Can B.C. taxpayers really can afford $458 million for a fancy new roof on B.C. Place?
Especially right now. The government has chopped funding to fix leaky schools. Health authorities are cancelling thousands of surgeries to save money. School parents' groups, people who work with seniors, mental health programs - the government says there is no money to keep on supporting them. Youth sport funding has been chopped.
But for a Vancouver stadium and its two main pro sports teams, the government can find almost $500 million from taxpayers.
Which works out to about $106 per British Columbian - say $425 for a family of four. If they live in Prince George or Nelson, it's a big bill for a stadium they will likely only see on TV.
The government justifies the project on two grounds. Tourism Minister Kevin Krueger said the project will create 3,000 per years of employment. But that's a cost of more than $150,000 for each one-year job. The government could create the same employment at much lower cost simply by reversing cuts that have meant layoffs across the province.
And Krueger says a retractable roof will result in greater use of B.C. Place and indirect economic benefits for Vancouver.
You own the stadium. It's operated by a Crown corporation, Pavco, which also runs the Vancouver Convention Centre. Pavco's last annual report said the stadium was booked for about 200 events last year. The average economic impact was about $300,000 per event, Pavco estimates.
With the roof, the Crown corporation hopes that by 2013 there will be an extra 41 bookings a year, more than one-third of them from the Vancouver Whitecaps soccer team. And it expects each of those to generate an extra $1 million in spinoff benefits.
The corporation, and thus the government, is counting on attracting bigger summer events once the roof can open. (It's too often hot and uncomfortable now, apparently.)
There's certainly a chance for greater economic benefits if the right events can be added to the schedule. U2 played in GM Place this week; of the 56,000 tickets, 16,000 were sold to people from outside the province. That's a lot of hotel rooms that will be booked and restaurant meals.
But it's also true that there is no guarantee that will happen.
And people outside Vancouver - or even outside the business sectors that will benefit - have a right to wonder why they are footing the bill for a reno that benefits a couple of sports teams and a specific group of businesses.
You are paying. The government has been a little cute in announcing the project, describing its commitment as a loan to Pavco.
That's not really accurate. The Crown corporation is going to use $42 million left over from the Vancouver conference centre project. (Which, you'll recall, ended up costing $841 million, although Premier Gordon Campbell had insisted the $495-million budget was adequate. Provincial taxpayers picked up the whole bill for the overruns.)
And it hopes to raise the rest of the money by leasing land taxpayers own around the stadium site for development. If that works, it can repay the loan.
But that's still a cost to taxpayers. The people of B.C. own that land. It could be developed and the money used for health care or tax reductions or to reverse cuts in services in smaller communities.
There are other ways of funding the roof, if it is a good investment. In other places, special taxes or fees have helped ensure that the people and businesses who benefit from the stadium improvements pay the costs. There could be a tax on Lower Mainland hotel rooms earmarked for the new roof, or a surcharge on event tickets or a levy on Vancouver businesses. If the benefits are as claimed, that would be fair - certainly fairer than asking someone in Penticton to pay for Vancouver's fancy new stadium roof.
Footnote: Don't expect much political debate on this. The NDP supports the new roof, although MLA Spencer Herbert notes the cost estimate has more than doubled in the last 12 months. Politicians do seem to love fancy stadiums for sports teams.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
The link between NFL fans and dog fighters
For those settling down for an evening of Monday Night Football, recommended half-time reading could be found here at the New Yorker. Alarmingly clever - and Canadian - writer Malcolm Gladwell looks at brain injuries suffered by NFL players and wonders how the league differs from the dog fighting that got Michael Vick in such trouble.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Province should head off industrial property tax battle
OK, this is about industrial property tax battles.
But it's important. Depending on what happens, homeowners could face 70-per-cent property tax increases. Arenas and community infrastructure could be lost.
And thousands of jobs are at risk.
Catalyst Paper lost the first round in its fight to avoid paying property tax bills in the four communities where it operates - Campbell River, Port Alberni, North Cowichan and Powell River.
The battle isn't over. And Catalyst is just the vanguard.
Across B.C., the big employers in towns are fighting to pay lower property taxes. In Castelgar and Kitimat they've also launched legal actions. Some are threatening to close mills or other operations.
The companies have a case. For the most part, the municipalities concede that.
In the case of Catalyst, the four municipalities have been slowly trimming their industrial tax rates, and the company's burden, over the last several years. This year, the combined tax bill is down about 11 per cent.
But the companies say they're still being gouged. Given the recession, the rising dollar and collapsing markets, they can't afford to pay, they say. Competitors in the rest of North America face much lower local tax bills, they maintain.
Catalyst proposes to pay one-quarter of its tax bill. It calculates that reflects the value of the municipal services it consumes. The argument was part of its presentation in B.C. Supreme Court.
The challenge against North Cowichan taxes was the first of the four cases to be heard. Catalyst argued the taxes were so unreasonable and unfair as to be illegal.
Justice Peter Voith didn't buy it. The corporation made a good case that the taxes were too high, he found.
But the elected municipal council had set them legally, he ruled. "These matters are properly addressed by different levels of government and not the courts," Voith wrote in his judgment.
The tax rates are a legacy of a different time. Forest companies, mines and smelters were all highly profitable and often operated in one-industry towns.
They needed a stable workforce. Rather than building an old-style company town, they opted to pay high taxes to fund the services and infrastructure that allowed them to attract workers and their families.
Now they're less profitable. The towns are more diversified and a lot of people with no connection to the company are being subsidized.
In North Cowichan, residential property taxes are among the lowest in the province because Catalyst pays so much tax.
But fixing the imbalance isn't easy. If big industry pays less, than everyone else has to pay more or the municipality has to slash services.
In North Cowichan, residential taxpayers would have faced an immediate 70-per-cent tax increase to maintain services if Catalyst had won in court.
The provincial government should have taken the lead on the issue long ago. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council, chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller, recommended a 50-per-cent cut in industrial property taxes.
The B.C. Progress Board, which advises the premier, has also identified the problem.
The government has the power to cap industrial tax rates. But that would be intrusive and politically risky.
And the government could be accused of paying the company's tax bills, subsidizing them at the expense of their competitors.
Still, a combination of the threat, along with the carrot of some transitional funding to allow municipalities to plan for higher residential and small business taxes or budget cuts, could help resolve the problem.
That's what both Catalyst and the municipalities hoped would happen.
The government has opted to stay on the sidelines.
It could let the industries and the municipalities continue the battle. But there are significant risks to jobs and investment and public services in this dispute.
The provincial government has the best chance of brokering an agreement without a long and destructive series of skirmishes between big industries and municipalities.
Footnote: The issue raises the broader question of municipalities' reliance on property taxes. It's an odd way to assess taxes. A big family with a huge income and heavy demand for services pays the same as the neighbouring couple just scraping by.
But it's important. Depending on what happens, homeowners could face 70-per-cent property tax increases. Arenas and community infrastructure could be lost.
And thousands of jobs are at risk.
Catalyst Paper lost the first round in its fight to avoid paying property tax bills in the four communities where it operates - Campbell River, Port Alberni, North Cowichan and Powell River.
The battle isn't over. And Catalyst is just the vanguard.
Across B.C., the big employers in towns are fighting to pay lower property taxes. In Castelgar and Kitimat they've also launched legal actions. Some are threatening to close mills or other operations.
The companies have a case. For the most part, the municipalities concede that.
In the case of Catalyst, the four municipalities have been slowly trimming their industrial tax rates, and the company's burden, over the last several years. This year, the combined tax bill is down about 11 per cent.
But the companies say they're still being gouged. Given the recession, the rising dollar and collapsing markets, they can't afford to pay, they say. Competitors in the rest of North America face much lower local tax bills, they maintain.
Catalyst proposes to pay one-quarter of its tax bill. It calculates that reflects the value of the municipal services it consumes. The argument was part of its presentation in B.C. Supreme Court.
The challenge against North Cowichan taxes was the first of the four cases to be heard. Catalyst argued the taxes were so unreasonable and unfair as to be illegal.
Justice Peter Voith didn't buy it. The corporation made a good case that the taxes were too high, he found.
But the elected municipal council had set them legally, he ruled. "These matters are properly addressed by different levels of government and not the courts," Voith wrote in his judgment.
The tax rates are a legacy of a different time. Forest companies, mines and smelters were all highly profitable and often operated in one-industry towns.
They needed a stable workforce. Rather than building an old-style company town, they opted to pay high taxes to fund the services and infrastructure that allowed them to attract workers and their families.
Now they're less profitable. The towns are more diversified and a lot of people with no connection to the company are being subsidized.
In North Cowichan, residential property taxes are among the lowest in the province because Catalyst pays so much tax.
But fixing the imbalance isn't easy. If big industry pays less, than everyone else has to pay more or the municipality has to slash services.
In North Cowichan, residential taxpayers would have faced an immediate 70-per-cent tax increase to maintain services if Catalyst had won in court.
The provincial government should have taken the lead on the issue long ago. More than three years ago, the B.C. Competition Council, chaired by former NDP premier Dan Miller, recommended a 50-per-cent cut in industrial property taxes.
The B.C. Progress Board, which advises the premier, has also identified the problem.
The government has the power to cap industrial tax rates. But that would be intrusive and politically risky.
And the government could be accused of paying the company's tax bills, subsidizing them at the expense of their competitors.
Still, a combination of the threat, along with the carrot of some transitional funding to allow municipalities to plan for higher residential and small business taxes or budget cuts, could help resolve the problem.
That's what both Catalyst and the municipalities hoped would happen.
The government has opted to stay on the sidelines.
It could let the industries and the municipalities continue the battle. But there are significant risks to jobs and investment and public services in this dispute.
The provincial government has the best chance of brokering an agreement without a long and destructive series of skirmishes between big industries and municipalities.
Footnote: The issue raises the broader question of municipalities' reliance on property taxes. It's an odd way to assess taxes. A big family with a huge income and heavy demand for services pays the same as the neighbouring couple just scraping by.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
B.C. not really interested in preventing gambling crime
Sean Holman offers an extraordinary police perspective on the government's lack of interest in dealing with the crimes associated with casinos and gambling today.
"The former commander of British Columbia's now-defunct integrated illegal gaming enforcement team is questioning the provincial government's commitment to "meaningful" illegal gaming investigations. Speaking exclusively with Public Eye, Fred Pinnock also described the RCMP's senior management in British Columbia as demonstrating "willful blindness" when it comes to the connection between illegal gaming and organized crime. And he said his provincially-funded RCMP team should have been expanded - not shutdown.
Mr. Pinnock, who retired as a staff sergeant in September 2008 after 29 years with the force, acknowledged airing his concerns will make him "unpopular with some of my former colleagues."
But he felt compelled to do so - in part, because he believes his team should have been keeping tabs on what happens inside legal gaming facilities rather than just cracking down on illegal gaming outside those facilities."
Read the rest of the article at publiceyeonline.com.
"The former commander of British Columbia's now-defunct integrated illegal gaming enforcement team is questioning the provincial government's commitment to "meaningful" illegal gaming investigations. Speaking exclusively with Public Eye, Fred Pinnock also described the RCMP's senior management in British Columbia as demonstrating "willful blindness" when it comes to the connection between illegal gaming and organized crime. And he said his provincially-funded RCMP team should have been expanded - not shutdown.
Mr. Pinnock, who retired as a staff sergeant in September 2008 after 29 years with the force, acknowledged airing his concerns will make him "unpopular with some of my former colleagues."
But he felt compelled to do so - in part, because he believes his team should have been keeping tabs on what happens inside legal gaming facilities rather than just cracking down on illegal gaming outside those facilities."
Read the rest of the article at publiceyeonline.com.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A man with no hands and mandatory minimum sentences
Terry Bazzani could star in an ad campaign about the foolishness of mandatory minimum sentences.
Bazzani has no hands and short arms. He has only half of his left foot. He's had a series of surgeries on his face. He has no criminal record.
And he has pleaded guilty to importing heroin. He was a drug mule; he swallowed heroin capsules in Colombia and flew to Toronto. Police had been tipped off and arrested him.
It's a serious crime. It's also the kind of offence that some politicians would like to see linked to a mandatory minimum sentence. Judges would have no discretion. Anyone guilty would receive a guaranteed term in a penitentiary.
Fortunately, the measures aren't in place. Bazzani will be sentenced later this month, based on the judge's analysis.
The politicians think they can decide the appropriate punishment without knowing about the crime or the people sitting the courtroom - not just the criminal, but the victims too.
But crime circumstances vary. For some offenders, serious prison time might be appropriate - a repeat drug trafficking offender or high-volume importer. A strong deterrent sentence might be needed.
Bazzani has no convictions. He said the smuggling wasn't planned. He traveled to Colombia to see a woman he had met online. He was approached in a bar, offered $10,000 to swallow the drugs and fell for the lure of easy money. (That might not be true of course, but the Crown has offered no evidence to contradict the story.)
And offenders' circumstances vary. Imprisonment is a serious punishment for anyone.
But Bazzani would do spectacularly hard time. No hands, remember? He can't feed himself, except sandwiches. He can't clean himself after going to the bathroom, unless he has a shower. He spent five weeks in pretrial custody and went without brushing his teeth, cleaning himself and ate little food.
And he certainly can't stand up for himself. Which means that in prison he will be a victim, or locked up a protective custody. Bazzani's doctor spends two days a week providing care for inmates at the Vancouver Island Regional Correction Centre. The handless man would be in danger in prison, says Dr. James Henry, who said he treats inmates who are victims of violence.
Bazzani illustrates one problem with mandatory minimum sentences. Some people are going to be punished with sentences far out of proportion to their crimes, because judges are fettered with arbitrary, political sentencing rules.
There are other problems. They don't actually reduce crime, for starters.
And they cost taxpayers a fortune as more prisons are built and staffed to house a growing number of inmates.
B.C.'s jails are already overcrowded. The Solicitor General's Ministry service plan says there are "dangerous levels of inmate overcrowding" and reveals prisons are operating at 185 per cent of capacity. The situation "increasingly compromises community and staff safety," the ministry says.
The federal government has passed legislation to impose mandatory minimum sentences for a wider range of drug offences. The Senate is now reviewing the law and the Conservatives have already complained its not moving quickly enough to "get tough on crime."
The Conservatives won't reveal the cost of imprisoning more people as a result of their changes to the Criminal Code. But the government has doubled the capital budget for building new cells. At a minimum, analysts suggest, it will cost more than $100 million a year to lock up the new inmates.
Which might be fine it reduced crime and made Canadians safer.
But it doesn't. The Americans have been down this road. Thanks in part to mandatory minimum sentences, the U.S., on a per capita basis, imprisons six times more of its citizens than Canada. Crime has not been reduced; it is not safer. Just poorer
And more people like Bazzani have ended up in desperate situations behind bars.
Judges - the people who actually hear the evidence and study the laws - are far more likely to impose effective, appropriate sentences than politicians looking for some good headlines.
Footnote: Here in B.C., the problem isn't just jail overcrowding. The Solicitor General's Ministry service plan also notes that the number of offenders under community supervision orders jumped by 10 per cent last year, to 22,000. The increases, without a corresponding increase in staff to ensure offenders obey the rules of their release, are also compromising public safety, the ministry notes.
Bazzani has no hands and short arms. He has only half of his left foot. He's had a series of surgeries on his face. He has no criminal record.
And he has pleaded guilty to importing heroin. He was a drug mule; he swallowed heroin capsules in Colombia and flew to Toronto. Police had been tipped off and arrested him.
It's a serious crime. It's also the kind of offence that some politicians would like to see linked to a mandatory minimum sentence. Judges would have no discretion. Anyone guilty would receive a guaranteed term in a penitentiary.
Fortunately, the measures aren't in place. Bazzani will be sentenced later this month, based on the judge's analysis.
The politicians think they can decide the appropriate punishment without knowing about the crime or the people sitting the courtroom - not just the criminal, but the victims too.
But crime circumstances vary. For some offenders, serious prison time might be appropriate - a repeat drug trafficking offender or high-volume importer. A strong deterrent sentence might be needed.
Bazzani has no convictions. He said the smuggling wasn't planned. He traveled to Colombia to see a woman he had met online. He was approached in a bar, offered $10,000 to swallow the drugs and fell for the lure of easy money. (That might not be true of course, but the Crown has offered no evidence to contradict the story.)
And offenders' circumstances vary. Imprisonment is a serious punishment for anyone.
But Bazzani would do spectacularly hard time. No hands, remember? He can't feed himself, except sandwiches. He can't clean himself after going to the bathroom, unless he has a shower. He spent five weeks in pretrial custody and went without brushing his teeth, cleaning himself and ate little food.
And he certainly can't stand up for himself. Which means that in prison he will be a victim, or locked up a protective custody. Bazzani's doctor spends two days a week providing care for inmates at the Vancouver Island Regional Correction Centre. The handless man would be in danger in prison, says Dr. James Henry, who said he treats inmates who are victims of violence.
Bazzani illustrates one problem with mandatory minimum sentences. Some people are going to be punished with sentences far out of proportion to their crimes, because judges are fettered with arbitrary, political sentencing rules.
There are other problems. They don't actually reduce crime, for starters.
And they cost taxpayers a fortune as more prisons are built and staffed to house a growing number of inmates.
B.C.'s jails are already overcrowded. The Solicitor General's Ministry service plan says there are "dangerous levels of inmate overcrowding" and reveals prisons are operating at 185 per cent of capacity. The situation "increasingly compromises community and staff safety," the ministry says.
The federal government has passed legislation to impose mandatory minimum sentences for a wider range of drug offences. The Senate is now reviewing the law and the Conservatives have already complained its not moving quickly enough to "get tough on crime."
The Conservatives won't reveal the cost of imprisoning more people as a result of their changes to the Criminal Code. But the government has doubled the capital budget for building new cells. At a minimum, analysts suggest, it will cost more than $100 million a year to lock up the new inmates.
