessly, blatantly optimistic. The expenses were based on million in cuts that had not been identified.
Within a few days of the February budget, it was being questioned. Before long, economists were suggesting the real deficit would be more than $1.5 billion.
No way, said Premier Gordon Campbell, throughout the election campaign and after. The deficit will be $495 million.
No, said Finance Minister Colin Hansen, even weeks ago. We'll meet the budget.
Finally, the government is acknowledging that's just not going to happen.
Hansen said everything changed on June 24, when the federal government sent new tax revenue estimates. Corporate taxes, especially, will be much lower than expected.
I'm a fan of Hansen. He's smart and sensible, and as health minister his command of issues was impressive.
But his claim that up until June 24 he thought the budget was still realistic is just baffling.
Housing starts were way below the budget assumptions. GDP growth was lower. Natural gas prices a fraction of the budget projections. Welfare rolls were climbing. Within two weeks of the budget day, a reasonable person would acknowledge it was wrong.
Third, the bad forecasting is going to be used to justify deep cuts in services and programs.
After the 2001 election, the Liberals brought in a 25-per-cent income tax cut on their first day in office, a $12-billion hit to the budget. That created a revenue crisis and set the stage for a budget focusing on cuts to programs and services.
Now the botched budgeting and determination to keep the deficits small is creating another crisis.
The budget already included cuts to eight of the 19 government ministries this year. Programs and jobs would have to be shed. And the budget was introduced without an actual plan for achieving all the savings.
Even health authorities were being pushed to find $320 million in spending cuts to keep within their funding.
Hansen confirmed the government has also targeted grants to organizations and is prepared to cut deeply.
That's bad news for communities. Grant support economic development efforts and social service delivery and seniors' support and organizations that educate children about drug risks. The services are close to the community and generally delivered in a cost-effective way.
Now, more than three months into the fiscal year, those organizations face surprise cuts, or even the elimination of provincial funding, Hansen said.
Government should always ensure money is being used effectively.
But the Liberals have had eight years to winnow weak or duplicate efforts. These cuts will do real harm.
And fourth, the public was cheated in the election campaign. Campbell's claim that the deficit would not exceed $495 million and that the budget was credible were not true.
But they prevented a real debate on how the province should respond to the recession. (The New Democrats were complicit; they chose to accept the budget numbers and use them as the basis for their own plans.)
British Columbians were sold a pig in a poke. When the real budget is finally released in September, expect a pretty ugly beast to emerge from the sack.
Footnote: How deep will the cuts be? The government has already cut help for people on income assistance who need literacy upgrading or other support to get off welfare and into a job. Job cuts are already planned in some ministries. It's an odd strategy when other governments have accepted the need for simulus spending.

What's wrong with two-tier care?

Interesting and worrying story in the Kelowna Daily Courier.
Norm Embree, chair of the Interior Health Authority, speaks candidly about cuts to care because of inadequate funding. He should get full marks for accountability.
But read on. What's wrong with two-tier health care, he asks?
He also questions whether residential care for seniors unable to live on their own should really be a health care responsibility, which raises a lot of questions, which, hopefully, he will answer.
Read the story here.

OK, Hansen finally admits, cuts are coming

All those community groups, social service agencies and service providers who have been getting the runaround about their provincial funding for this year should now know why.
As Sean Holman reports here, the government is looking to cut those grants to save money. Everything is on the block, from drug prevention to programs to women's shelters to literacy efforts to support for seniors. Provincial grants make up their core budget; cuts - or elimination - would be devastating.
The government's plan has been to stall the groups. Some are more likely to make their concerns public now that they know what's going on.

Child poverty meeting rejected by premier

It seemed a reasonable request.
The Representative for Children and Youth asked Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James to meet with her on the growing problem of child poverty.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative, is worried. For six years in a row, Statistics Canada reported, B.C. has had the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
And the recession has greatly increased the number of children at risk.
Children's lives today, and their futures, should be above partisan considerations. Turpel-Lafond invited the two leaders to sit down and talk about what is being done, and could be done, to help children.
James said yes.
Campbell said no. He refused even a meeting, brushing off the Children and Youth Representative and the issue of child poverty.
There are reasons for the premier to worry. The representative might point out problems - that is part of the job, created in as a result of the damning Hughes' report on the government's failures on children's issues. James might look for political advantage.
But the plight of some 126,000 B.C. children - with that number growing each week - seems more important than those political considerations.
The problems are serious. For six years, Statistics Canada has reported that B.C. has the highest proportion of children in poverty. You can quarrel about the definition of poverty, but StatsCan is comparing provinces on the same basis. And year after year, B.C. ranks at the bottom.
Across Canada in 2007, 9.5 per cent of children live in poverty. In B.C., 13 per cent of children fell below the poverty line. That is an improvement.
But not enough to move B.C. out of last place on child poverty. And it still meant 126,000 children in B.C. were living on the margins.
That number is much higher now. The recession has sent families on a downward spiral. Jobs are lost - there were 103,000 fewer people with full-time jobs in May than a year earlier.
Some people find work at lower wages. Others go on unemployment insurance. When that runs out - and any savings are gone - they end up on welfare, now known as income assistance. The government has kept life on income assistance pretty miserable. The focus should be on helping those who can work to find a job, the Liberals maintained.
It's a defensible position when the economy is growing and employers are hiring.
But it not when families with no options are forced to live in grinding poverty.
In four months, the number of children living on welfare has jumped almost nine per cent. A single parent with two children who is considered employable receives up to $660 a month on income assistance for rent. It's tough to find a decent one-bedroom - for three people - for that amount.
In addition, the family on assistance gets $650 a month for everything else. Try it. Put $650 in a jar and see if you and two children can make it through the month.
Bus passes, food, insurance, clothes, school trips, a movie with friends for your daughter, swimming lessons. Which will you drop?
If you get reckless, and spend $7 a day on food for each of the three people, all the income assistance is gone.
That's a long digression, but with a point. Times are grim for a lot of children in B.C. - for a higher percentage here than anywhere else in Canada). We benefit when children make the most of their potential.
But Campbell refused a meeting to talk about how we could give more children a chance to build great lives here.
Other provinces have already set out plans for reducing child poverty, with timelines and actions and targets to measure progress. B.C. has not taken that basic step.
The children's representative offered a simple opportunity to look at a critical problem. And the premier said no.
Footnote: Campbell said the representative should discuss child poverty with the legislative committee on children and youth. The committee has not met in almost eight months, and in any case has no power to direct the government or bring about improvements.

Some portions of reconciliation act discussion paper rejected, says chiefs

The "seismic change" for relations between First Nations and the province, which I wrote about here seems to be hitting some bumps in consultations with First Nations. It's too early for consultations with non-native British Columbians, says aboriginal affairs minister George Abbott.

NDP’S Proposal is Premature
PRESS RELEASE - July 6, 2009

The UBCIC Executive has reviewed and discussed the BC New Democratic Party’s June 30th letter to Premier Campbell proposing that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be mandated to consult with British Columbians on the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “Without the availability of the draft legislation to substantially discuss, it is premature for a legislative committee to trek through the province asking for input to a Discussion Paper. Our fear is that an ill-defined, ill-instructed committee will only serve to polarize the issue of reconciliation and act as an open-invitation for those who oppose the recognition of our Title and Rights.”

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations have hosted several regional sessions and have presented at community meetings on the Discussion Paper that contemplates a proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act.

“It is clear from the community sessions that elements of the Discussion Paper have been rejected and other elements require further reconsideration and refinement. We have heard that a more collaborative and inclusive process is needed for First Nations” said Grand Chief Phillip. “If through that process, there is agreement to proceed to a legislative proposal, the UBCIC anticipates it will require a significant departure from the proposed model in the Discussion Paper.”

Government paralysis

First, the reports were that subsidies to allow the poorest B.C. kids to camp were at risk. Then aid for leaky condo owners. Now even the Vancouver Island marmot is on the government chopping block. Funding for the marmot recovery program is uncertain, more than three months into the fiscal year.
Those are only the examples that have drawn public notice. Cuts are being planned across government, in secrecy, as this editorial notes.
One result of this process is paralysis, in government and the agencies that do its work. Three months into the fiscal year, funding for most projects is uncertain. Action is on hold. The public won't find out what is going on until September, when a new budget is presented.
The Liberals claim they need until then to rework the numbers. But in 2001, facing the task of replacing the NDP budget with one of their own, the Liberals were able to table a plan by July 30.

A smart and scary article on health care

Our inability to manage health care is one of the great public policy failures of the last 25 years, at least. The same issues and the same lack of information come up again and again and again.
Given Kevin Falcon's musings on private and two-tier care, this New Yorker article is must reading.