Which might be fine it reduced crime and made Canadians safer.
But it doesn't. The Americans have been down this road. Thanks in part to mandatory minimum sentences, the U.S., on a per capita basis, imprisons six times more of its citizens than Canada. Crime has not been reduced; it is not safer. Just poorer
And more people like Bazzani have ended up in desperate situations behind bars.
Judges - the people who actually hear the evidence and study the laws - are far more likely to impose effective, appropriate sentences than politicians looking for some good headlines.
Footnote: Here in B.C., the problem isn't just jail overcrowding. The Solicitor General's Ministry service plan also notes that the number of offenders under community supervision orders jumped by 10 per cent last year, to 22,000. The increases, without a corresponding increase in staff to ensure offenders obey the rules of their release, are also compromising public safety, the ministry notes.
B.C. a bad bet to help gambling addicts
Good work in the Times Colonist today on the B.C. government's abysmal record in working to prevent problem gambling and help the inevitable victims of the Liberals' huge expansion of gambling in the province.
The Press Pass column in the Sunday Times Colonist also provided this background.
"HYPOCRITES ARE US -- The B.C. Liberals have made a habit lately of saying one thing and doing the opposite (see HST later in this column). But nowhere is that more blatant than on the gambling file, where they recently expanded Internet gaming, while cutting help to problem gamblers.
One wonders what Tourism Minister Kevin Krueger would say about that if he were still in Opposition. This is him, back in 1997, attacking the NDP government of the day: "Women in British Columbia will die because of gambling expansion; that's the prediction of our experts at UBC. Some 37 per cent of the spouses of pathological gamblers abuse their children. So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it. This is a serious, serious issue."
WE'RE NO HELLS ANGELS -- Asked recently why the Liberals have drifted so far from what they once said in Opposition, Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman credited a growing understanding of the gambling file, if not the $1 billion-plus profits.
"I think you have to mature on the file over time," he said. "That's what we've done. I think you also, like any product, have to stay current with the issues around it."
For instance, Coleman claims one of the biggest problems with Internet gaming is that "it isn't controlled." People can visit thousands of unregulated sites run out of the Barbados and Cayman Islands, he said.
"We'd rather do it here, and know what's in front of us, and also, at the same, we can, on our site, keep people informed on issues around problem gambling if they need help and all that stuff ... We're managing and watching it a lot differently than somebody that frankly doesn't care about them."
How that squares with a 34 per cent cut to the problem-gambling budget remains unclear."
The Press Pass column in the Sunday Times Colonist also provided this background.
"HYPOCRITES ARE US -- The B.C. Liberals have made a habit lately of saying one thing and doing the opposite (see HST later in this column). But nowhere is that more blatant than on the gambling file, where they recently expanded Internet gaming, while cutting help to problem gamblers.
One wonders what Tourism Minister Kevin Krueger would say about that if he were still in Opposition. This is him, back in 1997, attacking the NDP government of the day: "Women in British Columbia will die because of gambling expansion; that's the prediction of our experts at UBC. Some 37 per cent of the spouses of pathological gamblers abuse their children. So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it. This is a serious, serious issue."
WE'RE NO HELLS ANGELS -- Asked recently why the Liberals have drifted so far from what they once said in Opposition, Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman credited a growing understanding of the gambling file, if not the $1 billion-plus profits.
"I think you have to mature on the file over time," he said. "That's what we've done. I think you also, like any product, have to stay current with the issues around it."
For instance, Coleman claims one of the biggest problems with Internet gaming is that "it isn't controlled." People can visit thousands of unregulated sites run out of the Barbados and Cayman Islands, he said.
"We'd rather do it here, and know what's in front of us, and also, at the same, we can, on our site, keep people informed on issues around problem gambling if they need help and all that stuff ... We're managing and watching it a lot differently than somebody that frankly doesn't care about them."
How that squares with a 34 per cent cut to the problem-gambling budget remains unclear."
Friday, October 16, 2009
No one voted for worsening health care
The Vancouver Island Health Authority's plan to deal with provincial underfunding is a destructive mishmash of measures that hurt patients, increase long-term costs and ignore real health issues.
And it's a pattern occurring across the province as all the regional health authorities struggle to find $360 million in spending cuts.
Fewer surgeries and diagnostic tests, cuts to care for seniors and the addicted, reduced community programs - VIHA revealed a list of measures that reduce the level of care in the region.
The problem is simple. The health authority's funding from the provincial government, despite a 5.9-per-cent increase, is $45 million short of what's needed to provide care to residents.
VIHA proposes service cuts, higher fees and property sales to deal with the lack of money from the province.
The other health authorities face the same crunch and have announced, or soon will reveal, similar cuts.
The timing is ridiculous. VIHA's fiscal year started last March 31, like the other health authorities. It is only now, more than halfway through the year, revealing plans to address a $45-million shortfall it knew about nine months ago.
That's not competent. Practically, it means cuts need to be deeper. Instead of 12 months of savings, the authority needs to find the same money in five months.
Politically, it means people voted in May without knowing the effects of Liberal policies. The cuts reflect a choice by the Campbell government to limit health-care funding; the consequences were never made clear in the election campaign.
Quite the contrary. Premier Gordon Campbell promised that despite financial pressures, core services like health would be protected. The authority knew in February cuts were needed; so did the Liberals.
Only in October did they reveal the reality.
VIHA will cut the number of surgeries by 1.3 per cent. Fewer operations means longer waits for suffering people, some unable to work or care for their children. It has reduced the number of MRIs and closed mental health beds.
Those are cuts to services. That's a Liberal promise - an important one - broken.
The other major problem is that the cuts are desperate and short term. They don't really save money.
Cutting the number of operations just means that more will be needed next year. Making people wait means more emergency room visits, more pain drugs and worse outcomes.
It's a straightforward equation. About 30 people a month in the capital region are told they need non-urgent hip replacement. It's called elective surgery, but it's not. No one is going to let doctors cut away their hip bones unless it's desperately needed to stop pain and restore mobility.
If system provided 30 operations, the wait would remain the same.
But if it provided 25 operations, then five people would be bumped to the next month. By the end of the year, 60 people would be parked on the waiting list. And each year, the wait would grow longer.
The health authority is also cutting grants to community organizations that deliver front-line services. That too is a short-term saving with long-term costs.
Victoria Citizens' Counselling, for example, provides help for more than 1,000 people annually, mainly working poor and those on income assistance. Demand has increased by 25 per cent in the past 12 months. VIHA has eliminated its funding, which was 30 per cent of the budget.
The health authority is also selling real estate and privatizing care homes. Publicly operated seniors' homes will be closed and the property sold to corporate providers. The authority will pay for spaces for seniors needing residential care.
Leave aside the public-private debate. The health authority is selling assets - a one-time gain - and using the money to cover operating deficits.
Next year, based on the three-year budget, the funding shortfall will be just as great. The money from selling real estate will be gone. And the cuts to health care will need to be much deeper. The year after that, more of the same.
It's cruel to make people wait for care or treatment without at least discussing whether it makes more sense to look after them promptly.
It's dishonest for the government have promised to protect services during the election campaign.
And it's foolish to think that pushing costs into the future is any real solution.
And it's a pattern occurring across the province as all the regional health authorities struggle to find $360 million in spending cuts.
Fewer surgeries and diagnostic tests, cuts to care for seniors and the addicted, reduced community programs - VIHA revealed a list of measures that reduce the level of care in the region.
The problem is simple. The health authority's funding from the provincial government, despite a 5.9-per-cent increase, is $45 million short of what's needed to provide care to residents.
VIHA proposes service cuts, higher fees and property sales to deal with the lack of money from the province.
The other health authorities face the same crunch and have announced, or soon will reveal, similar cuts.
The timing is ridiculous. VIHA's fiscal year started last March 31, like the other health authorities. It is only now, more than halfway through the year, revealing plans to address a $45-million shortfall it knew about nine months ago.
That's not competent. Practically, it means cuts need to be deeper. Instead of 12 months of savings, the authority needs to find the same money in five months.
Politically, it means people voted in May without knowing the effects of Liberal policies. The cuts reflect a choice by the Campbell government to limit health-care funding; the consequences were never made clear in the election campaign.
Quite the contrary. Premier Gordon Campbell promised that despite financial pressures, core services like health would be protected. The authority knew in February cuts were needed; so did the Liberals.
Only in October did they reveal the reality.
VIHA will cut the number of surgeries by 1.3 per cent. Fewer operations means longer waits for suffering people, some unable to work or care for their children. It has reduced the number of MRIs and closed mental health beds.
Those are cuts to services. That's a Liberal promise - an important one - broken.
The other major problem is that the cuts are desperate and short term. They don't really save money.
Cutting the number of operations just means that more will be needed next year. Making people wait means more emergency room visits, more pain drugs and worse outcomes.
It's a straightforward equation. About 30 people a month in the capital region are told they need non-urgent hip replacement. It's called elective surgery, but it's not. No one is going to let doctors cut away their hip bones unless it's desperately needed to stop pain and restore mobility.
If system provided 30 operations, the wait would remain the same.
But if it provided 25 operations, then five people would be bumped to the next month. By the end of the year, 60 people would be parked on the waiting list. And each year, the wait would grow longer.
The health authority is also cutting grants to community organizations that deliver front-line services. That too is a short-term saving with long-term costs.
Victoria Citizens' Counselling, for example, provides help for more than 1,000 people annually, mainly working poor and those on income assistance. Demand has increased by 25 per cent in the past 12 months. VIHA has eliminated its funding, which was 30 per cent of the budget.
The health authority is also selling real estate and privatizing care homes. Publicly operated seniors' homes will be closed and the property sold to corporate providers. The authority will pay for spaces for seniors needing residential care.
Leave aside the public-private debate. The health authority is selling assets - a one-time gain - and using the money to cover operating deficits.
Next year, based on the three-year budget, the funding shortfall will be just as great. The money from selling real estate will be gone. And the cuts to health care will need to be much deeper. The year after that, more of the same.
It's cruel to make people wait for care or treatment without at least discussing whether it makes more sense to look after them promptly.
It's dishonest for the government have promised to protect services during the election campaign.
And it's foolish to think that pushing costs into the future is any real solution.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Art and Soul: A Saturday must if you're in Victoria
I've just been helping mount some of the art for this event. It's quite powerful; you've got to see it.
Art and Soul is part of Homelessness Action Week, billed as "a special evening featuring the art and music of people who have experience homelessness."
It's a casual event at the Victoria Conservatory of Music building - 907 Pandora - to celebrate the creativity and talent of local artists you probably don't know. It's on from 7 to 10, Saturday, Oct. 17.
Admission is free. You can meet the artists and hear music by people who have known homelessness. Some works will be for sale. They'll be snacks and a little beer.
As well as the artists' works, Rev. Al Tysick has loaned some works from his collection. And there will be a slide show of the work of the late Hans Fear, a great talent.
OK, my partner is organizing the event. But really, you should see the pictures.
Art and Soul is part of Homelessness Action Week, billed as "a special evening featuring the art and music of people who have experience homelessness."
It's a casual event at the Victoria Conservatory of Music building - 907 Pandora - to celebrate the creativity and talent of local artists you probably don't know. It's on from 7 to 10, Saturday, Oct. 17.
Admission is free. You can meet the artists and hear music by people who have known homelessness. Some works will be for sale. They'll be snacks and a little beer.
As well as the artists' works, Rev. Al Tysick has loaned some works from his collection. And there will be a slide show of the work of the late Hans Fear, a great talent.
OK, my partner is organizing the event. But really, you should see the pictures.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Liberals take B.C. in a new, colder direction
Things have been changing in B.C. since the election, for the worse.
The cuts in services and community supports and the tax breaks for businesses represent a big shift in the kind of province we're handing on to our children.
These aren't just the usual post-election initiatives, but changes that reflect a dramatic change in values.
The recession would inevitably have forced some changes on any government. But increasingly, it looks like what's really underway is a search and destroy mission aimed at programs and services that had been considered important.
These programs had all survived the Liberals' first term core review to strip government down to its essential roles.
The cuts are brutal and poorly thought out. Solicitor General Kash Heed said he didn't know that cutting $440,000 from frontline support for victims of domestic violence would be a problem. Premier Gordon Campbell didn't understand gaming grant cuts reneged on three-year commitments to charities. Both were reversed as a result of public pressure.
Hundreds of others are going ahead. Less help for autistic children, halving of support for school parent advisory committees, longer waits for health care, no repairs to leaky schools, cuts to kids sports, reduced treatment for drug addicts. The list is long.
And the loss is likely permanent. Grants to parent advisory councils can be restored before the next election, of course. But if a treatment centre has closed because funding was cut, then the resource is lost.
This goes beyond a trimming of programs. The Liberals seem to be making a structural and cultural change. The people hurt by the cuts have overwhelmingly been the already disadvantaged - children with disabilities or struggling schools or people who couldn't afford private health care. Local seniors' drop-in centres or libraries.
Cumulatively, the cuts change who we are. Over decades, British Columbians have come to set out a collective role in helping people who needed it, and the limits of that support.
Now, we have decided we will do much less. Those affected will have to accept their diminished lives.
That's a choice a society can make.
But British Columbians didn't get a chance to make that choice. Gordon Campbell ran his spring election campaign on the promise that big cuts weren't needed in B.C.
And then proceeded to make them.
These aren't temporary cuts during a recession. In fact, they are just the beginning.
Non-health spending, after a small increase this year, is to be cut in each of the next two years. This funding isn't going to be restored. (Health spending rises by about six per cent annually in the current three-year plan.)
At the same time, the government is shifting the burden of paying for the remaining services from large businesses to individual taxpayers.
The harmonized sales tax, according to Campbell, will reduce the taxes paid by businesses by $1.9 billion a year. It will also be revenue neutral, he said. The government won't be out any money.
Which means individuals will see their taxes increase to cover that shift. (Some businesses will pay more too, like restaurants. The Finance Ministry has been unable to provide any numbers on the share of the burden between the unlucky businesses and individuals.)
Again, society can make a choice to tax business less and individual families more. Lower business taxes can attract investment. Jobs are created, competition for employees raises wages and most people get enough money to pay the higher taxes, plus a bit. (Probably not the most disadvantaged, who depended on those services.)
But again, the Liberals didn't campaign on the need to reduce the tax burden on big business by raising it on everyone else. In fact, they specifically ruled out the HST.
Big, lasting changes are underway in B.C. And the people have never had a chance to say whether they approve.
Footnote: The Liberals have faltered in explaining or defending the cuts in the legislature and their support has plummeted since the election, according to the polls. The impact of the cuts and the HST, which takes effect July 1, will continue past the midpoint of the Campbell government's term.
The cuts in services and community supports and the tax breaks for businesses represent a big shift in the kind of province we're handing on to our children.
These aren't just the usual post-election initiatives, but changes that reflect a dramatic change in values.
The recession would inevitably have forced some changes on any government. But increasingly, it looks like what's really underway is a search and destroy mission aimed at programs and services that had been considered important.
These programs had all survived the Liberals' first term core review to strip government down to its essential roles.
The cuts are brutal and poorly thought out. Solicitor General Kash Heed said he didn't know that cutting $440,000 from frontline support for victims of domestic violence would be a problem. Premier Gordon Campbell didn't understand gaming grant cuts reneged on three-year commitments to charities. Both were reversed as a result of public pressure.
Hundreds of others are going ahead. Less help for autistic children, halving of support for school parent advisory committees, longer waits for health care, no repairs to leaky schools, cuts to kids sports, reduced treatment for drug addicts. The list is long.
And the loss is likely permanent. Grants to parent advisory councils can be restored before the next election, of course. But if a treatment centre has closed because funding was cut, then the resource is lost.
This goes beyond a trimming of programs. The Liberals seem to be making a structural and cultural change. The people hurt by the cuts have overwhelmingly been the already disadvantaged - children with disabilities or struggling schools or people who couldn't afford private health care. Local seniors' drop-in centres or libraries.
Cumulatively, the cuts change who we are. Over decades, British Columbians have come to set out a collective role in helping people who needed it, and the limits of that support.
Now, we have decided we will do much less. Those affected will have to accept their diminished lives.
That's a choice a society can make.
But British Columbians didn't get a chance to make that choice. Gordon Campbell ran his spring election campaign on the promise that big cuts weren't needed in B.C.
And then proceeded to make them.
These aren't temporary cuts during a recession. In fact, they are just the beginning.
Non-health spending, after a small increase this year, is to be cut in each of the next two years. This funding isn't going to be restored. (Health spending rises by about six per cent annually in the current three-year plan.)
At the same time, the government is shifting the burden of paying for the remaining services from large businesses to individual taxpayers.
The harmonized sales tax, according to Campbell, will reduce the taxes paid by businesses by $1.9 billion a year. It will also be revenue neutral, he said. The government won't be out any money.
Which means individuals will see their taxes increase to cover that shift. (Some businesses will pay more too, like restaurants. The Finance Ministry has been unable to provide any numbers on the share of the burden between the unlucky businesses and individuals.)
Again, society can make a choice to tax business less and individual families more. Lower business taxes can attract investment. Jobs are created, competition for employees raises wages and most people get enough money to pay the higher taxes, plus a bit. (Probably not the most disadvantaged, who depended on those services.)
But again, the Liberals didn't campaign on the need to reduce the tax burden on big business by raising it on everyone else. In fact, they specifically ruled out the HST.
Big, lasting changes are underway in B.C. And the people have never had a chance to say whether they approve.
Footnote: The Liberals have faltered in explaining or defending the cuts in the legislature and their support has plummeted since the election, according to the polls. The impact of the cuts and the HST, which takes effect July 1, will continue past the midpoint of the Campbell government's term.
Friday, October 09, 2009
B.C. expands gambling, cuts prevention and support
The Liberal government's gambling addiction is spinning out of control.
It's still expanding betting in the province, looking for ways to increase the number of gamblers and the average amount each one loses in a week.