Falcon fumbles on two-tier health care

Kevin Falcon is off to a bumbling and alarming start as health minister.
Falcon sat down with the Vancouver Sun's health reporter and said he saw nothing wrong with letting affluent people pay for speedier treatment than the rest of British Columbians.
"I do not have any objection to people using their own money just as they do for dental care or sending their kids to private school," he told Pamela Fayerman. "I think choice is a good thing."
That's a radical shift away from equal, universal access to health care as promised under medicare.
After Fayerman sat down to write, Falcon phoned.
He should only have been talking about plastic surgery or treatments that aren't medically necessary, he said.
The Canada Health Act bars paying for better or faster care in any other case.
I'm new on the job, he explained.
Which is troubling on at least three levels. First, any cabinet minister - anyone who has been paying attention - should have known about the two-tier care issue and the basics of the Canada Health Act. But it appears Falcon only caught on when his handlers boxed his ears.
Second, Falcon's retreat was less than reassuring for those who think equal access to health care is important.
He didn't say he believed in the principles of the Canada Health Act or supported equal access to care. Just that it was the law and the official Liberal position was to support it, so he would.
And third, Falcon hardly came across as a medicare supporter. When he called Fayerman to clarify what he meant to say, he had this comment: "If we're talking about medically necessary care, we don't have the right to allow people to do that. Frankly, in my second week in the health portfolio, I haven't yet got my mind wrapped around that."
Before you take the health job, you should have "your mind around that." It's the law, federally and provincially. If you haven't decided whether you understand or support the principle, health might not be the right ministry.
It matters that Falcon didn't support equal access to care in the first interview.
And that even in the correction call, he talked about the law, not principle.
A full debate on health policy is important. But some principles are also important.
And Falcon's stumbling is telling.
What Canadians have said, so far, is that the right to health care shouldn't be restricted by wealth.
If two little girls are sick they should get treatment based on their needs. A child with rich parents shouldn't get speedy treatment help, while another child suffers on a waiting list. The sickest child should get the promptest care.
That's not what would happen if people could pay for better, faster treatment.
Nor would two-tier care reduce health costs. In fact, it would inevitably increase them. More money would be spent on the same treatment as extra charges were piled on. If proponents of two-tier care were proved right, and more procedures were done overall, then costs would rise even faster.
Falcon's comments came as three private clinics are suing the government, claiming the right to extra-bill patients for faster or better care.
The government has been fighting the case, pointing to the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act, which both bar extra-billing.
Falcon's confused and confusing comments won't help the case.
Two-tier care has been increasing in the province for about 15 years, as NDP and Liberal governments turned a blind eye to a growing number of private clinics that charge a fee to those who can afford speedier treatment.
The increase has at least been slowed by occasional government threats to crack down on the practice, although the clinics now treat some 50,000 patients a year who can pay to beat the public system's waiting lists.
Falcon's failure to state a clear, principled position on two-tier care will be a great encouragement to the private providers.
Footnote: The debate about extra fees, queue-jumping and two-tier care is separate from a discussion of the best way to deliver services under a universal, public plan. Private providers already play a significant role in the system. The benefits and risks rate a separate column.

'Seismic change' for First Nations needs close look

I have no idea what to make of Gordon Campbell's proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act. There's just not enough information.
The Liberals think it's huge, in a good way.
Some critics - business and First Nations - think it's huge, in a worrying way.
The initiative was born in quiet talks between a few First Nations leaders and the premier's office. The only public document from the government is a discussion paper of less than five pages, plus a map showing the province divided into 23 "sovereign indigenous nations."
It's thin gruel to explain a proposal billed as bringing "seismic change" to the relationship with First Nations.
The First Nations' leadership has started limited consultations in a handful of communities.
But there has been no apparent process for talking to business, municipalities or the non-native public. No public hearings are planned. The legislature's aboriginal affairs committee, inactive since 2001, hasn't been the chance to consider the changes.
Broadly, the act would bring about three sweeping changes.
First, the government would recognize aboriginal title and rights. The province now requires First Nations to prove they have occupied or used territory over generations before it accepts their claims. Under the act, title could be acknowledged without those tests.
Second, the provincial government would accept a First Nations' role in decisions on land and resource use and revenue sharing. A government-to-government partnership would be in effect.
Third, in return, First Nations would make it easier for the government - and industry - to deal with them. Now, the government deals with 203 councils and bands. The act envisions a shift to 20 to 30 "sovereign indigenous nations" that could speak for aboriginals within a region.
The discussion paper includes a map that shows the province carved up into 23 sovereign indigenous nations. The Secwepemc nation, for example, would stretch from Kamloops to Williams Lake to Golden (and into Alberta).
The discussion paper sets out a three-stage approach to implementing the new relationship. The initial level offers a little more joint decision-making then the status quo. The farther First Nations move toward the "indigenous nation" model, the greater the commitment to their right to shared decision-making, a claim on resource revenues and government-to-government relations.
The new act would override all other provincial land and resource legislation, the government says. But it would not apply to private land or current Crown tenures.
The aim is laudable. After 17 years and some $1.5 billion, the treaty process has produced few results. Life in most First Nations is still substandard by economic and social measures. It's hard to defend sticking with the same approach.
But the concerns about the act - in part because of the secrecy - are piling up. Municipalities, especially regional districts, worry they'll lose planning authority to the new indigenous nations. Companies wonder if the nations' share of resource revenues will come from the provincial government's current take, or result in higher payments. The whole notion of a new form of government, with unclear powers, worries some.
At the same time, some First Nations are rejecting the act. They argue the form of title it conveys is too weak and falls short of the standard set in court rulings.
And they're suspicious of the new form of government too, worried about giving up the local authority of a band or tribal council for an as-yet undefined sovereign indigenous nation.
The government hoped to pass the act in the spring, but abandoned the plan at the last minute in the face of concerns. Campbell says it's still a priority.
But this isn't the kind of change to be made without consultation and debate about the impacts.
The best option would be to introduce the bill as soon as possible and put off the debate and vote until the spring, allowing all British Columbians a chance to consider and discuss the implications of this "seismic change."
Footnote: The act never became an election issue, in part because the New Democrats are - at least broadly - sympathetic to the direction the government is going. That increases the onus on First Nations communities, municipalities, business, MLAs and individuals to make sure the act gets a thorough review.

Liberals heading back into 2001-style change, cuts

It's looking liken the Liberals are ready to launch their third term as they did their first - with a full-tilt overhaul of government, conducted on so many fronts and so quickly that critics are left behind.
Speculation, of course. Gordon Campbell and company are not chatty about their intentions.
But the signs are there. In 2001, the Liberals blindly cut taxes by 25 per cent and then set out to shrink government to make up the $1.2-billion in lost revenue.
This time, the shortfall will be much greater. Instead of tax cuts, overly optimistic revenue projections will be the cause. Economic growth, natural gas prices, housing starts - the budget over-estimated them all.
Campbell still says the deficit this year will be close to the $495 million in the budget. That number relied on spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries.
Now another $1 billion or more in savings are needed.
It sets the stage for a repeat of the 18 months following the 2001, when the Liberals rolled out massive change.
In health, for example, the government created five regional health authorities and a provincial authority for specialized care.
The core review was hunting for anything government could stop doing.
And the Liberals were preparing a destructive treaty referendum, which they almost immediately repudiated.
Now, the health authorities are being pushed to find up to $320 million in spending cuts. That's before the next round of cost control to deal with the faulty budget numbers. Another re-org is also rumoured. And Kevin Falcon is the new health minister. Falcon is underestimated; his willingness to say what he thinks should get more credit. But he brings a bulldozer history to a ministry where problems are often best faced with a scalpel.
And once again, something much like the core review is under way. The main order of business for new ministers, said Campbell, is looking for savings. Rich Coleman has cancelled, at least so far, a program that allowed poor and disabled children to go to summer camp to save about $365,000. Shameful, and an indication of how deep the coming cuts will go.
Instead of a referendum aimed, hopelessly and irrelevantly, at curtailing First Nation rights, Campbell is embarked on a dramatic - "seismic" - effort to recognize them and enshrine co-government and shared decision-making and revenue.
It's an effective tactic. If you want to make big changes in any setting, create a crisis. People become more willing to accept disruption, lost services and haste. Those opposed to any policy are overwhelmed by the flood of changes.
For example, the coming Recognition and Reconciliation Act, redefining relations with First Nations, would be a tough sell in normal times. (I'll look at it a subsequent column.)
For everyone - First Nations, business, non-aboriginals, municipalities - the act means big changes. And aboriginal, business, municipal representatives are nervous about this deal, basically reached behind closed doors.
But, as with the forgotten treaty referendum, the government is pressing ahead.
There are a few big differences between now and 2001. The fiscal pressures haven't been created by tax cuts; the economic is real.
There aren't just two opposition MLAs this time to try and keep track of the sweeping changes. The New Democrats have a chance to help make sure the public gets a chance to consider the impact of cuts and changes. That didn't happen in the Liberals' first years.
Nor do the Liberals have the same mandate. About 46 per cent of voters supported the party, down from 58 per cent in 2001. A majority of voters wanted another party in power.
But our system has somehow turned into a winner-takes-all event. We elect, more or less, a dictator for four years and then get to decide how we feel about the results.
Expect wild times, much more like the Liberals' first years after the 2001 election than their second term.
Footnote: Campbell has promised a revised budget Sept. 1. The next financial news will come in mid-July, when the auditor general releases the final numbers for the fiscal year that ended on March 31.