At the same time, it's slashing the money for problem gambling prevention and treatment by 34 per cent this year. B.C. will spend $4.6 million. Ontario, with three times the population, will spends nine times as much.
Up to the point that they go broke, kill themselves or get arrested for embezzling, problem gamblers are great customers for B.C. Lotteries. The corporation's financial targets for this year include the goal of an average $740 loss from everyone who plays Bingo, buys lottery tickets or goes to casinos.
Most people who buy a few lottery tickets don't let things get that out of hand. The corporation needs big losers to hit that goal. And problem gamblers are big losers.
The Globe and Mail has done an excellent series on. It used freedom of information requests to get data from the B.C. Gold Players Card, which the Crown corporation uses to identify and reward big losers. Gamblers use the card in casinos and the corporation gets huge amounts of information on where they bet, how much and their losses. It can offer the big losers benefits to keep them coming back. And boy, there are big losers. Ten B.C. gamblers posted combined losses of $11.7 million in a year. Eight lost more than $1 million. To make the top 100 losers, you would have to drop $270,000 - that's $5,000 a week for an entire year. (B.C. Lotteries says it's possible the losses are overstated; maybe you would only have to lose $4,000 a week to make the club.)
So there are at least 100 people with a gambling habit costing them between $5,000 and $35,000 a week.
Which is fine with B.C. Lotteries.
"Those individuals are clearly able to make that kind of expenditure without an impact on their economic security," corporation vice-president Kevin Gass said. "I think that's really the way that one has to look at it, and I think it's dangerous to try to guess or judge based on that level of expenditure." Here's a useful rule. Anytime some says "clearly," they're about to make a claim that can't be supported. (And anytime someone says "frankly"? they're about to try and dupe you.) B.C. Lotteries has no way of knowing whether these people can afford to gamble away this money, or whether they are being destroyed by an addiction. One gambler spent an average 26 hours a week over the course of year, losing $100 an hour.
The corporation's interest is in increasing losses by British Columbians so it can deliver its commitment to the government. And the government is keen to support the corporation in achieving its goals. As the government cuts funding to prevent problem gambling and help those whose lives are being destroyed, it is about to become the first jurisdiction in North America to launch online casino gambling. The government's own responsible gambling website notes Internet betting involves risks of addiction and big losses. People can be hooked; they can be drunk or stoned or desperate. And they can go for hours, chasing their losses.
The government increased the limit on weekly losses from $120 to $9,999. (That's $1 below the amount that requires reporting of suspicious transactions to the federal government to fight money laundering.)
You can make an argument for government gambling as an alternative to illegal operations.
But in B.C., the goal is to grab cash from citizens by enticing them to lose more.
Gordon Campbell and the Liberals used to think it was wrong to create a province of losers and contribute to crime and family breakdown. Now, they care more about the money.
Footnote: The Liberals ran in 2001 on a promise to halt the expansion of gambling. Since then, they have quadrupled the number of slot machines or VLTs, doubled the money they take from losers, allowed alcohol to be served to be gamblers and gone online. The number of people with severe gambling problems doubled between 2002 and 2007, according to the government's data.
It's still expanding betting in the province, looking for ways to increase the number of gamblers and the average amount each one loses in a week.
At the same time, it's slashing the money for problem gambling prevention and treatment by 34 per cent this year. B.C. will spend $4.6 million. Ontario, with three times the population, will spends nine times as much.
Up to the point that they go broke, kill themselves or get arrested for embezzling, problem gamblers are great customers for B.C. Lotteries. The corporation's financial targets for this year include the goal of an average $740 loss from everyone who plays Bingo, buys lottery tickets or goes to casinos.
Most people who buy a few lottery tickets don't let things get that out of hand. The corporation needs big losers to hit that goal. And problem gamblers are big losers.
The Globe and Mail has done an excellent series on. It used freedom of information requests to get data from the B.C. Gold Players Card, which the Crown corporation uses to identify and reward big losers. Gamblers use the card in casinos and the corporation gets huge amounts of information on where they bet, how much and their losses. It can offer the big losers benefits to keep them coming back. And boy, there are big losers. Ten B.C. gamblers posted combined losses of $11.7 million in a year. Eight lost more than $1 million. To make the top 100 losers, you would have to drop $270,000 - that's $5,000 a week for an entire year. (B.C. Lotteries says it's possible the losses are overstated; maybe you would only have to lose $4,000 a week to make the club.)
So there are at least 100 people with a gambling habit costing them between $5,000 and $35,000 a week.
Which is fine with B.C. Lotteries.
"Those individuals are clearly able to make that kind of expenditure without an impact on their economic security," corporation vice-president Kevin Gass said. "I think that's really the way that one has to look at it, and I think it's dangerous to try to guess or judge based on that level of expenditure." Here's a useful rule. Anytime some says "clearly," they're about to make a claim that can't be supported. (And anytime someone says "frankly"? they're about to try and dupe you.) B.C. Lotteries has no way of knowing whether these people can afford to gamble away this money, or whether they are being destroyed by an addiction. One gambler spent an average 26 hours a week over the course of year, losing $100 an hour.
The corporation's interest is in increasing losses by British Columbians so it can deliver its commitment to the government. And the government is keen to support the corporation in achieving its goals. As the government cuts funding to prevent problem gambling and help those whose lives are being destroyed, it is about to become the first jurisdiction in North America to launch online casino gambling. The government's own responsible gambling website notes Internet betting involves risks of addiction and big losses. People can be hooked; they can be drunk or stoned or desperate. And they can go for hours, chasing their losses.
The government increased the limit on weekly losses from $120 to $9,999. (That's $1 below the amount that requires reporting of suspicious transactions to the federal government to fight money laundering.)
You can make an argument for government gambling as an alternative to illegal operations.
But in B.C., the goal is to grab cash from citizens by enticing them to lose more.
Gordon Campbell and the Liberals used to think it was wrong to create a province of losers and contribute to crime and family breakdown. Now, they care more about the money.
Footnote: The Liberals ran in 2001 on a promise to halt the expansion of gambling. Since then, they have quadrupled the number of slot machines or VLTs, doubled the money they take from losers, allowed alcohol to be served to be gamblers and gone online. The number of people with severe gambling problems doubled between 2002 and 2007, according to the government's data.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Even Crown corporations need lobbyists, it seems
Andrew MacLeod has an important story over at thetyee.ca. The news hook is that the newly hired head of the B.C. Innovation Council, claimed $167,342 in expenses during his first six months on the job. Most of the money went to cover moving costs for Dean Rockwell, who had been based in Atlanta.
But the real big questions relate to an earlier report by MacLeod. (It's the sidebar to the main story on post-secondary institutions hiring lobbyists, also a bizarre phenomenon.)
Rockwell was hired in October 2008. Two months later, Jason Herbert, a Vancouver lawyer, and Allen Salton registered as lobbyists for the Crown corporation. Their goal was to influence the government on "CEO compensation," according to the registration. Herbert's law firm was paid $80,469 during the period, but that could include other work for the council.
So a Crown corporation, dependent on taxpayer funding, needed lobbyists to talk the government about a raise for the CEO. What happened to picking up the phone and calling the cabinet minister responsible for the corporation?
What does it say when even Crown corporation CEOs and boards think they need help in getting the government to look favorably at their concerns?
And where does that leave people who don't know, or can't afford, lobbyists?
But the real big questions relate to an earlier report by MacLeod. (It's the sidebar to the main story on post-secondary institutions hiring lobbyists, also a bizarre phenomenon.)
Rockwell was hired in October 2008. Two months later, Jason Herbert, a Vancouver lawyer, and Allen Salton registered as lobbyists for the Crown corporation. Their goal was to influence the government on "CEO compensation," according to the registration. Herbert's law firm was paid $80,469 during the period, but that could include other work for the council.
So a Crown corporation, dependent on taxpayer funding, needed lobbyists to talk the government about a raise for the CEO. What happened to picking up the phone and calling the cabinet minister responsible for the corporation?
What does it say when even Crown corporation CEOs and boards think they need help in getting the government to look favorably at their concerns?
And where does that leave people who don't know, or can't afford, lobbyists?
Another outsider gets top government job
The news that Jessica McDonald is quitting the top management job in the B.C. government didn’t surprise most people, since they didn’t know she had the job in the first place.
But for the 35,000 people working for the government, lobbyists, politicians and those interested in how things work, McDonald’s surprise departure this week was a big deal.
The job title is deputy minister to the premier. But in a management sense, it’s something like being CEO of a corporation with $35 billion in revenue.
Premier Gordon Campbell set the direction, but McDonald figured out how to get there. The deputy minister sits at the point where politics and the public sector come together. The deputies in each ministry reported to her, not their ministers. The premier counts on both policy and political advice.
McDonald was a surprise hire when Ken Dobell, her predecessor, left the job after the 2005 election. She was 35, easily young enough to be Dobell’s daughter. and had little management experience.
McDonald’s work in Victoria began as a legislative intern when the Bill Vander Zalm government imploded. She worked then with Campbell’s chief of staff Martyn Brown. She moved into government, including a brief stint as a mid-level manager, and then started a consulting company. And she was married to Mike McDonald, who supported and worked with Campbell since his days as Vancouver mayor.
In 2003, Campbell hired her as deputy minister for special projects, a job that offered experience across government. She then got the job of planning for the Liberals’ second term, reporting directly to Campbell. It was a powerful position.
A year later she was the head of the public service.
It was controversial, naming an outsider with little experience to the top job.
Reviews of McDonald’s tenure are mixed. She brought focus to supporting and strengthening the workforce, a priority from day one in the job. Unfortunately, her last months were spent in downsizing.
McDonald also played a big role in striking a land use deal on the Great Bear Rainforest, generally considered a success. And she led the New Relationship with First Nations, which hasn’t worked so well.
The most common criticism was that McDonald grabbed too much control of big files, centralizing decision-making and pushing ministry management aside. Among other things, that created a bottleneck when projects bogged down in the premier’s office.
McDonald wanted to be in control. I had one of the few — maybe only — media interviews with her soon after she took the job, for a magazine. It took months of pushing to get an hour. At the outset, McDonald said she wouldn’t answer questions about herself — a problem, since the piece was a profile. (You can read it here; it was pretty good.)
There has been some talk that McDonald is responsible for the chaos since the botched February budget, but that’s not accurate. Decisions on the HST and the cuts to services — and the way they have been communicated — were made by the premier’s officer.
McDonald said she decided it was a good time to leave. There is no reason to doubt that.
Allan Seckel, who is replacing her, also has an unconventional path to the top job. He was a high-level Vancouver litigation lawyer, with clients from the airport authority to Bon Koo, an entrepeneur sued for $8 million by the Chinese government.
In 2003, the government launched a national search for a deputy minister to the attorney general, a cabinet post then held by Geoff Plant.
And Seckel, a former law partner of Plant who helped with his first election campaign, emerged as the winner.
Again, what’s striking about this appointment to the top job is the lack of experience. Seckel has done the deputy AG job and had some short-term experience in other areas. But he’s gone from lawyer to deputy minister to head of a giant organization — 35,000 employees, remember — with little practical management experience.
Seckel hasn’t made any strong impression, good or bad, in his current job. The Attorney General’s Ministry has been slow to bring forward needed legislation and has made little progress on reducing delays and costs in the court system. But again, that likely reflects the politicians’ choices.
The changes do matter. Seckel will bring his priorities and political and policy advice to the premier. He’s also likely to shuffle deputy ministers, bringing more change.
And he’s starting in the job at a very tough time.
But for the 35,000 people working for the government, lobbyists, politicians and those interested in how things work, McDonald’s surprise departure this week was a big deal.
The job title is deputy minister to the premier. But in a management sense, it’s something like being CEO of a corporation with $35 billion in revenue.
Premier Gordon Campbell set the direction, but McDonald figured out how to get there. The deputy minister sits at the point where politics and the public sector come together. The deputies in each ministry reported to her, not their ministers. The premier counts on both policy and political advice.
McDonald was a surprise hire when Ken Dobell, her predecessor, left the job after the 2005 election. She was 35, easily young enough to be Dobell’s daughter. and had little management experience.
McDonald’s work in Victoria began as a legislative intern when the Bill Vander Zalm government imploded. She worked then with Campbell’s chief of staff Martyn Brown. She moved into government, including a brief stint as a mid-level manager, and then started a consulting company. And she was married to Mike McDonald, who supported and worked with Campbell since his days as Vancouver mayor.
In 2003, Campbell hired her as deputy minister for special projects, a job that offered experience across government. She then got the job of planning for the Liberals’ second term, reporting directly to Campbell. It was a powerful position.
A year later she was the head of the public service.
It was controversial, naming an outsider with little experience to the top job.
Reviews of McDonald’s tenure are mixed. She brought focus to supporting and strengthening the workforce, a priority from day one in the job. Unfortunately, her last months were spent in downsizing.
McDonald also played a big role in striking a land use deal on the Great Bear Rainforest, generally considered a success. And she led the New Relationship with First Nations, which hasn’t worked so well.
The most common criticism was that McDonald grabbed too much control of big files, centralizing decision-making and pushing ministry management aside. Among other things, that created a bottleneck when projects bogged down in the premier’s office.
McDonald wanted to be in control. I had one of the few — maybe only — media interviews with her soon after she took the job, for a magazine. It took months of pushing to get an hour. At the outset, McDonald said she wouldn’t answer questions about herself — a problem, since the piece was a profile. (You can read it here; it was pretty good.)
There has been some talk that McDonald is responsible for the chaos since the botched February budget, but that’s not accurate. Decisions on the HST and the cuts to services — and the way they have been communicated — were made by the premier’s officer.
McDonald said she decided it was a good time to leave. There is no reason to doubt that.
Allan Seckel, who is replacing her, also has an unconventional path to the top job. He was a high-level Vancouver litigation lawyer, with clients from the airport authority to Bon Koo, an entrepeneur sued for $8 million by the Chinese government.
In 2003, the government launched a national search for a deputy minister to the attorney general, a cabinet post then held by Geoff Plant.
And Seckel, a former law partner of Plant who helped with his first election campaign, emerged as the winner.
Again, what’s striking about this appointment to the top job is the lack of experience. Seckel has done the deputy AG job and had some short-term experience in other areas. But he’s gone from lawyer to deputy minister to head of a giant organization — 35,000 employees, remember — with little practical management experience.
Seckel hasn’t made any strong impression, good or bad, in his current job. The Attorney General’s Ministry has been slow to bring forward needed legislation and has made little progress on reducing delays and costs in the court system. But again, that likely reflects the politicians’ choices.
The changes do matter. Seckel will bring his priorities and political and policy advice to the premier. He’s also likely to shuffle deputy ministers, bringing more change.
And he’s starting in the job at a very tough time.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
What's B.C. Lotteries got to hide?
The government touts B.C. Lotteries "self-exclusion program" as an example of its response to problem gambling. People can actually bar themselves from casinos or the corporations online gambling site.
Is it working?
The corporation has reviews. Sean Holman has been trying to get them through freedom of information requests. But B.C. Lotteries is fighting to keep the information secret.
More over at publiceyeonline.com.
Is it working?
The corporation has reviews. Sean Holman has been trying to get them through freedom of information requests. But B.C. Lotteries is fighting to keep the information secret.
More over at publiceyeonline.com.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The creeping pace of the John Les investigation
This week marks a bleak anniversary for the justice system.
It was 18 months ago, on March 28, 2008, that an independent special prosecutor was appointed in an investigation into land deals in Chilliwack.
The special prosecutor was needed because a police investigation was looking at whether John Les - then the solicitor general - had "improperly benefited" from any deals that helped developers when he was Chilliwack mayor from 1987 to 1999.
Regular Crown prosecutors are public sector employees. If a case touches the government, a special prosecutor is appointed to provide the police with legal advice, decide if charges are warranted and then handle any resulting prosecutions.
Under the system, introduced by the Socred government in 1991, the deputy attorney general appoints a special prosecutor from a standing list prepared the ministry and the Law Society of B.C. (If you get nothing else from this column, you are now one of an small group who knows about special prosecutors.)
It's a good approach. In this case, it's not working.
Not for the public. Les ran in the May election while the charges were still being investigated. Voters had to decide whether to vote for, or against him, without any information about the investigation. (He was elected with 45 per cent of the vote.)
Now he's chairing the legislative finance committee touring the province to seek input for the February budget, while under investigation by a special prosecutor.
And the process certainly isn't working for Les.
He has spent 18 months under investigation, with a cloud hanging over his head. Les stepped down as solicitor general when the special prosecutor was appointed. That's a serious blow.
No matter how convinced you are of your innocence, that kind of wait has to be horrible. The uncertainty and concern would always be there, like a nagging toothache, flaring up in quiet moments.
It is simply unfair.
After the special prosecutor was appointed, the Agricultural Land Commission started a separate investigation into a 1997 land deal involving Les. The previous owner of a Chilliwack property had twice failed to win ALC approval to create a two-acre lot for a retirement home. He planned to sell the rest to his family.
The ALC said no; an additional home would take space needed to maintain a viable farm property.
In 1997, a company co-owned by Les - still the mayor - bought the property and subdivided it and two adjacent properties into six lots, without going to the ALC.
The process for those approvals is under ALC review.
The special prosecutor might be involved in entirely different matters.
But it's likely still a complex investigation. The events are at least a decade old. There are documents to review and interviews with people struggling to remember what they did a long time ago. New bits of information would send investigators back for repeat interviews with the people.
And care and diligence are needed. The special prosecutor must ultimately make an important decision about charges.
But the investigation began in June 2007. That's more than two years ago. The special prosecutor was appointed 18 months ago.
The process is taking too long. A review of the documents and interviews gathered by the police over almost a year might take two months. Another two months could be spent resolving questions raised by the evidence. And another two months could be used to review the law and tidy loose.
Then the special prosecutor decides. A jury might reasonably hear the evidence and consider a guilty verdict, or not. The case moves forward, or a weight is lifted from Les.