New faces get big roles in big cabinet

Governing must be harder than it looks from the outside.
Back in 1996, then opposition leader Gordon Campbell said the New Democrat's 18-person cabinet was way too big - bloated, expensive and out of touch. The Liberal platform promised no more than 12 ministers in cabinet.
That was then. This week, Campbell appointed a 25-member cabinet (including himself). The Liberals only have 49 MLAs; more than half of them are now cabinet ministers. By the time various committee jobs and other posts are handed out, almost everyone should get a little recognition - and extra money.
There were no huge shocks, but some chaåçnges were significant.
Campbell dumped four ministers - Linda Reid, John van Dongen, Gordon Hogg and Joan McIntyre.
That made room for some new faces, including a couple of brand new MLAs thrust into high-profile jobs.
Kash Heed, the former West Vancouver police chief, steps in as solicitor general, responsible for crime, gambling enforcement, ICBC and the coroners. Given concerns about gang violence and RCMP accountability - and Heed's support for regional policing - it is a place he could shine.
Margaret MacDiarmid , another Vancouver rookie, gets education. But she's far from a neophyte. A doctor, MacDiarmid was the B.C. Medical Association president in 2006-7. That meant a lot of work with government. She still faces a tough challenge, as school districts cope with underfunding.
Steve Thomson, a highly respected newcomer from the Okanagan, gets agriculture and lands.
In total, there will be nine new faces around the cabinet table, including seven elected for the first time last month.
The biggest promotion - sort of - went to Langley's Mary Polak, who went from health living to the ministry of children and families. Polak has been typecast, inaccurately, as a hardcore social conservative. But she still faces an immense challenge dealing with a ministry that continues to struggle and faces big money problems. Its budget is projected to grow at less than one per cent a year, as demand rises.
The other minister facing a huge challenge is Kevin Falcon, who goes from transportation to health. Falcon is underestimated. He's not one of cabinet's deep thinkers, but he has shown an ability to set a goal and plow toward it. But health, like children and families, faces big budget problems - health authorities have are looking for ways to comply with a provincial edict to help cut $320 million in spending. And Falcon's partisan approach could backfire when the issue becomes waits for hip replacement or long-term care.
George Abbott, his predecessor in health, gets aboriginal affairs. The issue will be a focus of the government, especially with its new recognition and reconciliation act. But the effort is being driven from the premier's office.
And Shirley Bond goes from education to transportation. Perhaps a Prince George MLA in the job will mean more attention to issues outside the Lower Mainland. Or perhaps not.
Three key ministers stay put. Pat Bell remains in forests. He was only appointed a year ago, but so far has not made much of a mark.
Rich Coleman keeps housing and social development. He seems keen on housing; but less so on the problems for people on - or unable to get - the dismal welfare payments.
And Colin Hansen - an eerily competent minister most of the time - stays in finance.
You do wonder about some of the jobs. Does B.C. really need both a minister of healthy living and sport and a minister for the Olympics and ActNow B.C., which promotes healthy living and sport? Or a minister for climate action, or intergovernmental relations?
But cabinet posts keep MLAs happy and loyal. And who knows, perhaps the new ministers - especially those just elected - will bring a fresh attitude and frankness to cabinet meetings.
That hasn't happened in the past - at least based on the Liberal experiment with open meetings - but you can hope.
Footnote: Cabinet ministers get an extra $50,000 on top of the $100,000 MLAs are paid. But it's not about the money for most. They get access to the premier and staff to walk them to meetings and arrange their days and a chance to feel they're making a difference. They are the cool kids, which is powerful given their nerd roots.