The delays could be a problem of resources or expertise. Perhaps there are not enough police officers or lawyers to keep the case on track.
If that is the problem, special prosecutor Robin McFee - a good choice, given the nature of the case - should say so.
The crawling pace toward answers doesn't serve the public interest and is terribly unfair to Les.
Footnote: Which leads to the B.C. Rail corruption trial. It has been almost seven years since the search of legislature offices; almost six years since three men were charged. The trial has not yet begun and a hearing on dismissing the charges because of the delay will be held in the first week of December.
It was 18 months ago, on March 28, 2008, that an independent special prosecutor was appointed in an investigation into land deals in Chilliwack.
The special prosecutor was needed because a police investigation was looking at whether John Les - then the solicitor general - had "improperly benefited" from any deals that helped developers when he was Chilliwack mayor from 1987 to 1999.
Regular Crown prosecutors are public sector employees. If a case touches the government, a special prosecutor is appointed to provide the police with legal advice, decide if charges are warranted and then handle any resulting prosecutions.
Under the system, introduced by the Socred government in 1991, the deputy attorney general appoints a special prosecutor from a standing list prepared the ministry and the Law Society of B.C. (If you get nothing else from this column, you are now one of an small group who knows about special prosecutors.)
It's a good approach. In this case, it's not working.
Not for the public. Les ran in the May election while the charges were still being investigated. Voters had to decide whether to vote for, or against him, without any information about the investigation. (He was elected with 45 per cent of the vote.)
Now he's chairing the legislative finance committee touring the province to seek input for the February budget, while under investigation by a special prosecutor.
And the process certainly isn't working for Les.
He has spent 18 months under investigation, with a cloud hanging over his head. Les stepped down as solicitor general when the special prosecutor was appointed. That's a serious blow.
No matter how convinced you are of your innocence, that kind of wait has to be horrible. The uncertainty and concern would always be there, like a nagging toothache, flaring up in quiet moments.
It is simply unfair.
After the special prosecutor was appointed, the Agricultural Land Commission started a separate investigation into a 1997 land deal involving Les. The previous owner of a Chilliwack property had twice failed to win ALC approval to create a two-acre lot for a retirement home. He planned to sell the rest to his family.
The ALC said no; an additional home would take space needed to maintain a viable farm property.
In 1997, a company co-owned by Les - still the mayor - bought the property and subdivided it and two adjacent properties into six lots, without going to the ALC.
The process for those approvals is under ALC review.
The special prosecutor might be involved in entirely different matters.
But it's likely still a complex investigation. The events are at least a decade old. There are documents to review and interviews with people struggling to remember what they did a long time ago. New bits of information would send investigators back for repeat interviews with the people.
And care and diligence are needed. The special prosecutor must ultimately make an important decision about charges.
But the investigation began in June 2007. That's more than two years ago. The special prosecutor was appointed 18 months ago.
The process is taking too long. A review of the documents and interviews gathered by the police over almost a year might take two months. Another two months could be spent resolving questions raised by the evidence. And another two months could be used to review the law and tidy loose.
Then the special prosecutor decides. A jury might reasonably hear the evidence and consider a guilty verdict, or not. The case moves forward, or a weight is lifted from Les.
The delays could be a problem of resources or expertise. Perhaps there are not enough police officers or lawyers to keep the case on track.
If that is the problem, special prosecutor Robin McFee - a good choice, given the nature of the case - should say so.
The crawling pace toward answers doesn't serve the public interest and is terribly unfair to Les.
Footnote: Which leads to the B.C. Rail corruption trial. It has been almost seven years since the search of legislature offices; almost six years since three men were charged. The trial has not yet begun and a hearing on dismissing the charges because of the delay will be held in the first week of December.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Forced shelter law an overwhelmingly bad idea
The government's bumbling plan to let police drag homeless people to shelters should alarm Liberal supporters.
It certainly alarmed anyone knowledgeable about B.C.'s homeless crisis.
Not because of civil liberties' concerns, though they are real. The bigger problem is that Housing Minister Rich Coleman's Assisting to Shelter Act would create a raft of new problems for everyone involved - and do little good.
And while focusing on a new and unenforceable law, the government would be ignoring measures that could make a real difference for the hardcore homeless.
Coleman says the law is a compassionate response to the death of a homeless woman on a cold night in Vancouver last winter. Police and social workers had unsuccessfully urged her to spend the night in a shelter. She died of burns after a candle set her possessions on fire. Critics suggest the law is intended to allow people to be swept off the street during the Olympics.
The issue isn't compassion. It's competence and the government's apparent lack of understanding of homelessness, despite years of talk.
Government working papers indicate the original goal was to draft a law that would allow police to forcibly remove people from the streets if they were at risk in extreme weather, taking them to a shelter or jail.
When the B.C. Civil Liberties Association released the leaked documents, Coleman said the plan had evolved. Police would be empowered to forcibly take people to shelters, but the homeless would then be allowed walk away if they wished. At least shelter staff could talk to them, he said.
Let's count the problems.
Police would be saddled with a difficult responsibility. They would have to decide whether a person was at risk. If officers did opt to drag someone to a shelter against his will, they would face a potential fight.
And if the person refused shelter, or the shelters were full, then what? Police couldn't leave someone whose life they had judged at risk without facing later criticism if something bad happened. Would they be expected to spend the shift driving around looking for a shelter with space, with an increasingly angry prisoner in the back seat.
Shelter staff - already overloaded - would have to spend time with angry people, who were there against their will. If they did talk a person inside, more problems would be likely,
And the homeless people would face the prospect of being taken into custody by police and dragged to a shelter they had no intention of entering.
If they refused, they could be miles from their home turf, where they knew how to survive a cold night, with no way of getting back If they had created a camp for the night, or had their possessions in a cart, those would likely be gone by the time they made their way back.
Which means, of course, that some would risk confrontations with police in order to stay put.
Coleman's approach leaves all those problems unresolved.
And it's based on the fallacy that people who choose to sleep in an alley or quiet corner are all incapable of making sound decisions.
There are rational reasons for not going into a shelter. Sleeping on a mat on the floor in a room with dozens of other sick, snoring, talking and often difficult people is not what most of us would choose except as a last resort. Some people fear thefts; others have enemies in shelters.
Few shelters have storage for carts and possessions, or allow dogs or couples. People would rather make do outdoors than give up a pet, or everything they have left in the world, for a night indoors.
The way to increase safety is to address those issues, as a handful of shelters already have.
If the goal is humanitarian, fund cart lock-up and shelters that allow couples to stay together. Don't send police out; hire more outreach teams, which have proven highly effective.
Coleman should know all that by now. And that's what is most worrying about his defence of an ineffective, even destructive, new law.
It certainly alarmed anyone knowledgeable about B.C.'s homeless crisis.
Not because of civil liberties' concerns, though they are real. The bigger problem is that Housing Minister Rich Coleman's Assisting to Shelter Act would create a raft of new problems for everyone involved - and do little good.
And while focusing on a new and unenforceable law, the government would be ignoring measures that could make a real difference for the hardcore homeless.
Coleman says the law is a compassionate response to the death of a homeless woman on a cold night in Vancouver last winter. Police and social workers had unsuccessfully urged her to spend the night in a shelter. She died of burns after a candle set her possessions on fire. Critics suggest the law is intended to allow people to be swept off the street during the Olympics.
The issue isn't compassion. It's competence and the government's apparent lack of understanding of homelessness, despite years of talk.
Government working papers indicate the original goal was to draft a law that would allow police to forcibly remove people from the streets if they were at risk in extreme weather, taking them to a shelter or jail.
When the B.C. Civil Liberties Association released the leaked documents, Coleman said the plan had evolved. Police would be empowered to forcibly take people to shelters, but the homeless would then be allowed walk away if they wished. At least shelter staff could talk to them, he said.
Let's count the problems.
Police would be saddled with a difficult responsibility. They would have to decide whether a person was at risk. If officers did opt to drag someone to a shelter against his will, they would face a potential fight.
And if the person refused shelter, or the shelters were full, then what? Police couldn't leave someone whose life they had judged at risk without facing later criticism if something bad happened. Would they be expected to spend the shift driving around looking for a shelter with space, with an increasingly angry prisoner in the back seat.
Shelter staff - already overloaded - would have to spend time with angry people, who were there against their will. If they did talk a person inside, more problems would be likely,
And the homeless people would face the prospect of being taken into custody by police and dragged to a shelter they had no intention of entering.
If they refused, they could be miles from their home turf, where they knew how to survive a cold night, with no way of getting back If they had created a camp for the night, or had their possessions in a cart, those would likely be gone by the time they made their way back.
Which means, of course, that some would risk confrontations with police in order to stay put.
Coleman's approach leaves all those problems unresolved.
And it's based on the fallacy that people who choose to sleep in an alley or quiet corner are all incapable of making sound decisions.
There are rational reasons for not going into a shelter. Sleeping on a mat on the floor in a room with dozens of other sick, snoring, talking and often difficult people is not what most of us would choose except as a last resort. Some people fear thefts; others have enemies in shelters.
Few shelters have storage for carts and possessions, or allow dogs or couples. People would rather make do outdoors than give up a pet, or everything they have left in the world, for a night indoors.
The way to increase safety is to address those issues, as a handful of shelters already have.
If the goal is humanitarian, fund cart lock-up and shelters that allow couples to stay together. Don't send police out; hire more outreach teams, which have proven highly effective.
Coleman should know all that by now. And that's what is most worrying about his defence of an ineffective, even destructive, new law.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Gambling and a morally lost government
I've railed about the wild gambling spree launched by the Liberals, most recently here. What's most troubling is that Gordon Campbell has said expanded gambling is wrong. Kevin Krueger said it was immoral. People would die and the blood would be on government's hands, he warned.
And they did it anyway.
Michael Smyth reports on what a scam it is in a column today.
And Lindsay Kines reports in the Times Colonist that at the same time B.C. is about to become the first jurisdiction in North America to allow legal Internet casino gambling, the government has cut a program to reduce problem gambling and help addicts by one-third. The $4.6 million equals about 40 cents for every $100 the government makes from gambling.
And they did it anyway.
Michael Smyth reports on what a scam it is in a column today.
And Lindsay Kines reports in the Times Colonist that at the same time B.C. is about to become the first jurisdiction in North America to allow legal Internet casino gambling, the government has cut a program to reduce problem gambling and help addicts by one-third. The $4.6 million equals about 40 cents for every $100 the government makes from gambling.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
It’s time that cracks could start to show in Liberals
I try not to write about politics.
Policies are more important. And politics are baffling. Who can predict what people will do, or why they will do it?
But the downward spiral of the Liberals is creating an interesting political crisis, one that might matter to people in B.C.
Leave aside the why, or whether it’s deserved. The reality is that the Liberals are now considered dishonest by 72 per cent of British Columbians, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
They are cutting money for programs, agencies and community organizations that matter to people. Health care cuts mean longer waits for hurt and sick people.
So Liberal popularity has plunged.
Voters are supposed to have short attention spans. But the Liberals are hitting the kind of depths that are tough to escape. And the unpopular HST will start hitting people next July 1. The bad news is lasting a long way into the Liberals’ four-year term.
Unless the party re-invents itself.
Gordon Campbell could step down after the Olympics and gamely lug off all the baggage being accumulated now.
That would set the stage for a new Liberal leader, a clean start, and a 2013 win. After all, Carole James still has not really won great support.
It’s an encouraging option for the party. But not so good for anyone in cabinet now with future ambitions.
They’re becoming part of the baggage. The people not to be trusted, who took money the school parent advisory council.
An Angus Reid Strategies poll this month found 75 per cent of British Columbians didn’t think Campbell should run again.
The pollster asked about 15 potential successors. It was bad news for anyone in government today.
Angus Reid asked if each person would make a good or bad premier (or if the respondent had no opinion). Bad ratings were subtracted from the good to get a score.
The big winner was Diane Watts, mayor of Surrey, at plus-14. She got positive ratings as a potential premier from 33 per cent of those polled; 19 per cent thought she would be bad. Subtract bad from good and you get plus-14. (The mathematically adept will have noted that the numbers mean 48 per cent didn’t have an opinion, perhaps because they didn’t know who she was.)
The only other positive rating on the list of 15 potential premiers went to former cabinet minister and radio host Christy Clark. She was rated good by 31 per cent; bad by 30 per cent. Good enough for a plus-one rating.
They have three things in common – they are women, Liberals and not in the Campbell government.
Next on the potential premier list came NDP house leader Mike Farnworth and Attorney General Mike de Jong, his Liberal counterpart. Either would probably do a decent job as premier.
The bad news came for other Liberals. Kevin Falcon had a minus-17 rating; Rich Coleman a minus-21 and Shirley Bond a minus-26. (Nine per cent of those surveyed thought she would make a good premier; 34 per cent thought she would do a bad job.)
Perhaps they just accept the poor ratings as the price of making tough decisions. The “we were elected to be right, not popular” approach.
But some could be wondering if they’re paying too high a price for the premier’s bad policy choices or bungled communications. No one wants career prospects blighted because of someone else’s poor performance.
The New Democrats can’t be thrilled by the poll results either. Carole James had a minus-13 rating –tenth out of 15 potential successors.
This all does have a practical impact.
Liberal MLAs and cabinet ministers have been a compliant lot.
That might change as they see their government and personal political careers at risk. (Just as tensions in the NDP are likely.)
Tougher times for Campbell. But a little internal dissent might mean better government, more attuned to the public’s needs and priorities.
Footnote: There’s another potential source of tension. Solicitor General Kash Heed and Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid got senior cabinet jobs after the election. Both have struggled to answer questions in the legislature – a small part of the job, but a visible one. Liberal MLAs who were passed over might question the premier’s judgment.
Policies are more important. And politics are baffling. Who can predict what people will do, or why they will do it?
But the downward spiral of the Liberals is creating an interesting political crisis, one that might matter to people in B.C.
Leave aside the why, or whether it’s deserved. The reality is that the Liberals are now considered dishonest by 72 per cent of British Columbians, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
They are cutting money for programs, agencies and community organizations that matter to people. Health care cuts mean longer waits for hurt and sick people.
So Liberal popularity has plunged.
Voters are supposed to have short attention spans. But the Liberals are hitting the kind of depths that are tough to escape. And the unpopular HST will start hitting people next July 1. The bad news is lasting a long way into the Liberals’ four-year term.
Unless the party re-invents itself.
Gordon Campbell could step down after the Olympics and gamely lug off all the baggage being accumulated now.
That would set the stage for a new Liberal leader, a clean start, and a 2013 win. After all, Carole James still has not really won great support.
It’s an encouraging option for the party. But not so good for anyone in cabinet now with future ambitions.
They’re becoming part of the baggage. The people not to be trusted, who took money the school parent advisory council.
An Angus Reid Strategies poll this month found 75 per cent of British Columbians didn’t think Campbell should run again.
The pollster asked about 15 potential successors. It was bad news for anyone in government today.
Angus Reid asked if each person would make a good or bad premier (or if the respondent had no opinion). Bad ratings were subtracted from the good to get a score.
The big winner was Diane Watts, mayor of Surrey, at plus-14. She got positive ratings as a potential premier from 33 per cent of those polled; 19 per cent thought she would be bad. Subtract bad from good and you get plus-14. (The mathematically adept will have noted that the numbers mean 48 per cent didn’t have an opinion, perhaps because they didn’t know who she was.)
The only other positive rating on the list of 15 potential premiers went to former cabinet minister and radio host Christy Clark. She was rated good by 31 per cent; bad by 30 per cent. Good enough for a plus-one rating.
They have three things in common – they are women, Liberals and not in the Campbell government.
Next on the potential premier list came NDP house leader Mike Farnworth and Attorney General Mike de Jong, his Liberal counterpart. Either would probably do a decent job as premier.
The bad news came for other Liberals. Kevin Falcon had a minus-17 rating; Rich Coleman a minus-21 and Shirley Bond a minus-26. (Nine per cent of those surveyed thought she would make a good premier; 34 per cent thought she would do a bad job.)
Perhaps they just accept the poor ratings as the price of making tough decisions. The “we were elected to be right, not popular” approach.
But some could be wondering if they’re paying too high a price for the premier’s bad policy choices or bungled communications. No one wants career prospects blighted because of someone else’s poor performance.
The New Democrats can’t be thrilled by the poll results either. Carole James had a minus-13 rating –tenth out of 15 potential successors.
This all does have a practical impact.
Liberal MLAs and cabinet ministers have been a compliant lot.
That might change as they see their government and personal political careers at risk. (Just as tensions in the NDP are likely.)
Tougher times for Campbell. But a little internal dissent might mean better government, more attuned to the public’s needs and priorities.
Footnote: There’s another potential source of tension. Solicitor General Kash Heed and Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid got senior cabinet jobs after the election. Both have struggled to answer questions in the legislature – a small part of the job, but a visible one. Liberal MLAs who were passed over might question the premier’s judgment.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The legislature gets the weirdest yet
I have seen some bizarre times in the legislature, but Kash Heed in question period today was the strangest, weirdest spectacle. It was like SCTV's Sammy Maudlin somehow got elected. The questions were about support for abused women. The answers were all about Kash Heed.
It's towards the end of question period. You can watch it here.
It's towards the end of question period. You can watch it here.
Shelter law fails police, homeless
A Times Colonist editorial today looks at the proposed law that would require police to forcibly take at-risk homeless people to shelters in bad weather.
It is not supportive.
"The half-baked proposal to have police arrest homeless people on cold nights and force them to go to -- but not into -- shelters suggests the government still lacks an understanding of the problem or potential solutions.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman says the law is a humanitarian response to the death of a homeless woman in Vancouver last year. She burned to death while trying to keep warm in a makeshift camp, after police and outreach workers had urged her to go to a shelter. Critics speculate the aim is to sweep homeless people out of sight during the Olympics.
The motives are irrelevant. The reality is that the proposed Assisting to Shelter Act is unworkable and will create more problems than it solves... "
Read the rest here.
It is not supportive.
"The half-baked proposal to have police arrest homeless people on cold nights and force them to go to -- but not into -- shelters suggests the government still lacks an understanding of the problem or potential solutions.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman says the law is a humanitarian response to the death of a homeless woman in Vancouver last year. She burned to death while trying to keep warm in a makeshift camp, after police and outreach workers had urged her to go to a shelter. Critics speculate the aim is to sweep homeless people out of sight during the Olympics.
The motives are irrelevant. The reality is that the proposed Assisting to Shelter Act is unworkable and will create more problems than it solves... "
Read the rest here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Even universities need to hire Liberal insider lobbyists
Quite an excellent, alarming piece from Andrew MacLeod at thetyee.ca reporting that some B.C. universities are hiring lobbyists to try and get what they want from the B.C. government.
Not just any lobbyists - ones with close ties to the Liberal party. Simon Fraser University hired a former B.C. Liberal party president. For another issue, the university hired the lobbyist who managed Gordon Campbell's election campaigns.
The B.C. Institute of Technology hired three lobbyists, including Ken Dobell.
There is something profoundly disturbing about this. Taxpayers and students fund the schools and the province sets policy direction. Yet post-secondary educations don't think their presidents can talk to government - bureaucrats or the advanced education minister or the premier. They need to use public funds to hire an insider to lobby the politicians about public policy.
And then the same lobbyists, frequently, donate money and time and effort to the re-election campaigns of the people they are lobbying.
It's a destructive trend, one that leaves the public to conclude that only those with the money to hire friends of the government will be heard. Why else would universities use scarce dollars in this way?
Read MacLeod's report here.
Not just any lobbyists - ones with close ties to the Liberal party. Simon Fraser University hired a former B.C. Liberal party president. For another issue, the university hired the lobbyist who managed Gordon Campbell's election campaigns.
The B.C. Institute of Technology hired three lobbyists, including Ken Dobell.
There is something profoundly disturbing about this. Taxpayers and students fund the schools and the province sets policy direction. Yet post-secondary educations don't think their presidents can talk to government - bureaucrats or the advanced education minister or the premier. They need to use public funds to hire an insider to lobby the politicians about public policy.
And then the same lobbyists, frequently, donate money and time and effort to the re-election campaigns of the people they are lobbying.
It's a destructive trend, one that leaves the public to conclude that only those with the money to hire friends of the government will be heard. Why else would universities use scarce dollars in this way?
Read MacLeod's report here.
Autism cut decision was made based on a 2003 program review
Children's Minister Mary Polak's budget cuts include elimination of an intensive early intervention prorgam for autistic pre-schoolers.
Defending the decision last week, Polak offered a number of reasons for killing the program.
The most convincing was that despite the much higher cost to help the children, the program delivered no better results than alternatives costing less than one-third the amount per child.
"We have to look at the outcomes and when it comes to what was occurring, . . . we were not seeing any appreciable improvements in the outcomes for those kids," she said.
So what was that based on?
According to the ministry, Polak was referring to a review done in 2003, when the program was in its first full year.
The report on the ministry website is a Powerpoint summary of the research presented in 2005.
"The evaluation project was initiated at the very beginning of the EIBI and IEII programs," it notes. "So, the results only apply to the children and families who were initially involved in these programs, which have developed considerably since the evaluation was completed. Results may be different if the evaluation was conducted today."
And by today, the review's authors were referring to 2005.
It's a lame - even phony - justification for making a policy decision affecting children facing great challenges.
And it's misleading for Polak to suggest the ministry actually had a sound basis for assessing the program's effectiveness before killing it.
UPDATE: In spite of the quote above, Polak said today the effectiveness on intensive treatment played no role in her decision to kill the program.
You can watch her comments when she made the announcement, and today, at publiceyeonline and decide if you buy the claim.
It looks much more like the minister offered a bogus justification and is now trying to retreat without admitting it.
Defending the decision last week, Polak offered a number of reasons for killing the program.
The most convincing was that despite the much higher cost to help the children, the program delivered no better results than alternatives costing less than one-third the amount per child.
"We have to look at the outcomes and when it comes to what was occurring, . . . we were not seeing any appreciable improvements in the outcomes for those kids," she said.
So what was that based on?
According to the ministry, Polak was referring to a review done in 2003, when the program was in its first full year.
The report on the ministry website is a Powerpoint summary of the research presented in 2005.
"The evaluation project was initiated at the very beginning of the EIBI and IEII programs," it notes. "So, the results only apply to the children and families who were initially involved in these programs, which have developed considerably since the evaluation was completed. Results may be different if the evaluation was conducted today."
And by today, the review's authors were referring to 2005.
It's a lame - even phony - justification for making a policy decision affecting children facing great challenges.
And it's misleading for Polak to suggest the ministry actually had a sound basis for assessing the program's effectiveness before killing it.
UPDATE: In spite of the quote above, Polak said today the effectiveness on intensive treatment played no role in her decision to kill the program.
You can watch her comments when she made the announcement, and today, at publiceyeonline and decide if you buy the claim.
It looks much more like the minister offered a bogus justification and is now trying to retreat without admitting it.
Monday, September 21, 2009
If cuts were 'hard decisions,' they would be made more competently
I can't really buy the "hard decisions" mantra the government us using to defend the cuts raining down all across public services.
There's a creepy paternalism to the claim, like the parent, about to spank a child, who says "this will hurt me more than it hurts you."
It won't. The mum or dad might feel terrible, but the child is getting hit, humiliated and made to feel powerless.
The Liberal cabinet ministers, as public concern about program cuts grows, have said they are facing an extraordinary global crisis. Extraordinarily harsh cuts are needed.
These are hard decisions that no one wants to make, the premier and his ministers say as one.
There are three problems with the claim.
First, no matter how much these choices matter to politicians, they matter more to the people affected by them. Government's mid-year decision to cut $130,000 for high school sports events hammers coaches, parents and kids. For politicians, it's a line item.
Second, in a past life I was a business guy. On a much smaller scale, I made "hard" decisions.
And they weren't all that difficult, in an office or conference room, looking at a spreadsheet. If the column of numbers didn't add up to the desired total, we came up with new numbers. Other managers then made the cuts happen. Jobs were lost or efforts abandoned.
Third, and by far most important factor, there is no evidence that the ministers treated these as hard or serious decisions.
The NDP asked Healthy Living and Sport Minister Ida Chong about a 43-per-cent cut to health promotion funding. Savings in travel, office expenses and administration, she said.
Which is goofy. No one would believe that more than 40 per cent of the spending on the health programs went for office expenses.
Within a couple of days, the Times Colonist reported on one of the real cuts. Chong's ministry killed a program aimed at increasing the health of pregnant women and their children. It had a special focus on reducing the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome. That's a great goal, economically and in terms or reducing suffering. The program was enthusiastically launched last September and lauded by Mary Polak, then the minister, as a "pillar" of the effort to improve infant health.
The cancellation came with no warning three months into the fiscal year. The B.C. Women's Hospital and the B.C. Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, which deliver the program, had already spent $100,000 of the promised $420,000 the project this year when they told they would get no money. They will now reduce spending on other areas of women's health to find the $100,000.
And the surprise cancellation meant the plan to assess the program's effectiveness had to be tossed out.
If these were hard decisions for cabinet ministers, they would have taken time to understand the implications.
Chong hadn't, judging by her answers in the legislature.
Not to single her out. If Gambling Minister Rich Coleman found it a hard decision to cut and eliminate gaming grants, he would have asked hard questions before they were made.
He didn't. The cuts included agencies that had received three-year funding commitments. Coleman and Premier Gordon Campbell both initially claimed the commitments weren't real, before having to retreat and restore the funding.
It's unlikely Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid would have thought it a good idea to halve support for parent advisory councils - even to schools that desperately needed the help - if it was treated as a hard and painful decision.
And in all these cases, the minister would have talked first to the people affected.
Hard decisions are only necessary when there are no options.
But the government has choices. Some cuts, like the $130,000 in support for school sports regional and provincial events, are foolishly small. The education ministry can find that money.
And the government could have decided to let the deficit, given the recession, to be a little larger in order to protect jobs and communities.
Hard decisions? It doesn't look like it.
Footnote: Expect to hear about the $130,000 cut to school sports events as often as you head about the fast ferries. Every time the government spends money in a dubious - like a $500,000 contribution a VANOC gala - the New Democrats will recall the sports cut.
There's a creepy paternalism to the claim, like the parent, about to spank a child, who says "this will hurt me more than it hurts you."
It won't. The mum or dad might feel terrible, but the child is getting hit, humiliated and made to feel powerless.
The Liberal cabinet ministers, as public concern about program cuts grows, have said they are facing an extraordinary global crisis. Extraordinarily harsh cuts are needed.
These are hard decisions that no one wants to make, the premier and his ministers say as one.
There are three problems with the claim.
First, no matter how much these choices matter to politicians, they matter more to the people affected by them. Government's mid-year decision to cut $130,000 for high school sports events hammers coaches, parents and kids. For politicians, it's a line item.
Second, in a past life I was a business guy. On a much smaller scale, I made "hard" decisions.
And they weren't all that difficult, in an office or conference room, looking at a spreadsheet. If the column of numbers didn't add up to the desired total, we came up with new numbers. Other managers then made the cuts happen. Jobs were lost or efforts abandoned.
Third, and by far most important factor, there is no evidence that the ministers treated these as hard or serious decisions.
The NDP asked Healthy Living and Sport Minister Ida Chong about a 43-per-cent cut to health promotion funding. Savings in travel, office expenses and administration, she said.
Which is goofy. No one would believe that more than 40 per cent of the spending on the health programs went for office expenses.
Within a couple of days, the Times Colonist reported on one of the real cuts. Chong's ministry killed a program aimed at increasing the health of pregnant women and their children. It had a special focus on reducing the number of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome. That's a great goal, economically and in terms or reducing suffering. The program was enthusiastically launched last September and lauded by Mary Polak, then the minister, as a "pillar" of the effort to improve infant health.
The cancellation came with no warning three months into the fiscal year. The B.C. Women's Hospital and the B.C. Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, which deliver the program, had already spent $100,000 of the promised $420,000 the project this year when they told they would get no money. They will now reduce spending on other areas of women's health to find the $100,000.
And the surprise cancellation meant the plan to assess the program's effectiveness had to be tossed out.
If these were hard decisions for cabinet ministers, they would have taken time to understand the implications.
Chong hadn't, judging by her answers in the legislature.
Not to single her out. If Gambling Minister Rich Coleman found it a hard decision to cut and eliminate gaming grants, he would have asked hard questions before they were made.
He didn't. The cuts included agencies that had received three-year funding commitments. Coleman and Premier Gordon Campbell both initially claimed the commitments weren't real, before having to retreat and restore the funding.
It's unlikely Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid would have thought it a good idea to halve support for parent advisory councils - even to schools that desperately needed the help - if it was treated as a hard and painful decision.
And in all these cases, the minister would have talked first to the people affected.
Hard decisions are only necessary when there are no options.
But the government has choices. Some cuts, like the $130,000 in support for school sports regional and provincial events, are foolishly small. The education ministry can find that money.
And the government could have decided to let the deficit, given the recession, to be a little larger in order to protect jobs and communities.
Hard decisions? It doesn't look like it.
Footnote: Expect to hear about the $130,000 cut to school sports events as often as you head about the fast ferries. Every time the government spends money in a dubious - like a $500,000 contribution a VANOC gala - the New Democrats will recall the sports cut.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The secrecy around cuts
So does the failure to provide basic information about what government is doing reflect wretched communications strategy or incompetence? Some background to help you decide, courtesy of the Times Colonisthere.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Campbell's politics stalling federal stimulus money
I thought writing about infrastructure stimulus spending would be dull. Then along came Shirley Bond.
B.C. has done a bad job of getting federal stimulus money out into communities.
And the reasons for the delays are all about appearances. That’s what keeping B.C. communities from getting some $450 million in federal funds for stimulus projects.
The New Democrats focused on the issue in question period this week.
Bond, the transportation minister, took the questions.
It was amazing, like she was doing an impression of Tina Fey doing an impression of Sarah Palin. The answers had little to do with the questions, but gosh darn, look at al the great things going on thanks to federal funding, said Bond,
The reality is that eight provinces have signed agreements to claim their share of the $4 billion in stimulus infrastructure money the federal government announced in January.
Not B.C. That’s about $450 million waiting to be put to work creating jobs and improving infrastructure across the province.
Back in July, Community Development Minister Bill Bennett said municipalities could hear within a week about projects to be funded under the program. Time was of the essence, he said. The government had “the pedal to the metal.”
Two months later, they’re still waiting.
The problem is political. The federal infrastructure fund requires matching contributions. For municipal projects, the total cost has to be split equally three ways.
For provincial projects, it’s a 50-50 contribution from the province and Ottawa. (On that basis, municipal projects deliver the greatest stimulus bang for the buck. The $450 million in federal money is matched by another $900 million from local and provincial governments.)
The province is OK with all that. But Premier Gordon Campbell has been trying to cut a special deal for B.C.
Funding has been frozen while he tries to persuade Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do a special agreement so B.C. can call its contribution a capital investment, rather than operating spending.
It’s a lame reason for stalling help for.
Either way, the money is added to the provincial debt and taxpayers will have to pay the interest in future.
But Campbell wanted a deal to keep the commitments out of this year’s operating expenses, so the deficit would look smaller.
Politically, that matters. Campbell promised during the election campaign that the $495-million deficit was easily achievable, without deep cuts.
The deficit is now at $2.8 billion. The province’s share of stimulus funding could push it higher, or bring even deeper cuts to health care and other services.
That would be embarrassing for Campbell and the Liberals. But it would mean nothing to the people of British Columbia. Call it operating, call it a capital expense – the province is still spending the money and it will still be added to the debt. There is no real difference.
Campbell’s unsuccessful attempts to cut a face-saving side deal could be costly.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities works at hard at staying friendly with the provincial government. But they’ve spoken out about the stalled infrastructure money.
The worries aren’t just about delays. The federal money could be entirely lost.
The Harper government wanted quick job creation. So the federal contribution only comes for work completed by March 31, 2011.
That was 26 months away when the program was launched. But now many communities are heading into the slow winter construction season. Some important projects can’t be considered, because there just is enough time to complete them.
Other federal spending has been flowing.
But still, $450 million is a lot of money to leave on the table. Prince George, on a per capita basis, could expect $8 million. Trail, $900,000. Kelowna, $12 million.
Those communities – and hundreds of others - could do a lot with that their share.
The money seems to be tied up for just one reason – the Liberal government’s political considerations.
B.C. has done a bad job of getting federal stimulus money out into communities.
And the reasons for the delays are all about appearances. That’s what keeping B.C. communities from getting some $450 million in federal funds for stimulus projects.
The New Democrats focused on the issue in question period this week.
Bond, the transportation minister, took the questions.
It was amazing, like she was doing an impression of Tina Fey doing an impression of Sarah Palin. The answers had little to do with the questions, but gosh darn, look at al the great things going on thanks to federal funding, said Bond,
The reality is that eight provinces have signed agreements to claim their share of the $4 billion in stimulus infrastructure money the federal government announced in January.
Not B.C. That’s about $450 million waiting to be put to work creating jobs and improving infrastructure across the province.
Back in July, Community Development Minister Bill Bennett said municipalities could hear within a week about projects to be funded under the program. Time was of the essence, he said. The government had “the pedal to the metal.”
Two months later, they’re still waiting.
The problem is political. The federal infrastructure fund requires matching contributions. For municipal projects, the total cost has to be split equally three ways.
For provincial projects, it’s a 50-50 contribution from the province and Ottawa. (On that basis, municipal projects deliver the greatest stimulus bang for the buck. The $450 million in federal money is matched by another $900 million from local and provincial governments.)
The province is OK with all that. But Premier Gordon Campbell has been trying to cut a special deal for B.C.
Funding has been frozen while he tries to persuade Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do a special agreement so B.C. can call its contribution a capital investment, rather than operating spending.
It’s a lame reason for stalling help for.
Either way, the money is added to the provincial debt and taxpayers will have to pay the interest in future.
But Campbell wanted a deal to keep the commitments out of this year’s operating expenses, so the deficit would look smaller.
Politically, that matters. Campbell promised during the election campaign that the $495-million deficit was easily achievable, without deep cuts.
The deficit is now at $2.8 billion. The province’s share of stimulus funding could push it higher, or bring even deeper cuts to health care and other services.
That would be embarrassing for Campbell and the Liberals. But it would mean nothing to the people of British Columbia. Call it operating, call it a capital expense – the province is still spending the money and it will still be added to the debt. There is no real difference.
Campbell’s unsuccessful attempts to cut a face-saving side deal could be costly.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities works at hard at staying friendly with the provincial government. But they’ve spoken out about the stalled infrastructure money.
The worries aren’t just about delays. The federal money could be entirely lost.
The Harper government wanted quick job creation. So the federal contribution only comes for work completed by March 31, 2011.
That was 26 months away when the program was launched. But now many communities are heading into the slow winter construction season. Some important projects can’t be considered, because there just is enough time to complete them.
Other federal spending has been flowing.
But still, $450 million is a lot of money to leave on the table. Prince George, on a per capita basis, could expect $8 million. Trail, $900,000. Kelowna, $12 million.
Those communities – and hundreds of others - could do a lot with that their share.
The money seems to be tied up for just one reason – the Liberal government’s political considerations.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Question period morphs into Saturday Night Live
I'm watching Shirley Bond channel Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. You too can watch question period here.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Liberals failing the critical competence test
The last NDP government blew up in spectacular fashion, tossed out in 2001 for a long list of sins.
Two were critical. The public decided the New Democrats were both untrustworthy and incompetent. (Rightly, I would add.)
It’s early days, but the Liberals look to be at risk of the same damning judgments.