It's pay the tax you want day, says Catalyst

Property taxes are too high, complains Catalyst Paper Corp. (Like a lot of big industrial taxpayers in communities across B.C.)
Can't pay, won't pay, the corporation insists, to quote Italian playwright Dario Fo.
Instead, Catalyst's president says it will write cheques to four B.C. municipalities based on what it has decided its taxes should be, based on services used.
And that's about one-quarter the tax the municipalities - Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River and North Cowichan - have been receiving.
Catalyst says it's willing to pay $1.5 million in Campbell River. Its actual tax bill is $4.6 million, down 10 per cent from last year.
That would leave the municipality $3.1 million short this year, with two solutions. It could raises taxes 20 per cent for residents and small business to make up the difference. Or it could start laying off staff and cutting services for residents.
And Campbell River is in relatively goååçod shape. North Cowichan residents would face a 70-per-cent tax increase to make up the amount Catalyst has decided not to pay.
Catalyst is playing rough. If the municipalities don't go along, the company says it will close one of the four mills, based on tax rates and the willingness of the union local to accept concessions.
It's also challenging the tax levies in B.C. Supreme Court under the Local Government Act, arguing the taxes are "unreasonable." (That actually might be good news for the municipalities. The section of the act the company is relying on says that taxes or fees must be paid even if they are being challenged.)
This isn't really about Catalyst. It's about the end of B.C's. first 150 years. The colony, and then province, has offered extraordinary riches. Big trees, easy to get from the woods and highly sought after. Gold, coal, energy. A lot of buyers and not too many competitors. And money for everyone - owners, companies, employees and towns.
Times have changed, and the adjustments are wrenching - and mostly unhappy.
The mill and mine owners weren't just being kindly when they took on a big share of municipal costs. They needed employees and wanted a stable workforce, which meant families had to be lured. Paying taxes for an arena and policing and parks created the kind of community that ensured a stable workforce. The companies had the money, in those days. And there was even some goodwill and social responsibility involved.
Now, Catalyst looks at competitors in other places paying one-tenth as much in taxes and decides its responsibility to shareholders comes first.
There's no easy good guy/bad guy choice in all this. Industries have a legitimate grievance. Municipalities have been trying to address the issue - they have cut the company's taxes by a combined 11 per cent this year, after several of tax cuts.
This isn't a new issue. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council - chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller - said industrial taxes were putting operations at risk of closure. It called for a 50-per-cent cut. (Catalyst is proposing a 75-per-cent cut.) The Premier's Progress Board has raised similar concerns.
But the province hasn't acted on the warnings. (Rich Coleman suggested towns across B.C. should cut spending to reduce the industrial tax burden.)
Catalyst and the municipal governments agree on one thing - the provincial government should be involved in this dispute.
Catalyst acknowledges the municipalities would be in big trouble if it didn't pay its tax bills. It says the province should provide several years of transitional funding to allow them to cut services or shift the costs onto other taxpayers.
That too has risks, especially if this is to be repeated across the province.
But the current deadlock is destructive for everyone involved.
It's time for the provincial government to get off its hands and lead.
Footnote: The Liberals' lack of interest in the issue could be strategic - staying out of the negotiations creates a pressure on Catalyst and the municipalities to compromise. Or principled - letting the market decide on business and jobs survival. Or lack of interest.

An optimistic view of newspapers' future

Leaving aside the personal vested interest, I'd argue the future of newspapers, journalism and community are all closely linked.
The industry is struggling to come up with a working business model, as they say. If it can't, who will pay for people to spend their days gathering news and information? There's a ready market for specialized information - companies and individuals will pay significant money for corporate news or updates on legal judgments.
But it's much less clear who will pay for reporters to sit in Victoria courts or cover health authority issues or even report on provincial politics. (The point, for now, is not how well the existing commercial media are doing the job. It's whether anyone will do it.)
And without that reporting to provide a common starting point for communities, what will happen to then. Back in my early days in newspapers, the small daily I worked for was read by more than 70 per cent of adults each day. If we did a decent job on an issue, people had a shared base of information and were motivated to talk about it at work or over the back fence.
Today, about 40 per cent of residents read that paper each day. So where is the common concerns and starting point for considering issues?
Which leads, in a rambling way, to an interesting piece in The Tyee on Glacier Media, a newspaper operator with significant B.C. holdings that sees a future.