Trust is shot. An Ipsos Reid poll found 72 per cent of British Columbians believe the Liberals intentionally mislead the public about the province’s finances during the election campaign. Only 10 per cent believed Gordon Campbell’s claim that he really thought the February budget was attainable.
And competence looks shakier by the day.
Take the decision to slash grants to parent advisory councils. Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid revealed the cuts after a photo op where she announced $500,000 in Olympic spirit funding for schools. The cut affects every school in the province, but hits hardest in areas where PACs have the toughest time raising money. It matters to tens of thousands of parents.
MacDiarmid dropped the $7.6 million cut from support - from $20 to $10 per student - as an afterthought.
That’s not competent, it’s sloppy and rude.
Three days later, Gambling Minister Rich Coleman defended the cut. (The money came from gambling grants, so he was involved.)
Read carefully his quote from the Times Colonist. “I haven’t had a bunch of blowback from the PACs since the minister mentioned on Tuesday they would probably get half,” said Coleman. (Any group affected by cuts should note that. Without “blowback,” you’re forgotten.)
But what’s really striking is the phrase “probably get half.” The education minister has announced the cut. Parent councils are planning reductions in help for kids and schools. And Coleman is suggesting the decision hasn’t really been made.
It’s not an isolated stumble. The government tried to renege on $20 million in grants to non-profits that had received written promises of three-year funding.
Campbell defended the decision. The letters were’?t real contracts, he said.
And then Coleman restored the money because, he agreed, the commitments were in fact real.
After MacDiarmid cut $110 million from school maintenance funding, some districts said they would have to cancel projects aimed at meeting the province’s 2010 deadline for becoming carbon neutral.
No problem, said John Yap, the junior minister for climate action. They can have until 2012. His staff quickly contradicted the claim, saying the 2010 deadline is still in place.
Which raises three questions. Is a climate action minister - with extra pay, staff and all that - really needed? If so, shouldn’t he know the basics? And how much thought has really gone into this carbon neutral by 2010 edict?
None of this inspires confidence on the competence front. Neither did the first couple of days in the legislature after last week’s break.
The NDP used question period to ask about the elimination of $130,000 funding to B.C. School Sports. The non-profit does great work organizing regional and provincial high school sports events. The big volunteer contribution means the money goes a long way. And the government eliminated all its funding.
It’s a bad decision. And it ended up being defended, badly, by three cabinet ministers: MacDiarmid, the education minister; Ida Chong, junior minister of healthy living and sport; and Mary McNeil, junior minister for the Olympics and ActNow BC. (Chong stumbled badly in answering questions, or more accurately not answering, about a 27-per-cent cut to funding for children’s sports.)
Three ministers, all with a role in youth sports. That does not suggest competence, or concern about the taxpayers’ money. Cut any one of them and you would save enough money to restore funding for B.C. School Sports.
What it all suggests is a government in which a few people are making decisions - on new taxes, or program cuts or climate action - on the fly and in isolation.
Footnote: It’s a bumpy start for new Liberal MLAs. First they’re told, without any opportunity for input, to support a new harmonized tax they opposed in the election campaign. Then they’re called on to defend cuts that hurt parents, children and schools that even the ministers can’t keep straight.
Two were critical. The public decided the New Democrats were both untrustworthy and incompetent. (Rightly, I would add.)
It’s early days, but the Liberals look to be at risk of the same damning judgments.
Trust is shot. An Ipsos Reid poll found 72 per cent of British Columbians believe the Liberals intentionally mislead the public about the province’s finances during the election campaign. Only 10 per cent believed Gordon Campbell’s claim that he really thought the February budget was attainable.
And competence looks shakier by the day.
Take the decision to slash grants to parent advisory councils. Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid revealed the cuts after a photo op where she announced $500,000 in Olympic spirit funding for schools. The cut affects every school in the province, but hits hardest in areas where PACs have the toughest time raising money. It matters to tens of thousands of parents.
MacDiarmid dropped the $7.6 million cut from support - from $20 to $10 per student - as an afterthought.
That’s not competent, it’s sloppy and rude.
Three days later, Gambling Minister Rich Coleman defended the cut. (The money came from gambling grants, so he was involved.)
Read carefully his quote from the Times Colonist. “I haven’t had a bunch of blowback from the PACs since the minister mentioned on Tuesday they would probably get half,” said Coleman. (Any group affected by cuts should note that. Without “blowback,” you’re forgotten.)
But what’s really striking is the phrase “probably get half.” The education minister has announced the cut. Parent councils are planning reductions in help for kids and schools. And Coleman is suggesting the decision hasn’t really been made.
It’s not an isolated stumble. The government tried to renege on $20 million in grants to non-profits that had received written promises of three-year funding.
Campbell defended the decision. The letters were’?t real contracts, he said.
And then Coleman restored the money because, he agreed, the commitments were in fact real.
After MacDiarmid cut $110 million from school maintenance funding, some districts said they would have to cancel projects aimed at meeting the province’s 2010 deadline for becoming carbon neutral.
No problem, said John Yap, the junior minister for climate action. They can have until 2012. His staff quickly contradicted the claim, saying the 2010 deadline is still in place.
Which raises three questions. Is a climate action minister - with extra pay, staff and all that - really needed? If so, shouldn’t he know the basics? And how much thought has really gone into this carbon neutral by 2010 edict?
None of this inspires confidence on the competence front. Neither did the first couple of days in the legislature after last week’s break.
The NDP used question period to ask about the elimination of $130,000 funding to B.C. School Sports. The non-profit does great work organizing regional and provincial high school sports events. The big volunteer contribution means the money goes a long way. And the government eliminated all its funding.
It’s a bad decision. And it ended up being defended, badly, by three cabinet ministers: MacDiarmid, the education minister; Ida Chong, junior minister of healthy living and sport; and Mary McNeil, junior minister for the Olympics and ActNow BC. (Chong stumbled badly in answering questions, or more accurately not answering, about a 27-per-cent cut to funding for children’s sports.)
Three ministers, all with a role in youth sports. That does not suggest competence, or concern about the taxpayers’ money. Cut any one of them and you would save enough money to restore funding for B.C. School Sports.
What it all suggests is a government in which a few people are making decisions - on new taxes, or program cuts or climate action - on the fly and in isolation.
Footnote: It’s a bumpy start for new Liberal MLAs. First they’re told, without any opportunity for input, to support a new harmonized tax they opposed in the election campaign. Then they’re called on to defend cuts that hurt parents, children and schools that even the ministers can’t keep straight.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
A wretchedly bad series of education cuts
The Liberal government's education cuts get failing grades on every count. Politically, they make little sense. Parents vote. Hurt their children's education and they'll be angry.
Practically, they're bad public policy. They hurt the students who most need help learning and developing the skills to succeed in the world.
In the last two weeks, the government has announced three cuts to education funding. None seems sensible.
Leave aside the discussion about core school funding and the problems created by per-pupil grants. These are cuts outside of that envelope.
The biggest is the elimination of $110 million in funding that districts had expected for maintaining schools this year. The annual grants provide for upkeep and capital improvements - wheelchair ramps, classroom renovations and all the standard maintenance needed to keep buildings functional and safe.
Five months into the fiscal year, Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid cancelled the grant program without notice or consultation. Some districts had set aside money each year to build reserves for major projects; they could raid that money to cover needed work, she said.
So prudence is punished. Districts that did maintenance work over the summer, counting on the grants, have to cut spending to balance the budget as required by law. And economic stimulus is abandoned.
Next, MacDiarmid was sent out to defend a decision to eliminate the government's entire $130,000 contribution to B.C. School Sports, almost 30 per cent of its budget. The organization helps support and manage all the regional and provincial sports events for schools in the province.
It's a great resource and a little money produces big results, since teachers, coaches and parents donate time and energy. It gives kids inspiring opportunities to take part in all kinds of sports. (I'm writing as a parent; my daughter learned and grew a lot from the opportunities that remarkable coaches and B.C. School Sports provided.)
And the government cut it adrift, despite all the talk about the goal of improving kids' fitness and health.
Then came the most perverse cut.
At a staged event to highlight $500,000 being sent to schools for Olympic programming - about four times the amount saved by cutting the sports funding - MacDiarmid revealed the grants to parent advisory councils would be cut in half. (Also without warning or consultation.)
They had received $20 per student. This year, it would be $10. The government would save $7.6 million, at the expense of parent councils at schools across the province.
Again, it's wrongheaded. The parent volunteers made good use of the money for books, computers and field trips the students would otherwise be denied because of funding shortfalls.
And it's especially bad policy because the funding, from gambling profits, delivered the greatest benefit to the schools where the need was greatest.
In the neighbourhoods where my kids went to school -- and where Liberal cabinet ministers' children go to school -- parent advisory councils have less trouble raising money. They can get great donations for a raffle or silent auction. Affluent families can be generous and stay-at-home parents can contribute time.
But in an Island town with a shutdown mill, or a poor city neighbourhood, it's tougher for the small parent advisory council.
The gambling grants levelled the playing field, a little. By cutting every school's grant by 50 per cent, the government undermined that. Poor schools are in a deep hole.
Finally - at least so far - the Education Ministry eliminated almost all its funding for the CommunityLINK program. It provides meals for hungry children and counselling to keep struggling students on track. The program will still be funded, but with gambling profits that had been dedicated to supporting charitable organizations across the province.
Meanwhile, the education ministry has reduced its target for better graduation rates.
OK, times are tough. But surely a deficit is worthwhile if it means continued basic opportunities for children, the province's future, and all that.
Politically dumb and bad for the people of B.C. That's poor decision-making by a government.
Footnote: MacDiarmid is a star Liberal rookie -- a doctor and former president of the B.C. Medical Association -- rewarded with a posting to a big cabinet job. So far, it hasn't gone well, whether in spite of -- or, perhaps, because of -- the coaching and direction she has received.
Practically, they're bad public policy. They hurt the students who most need help learning and developing the skills to succeed in the world.
In the last two weeks, the government has announced three cuts to education funding. None seems sensible.
Leave aside the discussion about core school funding and the problems created by per-pupil grants. These are cuts outside of that envelope.
The biggest is the elimination of $110 million in funding that districts had expected for maintaining schools this year. The annual grants provide for upkeep and capital improvements - wheelchair ramps, classroom renovations and all the standard maintenance needed to keep buildings functional and safe.
Five months into the fiscal year, Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid cancelled the grant program without notice or consultation. Some districts had set aside money each year to build reserves for major projects; they could raid that money to cover needed work, she said.
So prudence is punished. Districts that did maintenance work over the summer, counting on the grants, have to cut spending to balance the budget as required by law. And economic stimulus is abandoned.
Next, MacDiarmid was sent out to defend a decision to eliminate the government's entire $130,000 contribution to B.C. School Sports, almost 30 per cent of its budget. The organization helps support and manage all the regional and provincial sports events for schools in the province.
It's a great resource and a little money produces big results, since teachers, coaches and parents donate time and energy. It gives kids inspiring opportunities to take part in all kinds of sports. (I'm writing as a parent; my daughter learned and grew a lot from the opportunities that remarkable coaches and B.C. School Sports provided.)
And the government cut it adrift, despite all the talk about the goal of improving kids' fitness and health.
Then came the most perverse cut.
At a staged event to highlight $500,000 being sent to schools for Olympic programming - about four times the amount saved by cutting the sports funding - MacDiarmid revealed the grants to parent advisory councils would be cut in half. (Also without warning or consultation.)
They had received $20 per student. This year, it would be $10. The government would save $7.6 million, at the expense of parent councils at schools across the province.
Again, it's wrongheaded. The parent volunteers made good use of the money for books, computers and field trips the students would otherwise be denied because of funding shortfalls.
And it's especially bad policy because the funding, from gambling profits, delivered the greatest benefit to the schools where the need was greatest.
In the neighbourhoods where my kids went to school -- and where Liberal cabinet ministers' children go to school -- parent advisory councils have less trouble raising money. They can get great donations for a raffle or silent auction. Affluent families can be generous and stay-at-home parents can contribute time.
But in an Island town with a shutdown mill, or a poor city neighbourhood, it's tougher for the small parent advisory council.
The gambling grants levelled the playing field, a little. By cutting every school's grant by 50 per cent, the government undermined that. Poor schools are in a deep hole.
Finally - at least so far - the Education Ministry eliminated almost all its funding for the CommunityLINK program. It provides meals for hungry children and counselling to keep struggling students on track. The program will still be funded, but with gambling profits that had been dedicated to supporting charitable organizations across the province.
Meanwhile, the education ministry has reduced its target for better graduation rates.
OK, times are tough. But surely a deficit is worthwhile if it means continued basic opportunities for children, the province's future, and all that.
Politically dumb and bad for the people of B.C. That's poor decision-making by a government.
Footnote: MacDiarmid is a star Liberal rookie -- a doctor and former president of the B.C. Medical Association -- rewarded with a posting to a big cabinet job. So far, it hasn't gone well, whether in spite of -- or, perhaps, because of -- the coaching and direction she has received.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Children, families left behind by budget
Three years ago, then finance minister Carole Taylor said the provincial budget was “for the little ones.”
The Liberal government’s cost-cutting and mismanagement of support for children and families had just been set out in Ted Hughes’ report.
Children would now be the focus, said Taylor.
But this is a short-attention span government. It’s no different when it comes to children in B.C.
The new budget freezes the children and families ministry budget for this year — and the next two years.
Costs, obviously, are increasing, despite a planned wage freeze.
Demand for services and support is rising. That’s normal in a recession. Families who have been getting by can be pushed over the edge when jobs vanish.
And the ministry’s performance at current funding levels, by its own measurements, has not been satisfactory.
Each ministry releases service plans as part of the budget process. They’re one of those great ideas to increase openness, accountability and performance that the Liberals introduced after the 2001 election and have been edging away from ever since.
The plans initially included a large number of performance targets — measurable goals that would allow the public to monitor progress.
Now, there are just a half dozen measurements per ministry and they tend to be vague and useless.
Even given that weakness, the performance reports point to more problems than successes.
The ministry plans to fund fewer child care spaces this year than it did last year, with no expansion forecast for the next two years. Bad news for parents on long waiting lists for care (although full-day kindergarten might help some).
Its efforts to see more at-risk children placed with extended family, rather than in foster care, faltered last year. The number of children supported in this way fell from 761 to 724. The ministry hopes to increase that to 800 in each of the next two years.
The ministry also failed to meet its targets for the academic performance of children in continuing care. The goal was to have 82.5 per cent of the children performing at the appropriate grade level for their age. It fell short, at 79 per cent.
It’s the same for another performance measure that looks at how well the ministry is doing in working with families to prevent future neglect or abuse of children.
That’s important. Apprehending children is a necessary last resort; far better to provide skills and support for parents.
The ministry’s performance target for last year was to keep recurrences of abuse or neglect within 12 months to 19.4 per cent of cases. It missed that.
The ministry also missed the target for finding adoptive homes for children during the last fiscal year.
Yet despite all that, the ministry budget is based on reducing the number of children in care from 9,100 to 8,800 this year, with no clear indication of how or why that will happen.
It’s not surprising some targets would be missed. Circumstances change, priorities shift, problems prove more.
But given evidence that the ministry is not achieving it goals, a budget that provides no more resources and reduced staff levels seems inappropriate.
It’s not just a problem within the children’s ministry.
The Education Ministry’s performance targets include goals for improving the high school graduation rate for aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. It missed both targets for the year just completed. The aboriginal rate was 48 per cent — unchanged from two years ago and 10 points below the ministry’s performance standard.
The response was to cut the target for this year from 60 per cent to 50 per cent.
Taken together, the performance plans and budget are discouraging. There is little evidence of progress,
And there is less evidence in the budget of real plans to do better. Resources are frozen or cut. Welfare and minimum wage levels are frozen. There are no targets or plans to deal with B.C.’s six-year record as the worst province in Canada for child poverty.
The 2006 budget might have been “for the little ones.”
This one sure wasn’t.
Footnote: Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the province’s independent Representative for Children and Youth, panned the budget. Looking at education, the children’s ministry, housing and frozen income assistance rates, she concluded the province is going backwards in its support for children and families.
The Liberal government’s cost-cutting and mismanagement of support for children and families had just been set out in Ted Hughes’ report.
Children would now be the focus, said Taylor.
But this is a short-attention span government. It’s no different when it comes to children in B.C.
The new budget freezes the children and families ministry budget for this year — and the next two years.
Costs, obviously, are increasing, despite a planned wage freeze.
Demand for services and support is rising. That’s normal in a recession. Families who have been getting by can be pushed over the edge when jobs vanish.
And the ministry’s performance at current funding levels, by its own measurements, has not been satisfactory.
Each ministry releases service plans as part of the budget process. They’re one of those great ideas to increase openness, accountability and performance that the Liberals introduced after the 2001 election and have been edging away from ever since.
The plans initially included a large number of performance targets — measurable goals that would allow the public to monitor progress.
Now, there are just a half dozen measurements per ministry and they tend to be vague and useless.
Even given that weakness, the performance reports point to more problems than successes.
The ministry plans to fund fewer child care spaces this year than it did last year, with no expansion forecast for the next two years. Bad news for parents on long waiting lists for care (although full-day kindergarten might help some).
Its efforts to see more at-risk children placed with extended family, rather than in foster care, faltered last year. The number of children supported in this way fell from 761 to 724. The ministry hopes to increase that to 800 in each of the next two years.
The ministry also failed to meet its targets for the academic performance of children in continuing care. The goal was to have 82.5 per cent of the children performing at the appropriate grade level for their age. It fell short, at 79 per cent.
It’s the same for another performance measure that looks at how well the ministry is doing in working with families to prevent future neglect or abuse of children.
That’s important. Apprehending children is a necessary last resort; far better to provide skills and support for parents.
The ministry’s performance target for last year was to keep recurrences of abuse or neglect within 12 months to 19.4 per cent of cases. It missed that.
The ministry also missed the target for finding adoptive homes for children during the last fiscal year.
Yet despite all that, the ministry budget is based on reducing the number of children in care from 9,100 to 8,800 this year, with no clear indication of how or why that will happen.
It’s not surprising some targets would be missed. Circumstances change, priorities shift, problems prove more.
But given evidence that the ministry is not achieving it goals, a budget that provides no more resources and reduced staff levels seems inappropriate.
It’s not just a problem within the children’s ministry.
The Education Ministry’s performance targets include goals for improving the high school graduation rate for aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. It missed both targets for the year just completed. The aboriginal rate was 48 per cent — unchanged from two years ago and 10 points below the ministry’s performance standard.
The response was to cut the target for this year from 60 per cent to 50 per cent.
Taken together, the performance plans and budget are discouraging. There is little evidence of progress,
And there is less evidence in the budget of real plans to do better. Resources are frozen or cut. Welfare and minimum wage levels are frozen. There are no targets or plans to deal with B.C.’s six-year record as the worst province in Canada for child poverty.
The 2006 budget might have been “for the little ones.”
This one sure wasn’t.
Footnote: Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the province’s independent Representative for Children and Youth, panned the budget. Looking at education, the children’s ministry, housing and frozen income assistance rates, she concluded the province is going backwards in its support for children and families.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Campbell, Hansen fail the smell test
My first budget lockup was in March 1998, when the NDP government forecast a $95-million deficit.
Why didn't you cut a little more and deliver a balanced budget, then finance minister Joy MacPhail was asked?
"Because you wouldn't believe us," she replied.
She was right. And the Liberals might be heading toward that sad state.
In 1998, few believed the NDP. The New Democrats had won the 1996 election in part because of a pre-vote budget that showed a surplus for the current year and another balanced budget in the year ahead.
Neither claim was true. Eventually, the auditor general reported revenues were inflated by hundreds of millions dollars based on political direction.
The NDP government messed up in other ways before getting booted out in 2001, but the phony election budget put a stink on it from day one.
Now, the Campbell government is smelly. More than 70 per cent of British Columbians believe the Liberals "intentionally misled" voters about the province's finances during the election campaign, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
Gordon Campbell promised right up to election day that the deficit this year would be $495 million and that the February budget was realistic.
But this week Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented a budget with a $2.8-billion deficit.
Campbell and Hansen said everything went wrong after the election. Up until May 12, the budget was a safe bet.
But within a week of the February budget, economists said it was wildly optimistic. The campaign didn't start until two months later.
Last week, Hansen said he knew nothing of any budget problems before the election. "Ministers do not seek advice from deputy ministers and ministry staff during an election period," he told the legislature.
In the lockup Tuesday, Hansen noted that the finance deputy minister did mention that revenues might be $200 million to $300 million less than forecast during the campaign. It was a "casual conversation," Hansen said.
Later that afternoon, he acknowledged more than one conversation.
He didn't ask questions about the shortfall, whether it was likely to get worse or better. Hansen said he believed a $300 million revenue shortfall was easily managed by cutting expenses.
Campbell then said he too he had been told the revenue budget looked suspect during the campaign. He couldn't remember when - May 7, maybe. His deputy minister told him spending could be cut to make up for the shortfall so he thought everything would be fine.
Boy, were they wrong. That's not surprising. When a budget is far off track just weeks into the year, big problems are coming.
Flash forward. On June 10, when cabinet was sworn in, Hansen still said the deficit would be $495 million.
But this week he revealed that he had been briefed by the ministry days after the May 12 election and told revenue was now off by more than $1 billion.
Hansen told the legislature that he still said the deficit target would be met on June 10 because by then he was confident B.C. would be getting $1.6 billion from the federal government for imposing the new harmonized sales tax.
Which raises more questions. The Liberals promised in writing during the campaign that they would not introduce the HST.
But Hansen said by "late May" - two weeks, at most, after the election, the province started negotiations with Ottawa on introducing the tax.
By June 10, after two weeks of discussions with the federal government, Hansen said he considered it a done deal. He was counting on the $1.6 billion from the federal government to cover the revenue shortfall.
So after rejecting the HST as bad for B.C. during the campaign, within four weeks the Liberals had committed to a deal with the federal government to introduce the new tax. No one outside of a handful of insiders was involved in the decision. No analysis or public or business consultation.
And a huge political interest in taking one-time cash for a budget bailout.
Even looked at in the best light, the explanations paint those involved as incurious bunglers, making policy on the fly based on short-term political interests.
Most British Columbians, the poll suggests, also believe they were dishonest.
Why didn't you cut a little more and deliver a balanced budget, then finance minister Joy MacPhail was asked?
"Because you wouldn't believe us," she replied.
She was right. And the Liberals might be heading toward that sad state.
In 1998, few believed the NDP. The New Democrats had won the 1996 election in part because of a pre-vote budget that showed a surplus for the current year and another balanced budget in the year ahead.
Neither claim was true. Eventually, the auditor general reported revenues were inflated by hundreds of millions dollars based on political direction.
The NDP government messed up in other ways before getting booted out in 2001, but the phony election budget put a stink on it from day one.
Now, the Campbell government is smelly. More than 70 per cent of British Columbians believe the Liberals "intentionally misled" voters about the province's finances during the election campaign, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
Gordon Campbell promised right up to election day that the deficit this year would be $495 million and that the February budget was realistic.
But this week Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented a budget with a $2.8-billion deficit.
Campbell and Hansen said everything went wrong after the election. Up until May 12, the budget was a safe bet.
But within a week of the February budget, economists said it was wildly optimistic. The campaign didn't start until two months later.
Last week, Hansen said he knew nothing of any budget problems before the election. "Ministers do not seek advice from deputy ministers and ministry staff during an election period," he told the legislature.
In the lockup Tuesday, Hansen noted that the finance deputy minister did mention that revenues might be $200 million to $300 million less than forecast during the campaign. It was a "casual conversation," Hansen said.
Later that afternoon, he acknowledged more than one conversation.
He didn't ask questions about the shortfall, whether it was likely to get worse or better. Hansen said he believed a $300 million revenue shortfall was easily managed by cutting expenses.
Campbell then said he too he had been told the revenue budget looked suspect during the campaign. He couldn't remember when - May 7, maybe. His deputy minister told him spending could be cut to make up for the shortfall so he thought everything would be fine.
Boy, were they wrong. That's not surprising. When a budget is far off track just weeks into the year, big problems are coming.
Flash forward. On June 10, when cabinet was sworn in, Hansen still said the deficit would be $495 million.
But this week he revealed that he had been briefed by the ministry days after the May 12 election and told revenue was now off by more than $1 billion.
Hansen told the legislature that he still said the deficit target would be met on June 10 because by then he was confident B.C. would be getting $1.6 billion from the federal government for imposing the new harmonized sales tax.
Which raises more questions. The Liberals promised in writing during the campaign that they would not introduce the HST.
But Hansen said by "late May" - two weeks, at most, after the election, the province started negotiations with Ottawa on introducing the tax.
By June 10, after two weeks of discussions with the federal government, Hansen said he considered it a done deal. He was counting on the $1.6 billion from the federal government to cover the revenue shortfall.
So after rejecting the HST as bad for B.C. during the campaign, within four weeks the Liberals had committed to a deal with the federal government to introduce the new tax. No one outside of a handful of insiders was involved in the decision. No analysis or public or business consultation.
And a huge political interest in taking one-time cash for a budget bailout.
Even looked at in the best light, the explanations paint those involved as incurious bunglers, making policy on the fly based on short-term political interests.
Most British Columbians, the poll suggests, also believe they were dishonest.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Taking you into the budget lockup
I don't think the "mainstream media filter" is quite the evil that Sarah Palin and lots of other people make it out to be. Filters are highly useful. Someone like Vaughn Palmer can, by sorting out the irrelevant and misleading, consistently offer the information that is significant in a context that allows it to be understood. That's valuable.
But I also think it's useful to give people the option of going to the source and drawing their own conclusions. That's become easier, in terms of written information, thanks to the Internet and Google.
Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com is making quite extraordinary leaps in extending that kind of access to scrums, interviews and other non-written source materials. Instead of having to rely on press reports, you can watch the press conferences and interviews yourself and reach your own conclusions.
It's impressive stuff - check out his budget coverage, both written and video, here for examples.
But I also think it's useful to give people the option of going to the source and drawing their own conclusions. That's become easier, in terms of written information, thanks to the Internet and Google.
Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com is making quite extraordinary leaps in extending that kind of access to scrums, interviews and other non-written source materials. Instead of having to rely on press reports, you can watch the press conferences and interviews yourself and reach your own conclusions.
It's impressive stuff - check out his budget coverage, both written and video, here for examples.
The six things you need to know about this budget
From inside the budget lockup, six things you should know about the Liberals' latest effort.
First, the February budget has been revealed as bogus. The deficit is now forecast at $2.8 billion, not the $495 million Premier Gordon Campbell promised during the election campaign. (That would be a record splash of red ink.) The deficit is forecast to shrink to $1.8 billion next year and $1 billion the year after.
Second, most British Columbians are going to face tax increases.
This gets complicated. For starters, MSP premiums are going to increase by six per cent a year over the next three years. (At the same time, the MSP exemptions for people with low incomes will be increased. Generally, single people with incomes under $30,000 and families with income under $40,000 will get breaks.)
Then there is the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's presentation pitched the benefits of the new tax. He promised more investment, job creation and cheaper goods for consumers.
Hansen announced exemptions and tax breaks intended to cushion the blow. The new tax won't apply to home energy use and municipalities and charities will get breaks.
People with a low enough income to qualify for the GST tax credit will also get an HST credit - a family with less than $25,000 in income will get $230 per person.
The basic personal tax credit will also be increased to $11,000 from $9,373, saving a typical taxpayer about $70. (Though the MSP increase will claw that back by next year.)
But most British Columbians will pay more because the new tax applies to so many things that were PST-exempt.
The PST now takes in about $5 billion a year. The new HST won't apply to most business purchases, saving companies $1.9 billion a year and reducing the province's take by that amount.
But even with that loss, the government says it will still take in $5.6 billion from the new tax - $600 million more than it gets from the PST.
That means consumers will be paying a lot more to provide the increased revenue and make up for the lost revenue from business. (The government's theory is that companies will pass some of their cost savings on to consumers.)
Third, there won't be too many more surprises this year. The government's efforts to cut or control spending have mostly been revealed - slashed grants to organizations across the province, limits on health spending that will mean longer waits. The discretionary grants have been chopped by 30 per cent - $354 million that won't be going out to communities for services and programs and care.
Fourth, the government has set the stage for a couple of years of further cuts. Health expenditures are set to increase at about six per cent a year.
But after a small increase this year, the government plans cuts to non-health spending in each of the next two years.
On an abstract level, that can sound appealing. But the Environment Ministry budget, for example, is forecast to be cut by 20 per cent by the 2011/12 budget year. That means job losses, reduced park access and other much less popular measures. The Children and Families Ministry budget is frozen for two years, even as social problems rise. Across government, about 1,400 jobs are to be eliminated over the next two years.
Fifth, about the only major expansion of government services will be the introduction of full-day kindergarten, which will be available across the province by 2011.
Sixth, and last, the wild ride is not over. The budget is based on the assumption that the recession has bottomed out. The government is projecting a 2.9 per cent slump in the economy this year, followed by growth of 1.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent in the next two years. That's based on a conservative approach to the forecast from a panel of independent economists. But it's also, as we've seen in the last 12 months, a risk.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The budget forecasts continued tough times for the forest industry and provides little increased aid for communities dealing with the long-term impact of pine beetle devastation. It was generally praised by business groups and panned by unions and health and social service advocates.
First, the February budget has been revealed as bogus. The deficit is now forecast at $2.8 billion, not the $495 million Premier Gordon Campbell promised during the election campaign. (That would be a record splash of red ink.) The deficit is forecast to shrink to $1.8 billion next year and $1 billion the year after.
Second, most British Columbians are going to face tax increases.
This gets complicated. For starters, MSP premiums are going to increase by six per cent a year over the next three years. (At the same time, the MSP exemptions for people with low incomes will be increased. Generally, single people with incomes under $30,000 and families with income under $40,000 will get breaks.)
Then there is the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's presentation pitched the benefits of the new tax. He promised more investment, job creation and cheaper goods for consumers.
Hansen announced exemptions and tax breaks intended to cushion the blow. The new tax won't apply to home energy use and municipalities and charities will get breaks.
People with a low enough income to qualify for the GST tax credit will also get an HST credit - a family with less than $25,000 in income will get $230 per person.
The basic personal tax credit will also be increased to $11,000 from $9,373, saving a typical taxpayer about $70. (Though the MSP increase will claw that back by next year.)
But most British Columbians will pay more because the new tax applies to so many things that were PST-exempt.
The PST now takes in about $5 billion a year. The new HST won't apply to most business purchases, saving companies $1.9 billion a year and reducing the province's take by that amount.
But even with that loss, the government says it will still take in $5.6 billion from the new tax - $600 million more than it gets from the PST.
That means consumers will be paying a lot more to provide the increased revenue and make up for the lost revenue from business. (The government's theory is that companies will pass some of their cost savings on to consumers.)
Third, there won't be too many more surprises this year. The government's efforts to cut or control spending have mostly been revealed - slashed grants to organizations across the province, limits on health spending that will mean longer waits. The discretionary grants have been chopped by 30 per cent - $354 million that won't be going out to communities for services and programs and care.
Fourth, the government has set the stage for a couple of years of further cuts. Health expenditures are set to increase at about six per cent a year.
But after a small increase this year, the government plans cuts to non-health spending in each of the next two years.
On an abstract level, that can sound appealing. But the Environment Ministry budget, for example, is forecast to be cut by 20 per cent by the 2011/12 budget year. That means job losses, reduced park access and other much less popular measures. The Children and Families Ministry budget is frozen for two years, even as social problems rise. Across government, about 1,400 jobs are to be eliminated over the next two years.
Fifth, about the only major expansion of government services will be the introduction of full-day kindergarten, which will be available across the province by 2011.
Sixth, and last, the wild ride is not over. The budget is based on the assumption that the recession has bottomed out. The government is projecting a 2.9 per cent slump in the economy this year, followed by growth of 1.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent in the next two years. That's based on a conservative approach to the forecast from a panel of independent economists. But it's also, as we've seen in the last 12 months, a risk.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The budget forecasts continued tough times for the forest industry and provides little increased aid for communities dealing with the long-term impact of pine beetle devastation. It was generally praised by business groups and panned by unions and health and social service advocates.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Harper's Senate picks and MLAs' lost minds
After a fair stretch watching politics up close, I remain baffled at what happens to people once elected. Consider, for starters, Stephen Harper and the latest batch of brazen patronage appointments to the Senate.
Among the most recent nine were the Conservative party election campaign chair, who is also an effective fundraiser, Harper's long-time, loyal communications assistant and - for Pete's sake - the Conservative Party's president.
Harper used to rail against such abuses. The Senate shouldn't be a retirement home or rich reward for political backroom types, he said. It should represent Canadians. No more payoffs to party backers at taxpayers' expense. (Senators are paid $130,000 and get a rich pension.)
Now, Harper is another old-school politician, just fine with the same kind of cronyism he once condemned.
The official Conservative explanation is that since Senate reform is stalled and the upper house has a majority of senators appointed by past Liberal governments, Harper needs to get loyalists in place to support government legislation and Senate reform.
Anyway, the Liberals did the same thing, the apologists add.
I can understand the idea of trying to grab control of the Senate. It's not particularly noble and contradicts everything Harper stood for as an outsider determined to bring reform. But it's pragmatic.
That still doesn't mean, though, that he had to use Senate jobs to reward loyal friends. There are hundreds of competent, committed conservatives sympathetic to the government's direction and known and respected in their communities. Why not seek them out? (And, in the process, increase respect for the Senate and politicians generally.)
The second excuse - that the other guys were worse - is more destructive. It's an admission that right and wrong aren't important, and inevitably means a race to the bottom.
It's not just Harper. It's a contagion every bit as infectious as swine flu. In opposition, the B.C. Liberals seemed genuine about doing things differently, in ways large and small. You'll never see our ministers being trailed by aides when they have to walk a few steps to a cabinet meeting, one told me. But they are, and the number of support staff hired to record the ministers' every word and carry their files has multiplied.
And MLAs spoke their minds. Here's Kevin Krueger on gambling: "Women in B.C. will die because of gambling expansion ... So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it."
Now he's silent.
I was thinking about this when the 26 new MLAs sat down in the legislature for the first time Tuesday.
It's a great honour, to be selected by your fellow citizens to represent them. Generally, it's been earned in community service, working co-operatively with people of varied views and backgrounds. The chamber looks great, the Speaker is dressed up, people are sitting above, watching.
And then everybody starts yelling and catcalling across the way. Questions are barbed; responses are empty prattle. Pound the desk for your guy; jeer at their guy.
It's embarrassing. And it's inexplicable. How could good people let this happen to them?
Next door in Alberta, Conservative MLA Guy Boutilier was kicked out of the government caucus. His crime was publicly raising concerns about the cancellation of a long-term care centre in his community of Fort McMurray. The project had been approved and announced by Premier Ed Stelmach months before the 2008 election. Now the government said it would be put off four years and Boutilier spoke up to say that wasn't right.
We have a party system. Members have to share core principles and policies to allow election of a government that reflects the public will.
But there's nothing that says they have to turn into desk-thumping zombies, follow all orders or quit speaking for the people they represent.
Is there?
Footnote: I am genuinely baffled at how this happens. MLAs should be important. They represent the people. Yet they are shunted into minor roles. Government MLAs were as surprised as the rest of the public by the imposition of the HST. They weren't asked how it would affect their communities or what they thought. They were just given talking points.
Among the most recent nine were the Conservative party election campaign chair, who is also an effective fundraiser, Harper's long-time, loyal communications assistant and - for Pete's sake - the Conservative Party's president.
Harper used to rail against such abuses. The Senate shouldn't be a retirement home or rich reward for political backroom types, he said. It should represent Canadians. No more payoffs to party backers at taxpayers' expense. (Senators are paid $130,000 and get a rich pension.)
Now, Harper is another old-school politician, just fine with the same kind of cronyism he once condemned.
The official Conservative explanation is that since Senate reform is stalled and the upper house has a majority of senators appointed by past Liberal governments, Harper needs to get loyalists in place to support government legislation and Senate reform.
Anyway, the Liberals did the same thing, the apologists add.
I can understand the idea of trying to grab control of the Senate. It's not particularly noble and contradicts everything Harper stood for as an outsider determined to bring reform. But it's pragmatic.
That still doesn't mean, though, that he had to use Senate jobs to reward loyal friends. There are hundreds of competent, committed conservatives sympathetic to the government's direction and known and respected in their communities. Why not seek them out? (And, in the process, increase respect for the Senate and politicians generally.)
The second excuse - that the other guys were worse - is more destructive. It's an admission that right and wrong aren't important, and inevitably means a race to the bottom.
It's not just Harper. It's a contagion every bit as infectious as swine flu. In opposition, the B.C. Liberals seemed genuine about doing things differently, in ways large and small. You'll never see our ministers being trailed by aides when they have to walk a few steps to a cabinet meeting, one told me. But they are, and the number of support staff hired to record the ministers' every word and carry their files has multiplied.
And MLAs spoke their minds. Here's Kevin Krueger on gambling: "Women in B.C. will die because of gambling expansion ... So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it."
Now he's silent.
I was thinking about this when the 26 new MLAs sat down in the legislature for the first time Tuesday.
It's a great honour, to be selected by your fellow citizens to represent them. Generally, it's been earned in community service, working co-operatively with people of varied views and backgrounds. The chamber looks great, the Speaker is dressed up, people are sitting above, watching.
And then everybody starts yelling and catcalling across the way. Questions are barbed; responses are empty prattle. Pound the desk for your guy; jeer at their guy.
It's embarrassing. And it's inexplicable. How could good people let this happen to them?
Next door in Alberta, Conservative MLA Guy Boutilier was kicked out of the government caucus. His crime was publicly raising concerns about the cancellation of a long-term care centre in his community of Fort McMurray. The project had been approved and announced by Premier Ed Stelmach months before the 2008 election. Now the government said it would be put off four years and Boutilier spoke up to say that wasn't right.
We have a party system. Members have to share core principles and policies to allow election of a government that reflects the public will.
But there's nothing that says they have to turn into desk-thumping zombies, follow all orders or quit speaking for the people they represent.
Is there?
Footnote: I am genuinely baffled at how this happens. MLAs should be important. They represent the people. Yet they are shunted into minor roles. Government MLAs were as surprised as the rest of the public by the imposition of the HST. They weren't asked how it would affect their communities or what they thought. They were just given talking points.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A big shake-up in addiction services is coming - but is there a plan?
The Whistler Pique had an interesting open letter suggesting massive changes in addictions services. It appears the health authorities - or some of them - are cancelling contracts with community based agencies. They would then, presumably, offer the services directly, from treatment to drug education and prevention.
Will it cost more or less? Be more effective, or not?
It's worrying. When health authorities weigh a choice between cutting hip surgeries or addiction services, the grumpy people on the hip waiting list are a formidable lobby group. (That was not a criticism - I would be one of those grumpy people in a flash if my hip was crumbling.)
Will it cost more or less? Be more effective, or not?
It's worrying. When health authorities weigh a choice between cutting hip surgeries or addiction services, the grumpy people on the hip waiting list are a formidable lobby group. (That was not a criticism - I would be one of those grumpy people in a flash if my hip was crumbling.)
Behind the surprise ban on garbage exports
Why, after Vancouver had been working for at least 18 months on plans to have waste trucked to the U.S. for disposal, did the provincial government impose a ban on waste exports in the throne speech? The ban also comes out of the blue for the Cowichan Valley, Whistler and Powell River, which all have existing contracts to send waste to U.S. landfills.
Could it have anything to do with the efforts of well-connected lobbyists who are pushing their clients' plans to profit by keeping the garbage in the province - like Ken Dobell and Andrew Wilkinson, former Liberal party president.
Jeff Nagle has an interesting report here.
Could it have anything to do with the efforts of well-connected lobbyists who are pushing their clients' plans to profit by keeping the garbage in the province - like Ken Dobell and Andrew Wilkinson, former Liberal party president.
Jeff Nagle has an interesting report here.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inside the premier's secret scrums
Wonder where those quotes from Premier Gordon Campbell you see on the news or read in the paper come from?
Often, from what press gallery types call secret scrums. Reporters are summoned to the premier's office and wait for Campbell to emerge, stand in front of flags and take questions. (Past premiers took questions in the halls whenever reporters grabbed them, providing daily access when the legislature was witting. Campbell brushes past in favour of managed conferences when he chooses.)
Sean Holman, multi-media journalist, posted a video of segment of this week's post-throne speech conference here.
Often, from what press gallery types call secret scrums. Reporters are summoned to the premier's office and wait for Campbell to emerge, stand in front of flags and take questions. (Past premiers took questions in the halls whenever reporters grabbed them, providing daily access when the legislature was witting. Campbell brushes past in favour of managed conferences when he chooses.)
Sean Holman, multi-media journalist, posted a video of segment of this week's post-throne speech conference here.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Throne Speech a million miles from campaign promises
If the Throne Speech had been any gloomier, Lt.-Gov. Stephen Point would have had to wear sackcloth and ashes to read it.
"The worst recession in 27 years." "Seismic economic shifts that were unpredictable and brutally deceiving in their speed and force." A "maelstrom" that left "the fiscal cupboard bare."
You get the picture.
All that, the speech said, meant big changes - big cuts - are coming to government.
Throne Speeches don't lay out specifics. Those will come, at least to some extent, in Tuesday's budget.
But the speech, delivered by Point but written by the premier's office, made it clear that cuts and other changes are coming in every area of government.
The review of spending by B.C. Ferries and TransLink will be extended to Crown corporations and government agencies and health authorities and school districts. Grants to communities and agencies are to be reduced, Public sector wages will be frozen for the next four years. (The speech didn't say whether MLAs pay, which is indexed to inflation, would continue to rise automatically each year.)
The Liberals' argument is that revenues are down so much that deficits are unavoidable for the next four years.
But borrowing to meet today's needs would have to be repaid in future. The Campbell government is determined to keep that debt as small as possible. Beyond "critical health and education services," everything else is on the block.
There are three large concerns with that approach.
First, Gordon Campbell has maintained that over the last eight years government has been pared down to the essentials. Further cuts must come at the expense of those essentials.
Second, it is widely accepted that government spending in a downturn is a way of cushioning the impact. Stimulus spending isn't just about building highways - it's also about keeping people working in communities.
And third, the government has no mandate for this type of change.
Barely three months ago, during the election campaign, Campbell insisted B.C. would avoid the worst effects of the downturn. He promised a $495 million deficit this year and a smaller deficit next, before a return to balanced budgets. He pledged to deliver the spending commitments in the February budget.
Now, he says, none of those things actually turned out to be true.
Just as the Liberals' rejection of the HST during the campaign - in writing - turned out to be false. The Liberals devoted a large part of the Throne Speech to defending the new tax. None of it addressed the betrayal of pledging not to introduce the tax in May and reversing course weeks after the election.
The other striking policy shift - again not hinted at in the election campaign - is a further expansion of private power projects in B.C. with the aim of becoming a big exporter of electricity. The Liberals have always said the goal of the energy policy was self-sufficiency. Now B.C.'s rivers are to be developed to allow companies to become electricity exporters.
There were other measures announced in the speech.
Prince George will get a new Wood Innovation and Design Centre.
The controversial, $600-million plan to build a power transmission line northwest from Terrace along Highway 37 will go ahead. And the province is supporting a pipeline corridor to allow liquefied natural gas to be exported through Kitimat by tanker.
Cellphone in cars will be targeted by legislation and a few other promised bills will be introduced. The move to full-day kindergarten, in some form, will start by 2010. Private power companies will get more help.
But the main focus, the big theme, was the need to cut government spending sharply.
Campbell claimed a mandate for that approach. Voters elected the Liberals because they promised good management, he said.
It's tough to make that claim while insisting you completely bungled your economic forecast and budget - and didn't recognize the problems until after the election.
Footnote: The Throne Speech is available on the government website - gov.bc.ca - for those interested in taking a firsthand look.
"The worst recession in 27 years." "Seismic economic shifts that were unpredictable and brutally deceiving in their speed and force." A "maelstrom" that left "the fiscal cupboard bare."
You get the picture.
All that, the speech said, meant big changes - big cuts - are coming to government.
Throne Speeches don't lay out specifics. Those will come, at least to some extent, in Tuesday's budget.
But the speech, delivered by Point but written by the premier's office, made it clear that cuts and other changes are coming in every area of government.
The review of spending by B.C. Ferries and TransLink will be extended to Crown corporations and government agencies and health authorities and school districts. Grants to communities and agencies are to be reduced, Public sector wages will be frozen for the next four years. (The speech didn't say whether MLAs pay, which is indexed to inflation, would continue to rise automatically each year.)
The Liberals' argument is that revenues are down so much that deficits are unavoidable for the next four years.
But borrowing to meet today's needs would have to be repaid in future. The Campbell government is determined to keep that debt as small as possible. Beyond "critical health and education services," everything else is on the block.
There are three large concerns with that approach.
First, Gordon Campbell has maintained that over the last eight years government has been pared down to the essentials. Further cuts must come at the expense of those essentials.
Second, it is widely accepted that government spending in a downturn is a way of cushioning the impact. Stimulus spending isn't just about building highways - it's also about keeping people working in communities.
And third, the government has no mandate for this type of change.
Barely three months ago, during the election campaign, Campbell insisted B.C. would avoid the worst effects of the downturn. He promised a $495 million deficit this year and a smaller deficit next, before a return to balanced budgets. He pledged to deliver the spending commitments in the February budget.
Now, he says, none of those things actually turned out to be true.
Just as the Liberals' rejection of the HST during the campaign - in writing - turned out to be false. The Liberals devoted a large part of the Throne Speech to defending the new tax. None of it addressed the betrayal of pledging not to introduce the tax in May and reversing course weeks after the election.
The other striking policy shift - again not hinted at in the election campaign - is a further expansion of private power projects in B.C. with the aim of becoming a big exporter of electricity. The Liberals have always said the goal of the energy policy was self-sufficiency. Now B.C.'s rivers are to be developed to allow companies to become electricity exporters.
There were other measures announced in the speech.
Prince George will get a new Wood Innovation and Design Centre.
The controversial, $600-million plan to build a power transmission line northwest from Terrace along Highway 37 will go ahead. And the province is supporting a pipeline corridor to allow liquefied natural gas to be exported through Kitimat by tanker.
Cellphone in cars will be targeted by legislation and a few other promised bills will be introduced. The move to full-day kindergarten, in some form, will start by 2010. Private power companies will get more help.
But the main focus, the big theme, was the need to cut government spending sharply.
Campbell claimed a mandate for that approach. Voters elected the Liberals because they promised good management, he said.
It's tough to make that claim while insisting you completely bungled your economic forecast and budget - and didn't recognize the problems until after the election.
Footnote: The Throne Speech is available on the government website - gov.bc.ca - for those interested in taking a firsthand look.
Time to take the big money out of politics
Even as the last naive man in political journalism, I can't shed the idea that big donors get special treatment from parties.
Politics run on money. Advertising, charter aircraft, polling, strategists, staff - winning takes big bucks.
So when Teck Cominco sends six-figure cheques to the Liberals, or CUPE BC chips in $165,000 for the NDP campaign, I figure they have a better chance of getting access than I do. The parties know that irritating big donors threatens their chance of being elected.
The politicians insist it doesn't work that way. You could write a $5 million cheque to fund a campaign - which is legal in B.C. - but not get any extra attention from the politicians.
Even if that's true, the current system is still corrosive. A 2000 survey found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
And donors believe the same thing.
The official line is that contributors are supporting the party that, if elected, would create an environment serving their broad interests. It's cast as legitimate participation in the democratic process, not an attempt to buy special attention.
I don't buy it. Neither do the donors.
Consider Paul Martin's Liberal leadership campaign. He had an absolute lock on the job; companies didn't have to contribute shareholders' money to ensure a Martin win.
But the leadership campaign pulled in $12 million, largely from corporate donors. The only reason to contribute was to be seen and remembered as a supporter once Martin was prime minister.
Consider also the B.C. Liberals' 2001 haul of $4.3 million from corporations. The party would have had a huge majority without that money; the companies, required to act in shareholders' interests, must have expected a return for those contributions.
Which leads to the new Elections B.C. report on political contributions heading into the last election.
The Liberals were given $9.5 million for the campaign. About 70 per cent was from businesses, the rest from individuals. Less than one-third of their funds came from actual voters.
The NDP received about $5.4 million, with about 40 per cent from unions. The Green party took in $106,000. For every $50 the NDP could spend, the Greens could spend $1.
If money affects the outcome, and people and organizations donate out of self-interest, then our elections are for sale. If businesses or unions see the chance to spend money to help elect a sympathetic - or indebted - government, they will.
And the rest of us will be on the outside.
There is a way to end this.
Manitoba and Quebec have banned union and corporate donations. Ontario allows them, but limits all donations - business, union or individual - to $15,500 per year (and an extra $15,500 for an election campaign).
The federal government - with legislation passed by the Liberals and strengthened by the Conservatives - has banned corporate and union donations and limited individual donations to $1,000. "This act will put an end to the influence of big money on federal political parties,'' Harper said in introducing his bill.
Parties still need money to run campaigns. When corporate and business donations were banned federally, public funding for parties, based on the number of votes received in the last election, was introduced to supplement individual donations.
Getting that formula right is tricky. Forcing parties to make do with less cash would be useful, as volunteers and grassroots efforts would be more important.
The Greens and NDP in B.C. both pledge to ban corporate and union donations and limit individual donations.
Gordon Campbell wants to stick with unlimited donations. People can judge if a party is favouring donors and vote them out in four years, he argues.
But that's not true. Voters can't really examine hundreds of pages of donations, recognize names or monitor all government decisions.
In B.C., parties - and democracy - are effectively for sale.
Footnote: Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld called for a review of political finance rules in his report on the 2005 election. B.C. was a leader when the current regulations were introduced in 1995, but is now lagging other provinces.
Politics run on money. Advertising, charter aircraft, polling, strategists, staff - winning takes big bucks.
So when Teck Cominco sends six-figure cheques to the Liberals, or CUPE BC chips in $165,000 for the NDP campaign, I figure they have a better chance of getting access than I do. The parties know that irritating big donors threatens their chance of being elected.
The politicians insist it doesn't work that way. You could write a $5 million cheque to fund a campaign - which is legal in B.C. - but not get any extra attention from the politicians.
Even if that's true, the current system is still corrosive. A 2000 survey found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
And donors believe the same thing.
The official line is that contributors are supporting the party that, if elected, would create an environment serving their broad interests. It's cast as legitimate participation in the democratic process, not an attempt to buy special attention.
I don't buy it. Neither do the donors.
Consider Paul Martin's Liberal leadership campaign. He had an absolute lock on the job; companies didn't have to contribute shareholders' money to ensure a Martin win.
But the leadership campaign pulled in $12 million, largely from corporate donors. The only reason to contribute was to be seen and remembered as a supporter once Martin was prime minister.
Consider also the B.C. Liberals' 2001 haul of $4.3 million from corporations. The party would have had a huge majority without that money; the companies, required to act in shareholders' interests, must have expected a return for those contributions.
Which leads to the new Elections B.C. report on political contributions heading into the last election.
The Liberals were given $9.5 million for the campaign. About 70 per cent was from businesses, the rest from individuals. Less than one-third of their funds came from actual voters.
The NDP received about $5.4 million, with about 40 per cent from unions. The Green party took in $106,000. For every $50 the NDP could spend, the Greens could spend $1.
If money affects the outcome, and people and organizations donate out of self-interest, then our elections are for sale. If businesses or unions see the chance to spend money to help elect a sympathetic - or indebted - government, they will.
And the rest of us will be on the outside.
There is a way to end this.
Manitoba and Quebec have banned union and corporate donations. Ontario allows them, but limits all donations - business, union or individual - to $15,500 per year (and an extra $15,500 for an election campaign).
The federal government - with legislation passed by the Liberals and strengthened by the Conservatives - has banned corporate and union donations and limited individual donations to $1,000. "This act will put an end to the influence of big money on federal political parties,'' Harper said in introducing his bill.
Parties still need money to run campaigns. When corporate and business donations were banned federally, public funding for parties, based on the number of votes received in the last election, was introduced to supplement individual donations.
Getting that formula right is tricky. Forcing parties to make do with less cash would be useful, as volunteers and grassroots efforts would be more important.
The Greens and NDP in B.C. both pledge to ban corporate and union donations and limit individual donations.
Gordon Campbell wants to stick with unlimited donations. People can judge if a party is favouring donors and vote them out in four years, he argues.
But that's not true. Voters can't really examine hundreds of pages of donations, recognize names or monitor all government decisions.
In B.C., parties - and democracy - are effectively for sale.
Footnote: Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld called for a review of political finance rules in his report on the 2005 election. B.C. was a leader when the current regulations were introduced in 1995, but is now lagging other provinces.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Big pharma's long reach
So, when a legitimate science/slash medical journal publishes an article written by an expert researcher touting, indirectly, the benefits of a drug, can you trust it? Can you assume the scientist wrote it, or should you suspect a PR firm paid by a pharmaceutical company actually did the research, wrote the article and got the researcher to claim authorship?
And what happens if your doctor, being diligent, reads and relies on the PR firm's work?
Some of the answers here.
And what happens if your doctor, being diligent, reads and relies on the PR firm's work?
Some of the answers here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
