Leadership campaigns run big fraud risk

The next premier probably won't be selected by cats and dogs signed up as Liberal party members.
But he or she could be.
The flap over a cat signed up as a Christy Clark-supporting Liberal, alleged fraud and mass membership sign-ups are a reminder how out-of-control the leadership contests for both parties are.
It's a selection system that looks out of some barely there democracy, rather than a province that considers an independent Elections B.C. essential - except when it comes to campaigns to select a premier and opposition leader.
First the cat.
The Globe and Mail reported last week that a cat - "Olympia Marie Wawryk" - had been signed up as a Liberal party member after an application and $10 had been sent to the party in December. The cat belonged to Kristy Wawryk, a Clark supporter and Liberal riding association president.
The paper asked Wawryk about it. She initially claimed that Olympia was a great aunt who lived with her, before confessing it was her cat. (Note - it's best to tell the truth or not answer questions when a reporter calls; lies usually backfire.)
A friend had signed the cat up as a prank, she said.
Meanwhile, a rather lame website mocking the Clark cat - kitties4christy.com - was already online. Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com revealed the site had been registered three days before the story broke.
And CTV found the site had been set up by a staffer at Campaign Research, a political campaign company hired by as part of George Abbott's leadership effort.
Abbott said the staffer learned of a news story being developed on the cat and set up the site without his approval. (Which raises more questions: How did he know about the story? Why does Abbott need to hire a Toronto campaign firm?)
Next Kevin Falcon accused the Clark campaign of irregularities in signing up new members, a charge which was undermined when it came out that his campaign had signed up members of the Kamloops Blazers junior hockey team without telling them. A Falcon supporter owns the team.
The Liberal party says it will catch any fraud.
It's hard to see how. The deadline for signing up new members eligible to vote Feb. 26 for a new leader was last Friday. Falcon says he signed up 17,500 new party members; Mike de Jong claims 10,000; Clark 25,000. Abbott is silent on their numbers.
The party says 50,000 new members joined since the leadership race began.
It's hard to see how they can be checked in three weeks.
That's a big concern. Falcon did not have 700 volunteers who each signed up 25 new party members to support him. Key organizers, especially in the South Asian community, signed up hundreds of new party members.
That's allowed. And the IndoCanadian community, in particular, has a history of recognizing the benefits of political involvement.
But the concern is that not all of those signing up are really interested in the party and its leadership candidates. They might be simply helping out a friend or politico who wants to deliver a lot of support to one candidate.
That raises concerns about what's expected in return. And mass sign-ups mean long-time, committed party members have much less say in the leadership choice.
And as both parties have opted for online and phone voting, fraud is a genuine concern.
The Liberals are looking to reduce the impact of mass sign-ups this weekend, when convention delegates will be asked to adopt a system that gives each riding 100 votes, to be allocated based on a vote of party members in the riding. Signing up 2,000 new members in one riding would be less of an advantage. The change needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
It's a shoddy system, even without touching on problems with leadership campaign donations and spending.
Parties can set their own voting rules. But Elections B.C. should be in charge of the process, to make sure the rules are followed.
Footnote: The New Democrats have similar issues. Mass sign-ups have played big roles in previous campaigns and the Adrian Dix camp irritated rivals with a flood of last-minute new members in this race.

Another look at the Insite

Vancouver's safe injection site, Insite, gets a close look in the New York Times.

Cat for Christy no laughing matter

This is odd.
First, a cat belonging to a Christy Clark campaign worker joins the Liberal party.
The worker, when contacted by Justine Hunter of the Globe, initially claimed the membership belonged to a great aunt who lived with her. The campaign later told the truth and then claimed the cat membership was a prank by persons unknown.
George Abbott and Kevin Falcon condemned the cat sign-up; Abbott expressed concern about voter fraud in the leadership contest.
And a website - kitties4christy.com - mocked the whole thing.
Then Sean Holman revealed that the web domain name was registered on Feb. 1, three days before the story broke.
The Liberals are voting for the next leader by phone and online. Members who joined by today - Friday - will get a PIN and be eligible to cast a ballot. Falcon claims he's signed up 17,500 new members; Mike de Jong 10,000.
There is a large potential for voter fraud.
The Liberals are supposedly adopting a process that gives each riding 100 votes, no matter how many members it has. The votes would be allocated based on a constituency vote. That would reduce the impact of signing up thousands of new members, feline or otherwise.
That decision has to be confirmed at a convention next weekend and requires two-thirds support to pass. All candidates have said they support the change.
If it doesn't pass, then the legitimacy of new members is going to be a big issue.

Postscript:
The Abbott campaign confirmed in a statement that Campaign Research, a campaign management company in Toronto working as a contractor for his leadership bid, prepared the cat website.
"I have learned this afternoon that this website was created by a vendor who works for my campaign when they learned through the media that a story regarding Ms. Clark's campaign sign-ups was under development," Abbott said in the statement.
He had it taken down.
But they didn't sign the cat up, he said.

That raises other questions

Dix plan for corporate tax cuts should spark needed debate

Liberal Kevin Falcon has set himself up as the business leadership candidate.
Now New Democrat hopeful Adrian Dix has claimed the opposite side.
Dix took one of the bolder positions of both campaigns so far by saying he would raise corporate taxes to fund needed services.
It's striking how little real discussion there has been of the dramatic business tax cuts over the last decade and the resulting service cuts and much higher taxes and fees paid by individuals and families.
It's been a big shift. You can't readily allocate all government revenues to individuals and business. Both pay the carbon tax, for example.
But even a rough cut at the numbers shows companies are paying a far smaller share of the government's bills than they did a decade ago.
In 2001, direct corporate taxes and royalties of various kinds provided about 22 per cent of government revenues. Today, after tax changes by the Campbell government, that's down to about 10 per cent.
Despite inflation and economic growth, corporations are paying about $1 billion less in readily attributable taxes than they were in 2001, a drop of about 20 per cent.
Individuals and families are paying about $8 billion more, an increase of about 60 per cent. (The change isn't just in income taxes. MSP premiums, for example have increased more than 80 per cent; the government is also taking in more indirectly, through B.C. Lotteries, for example.)
You can argue the details. But the shift is undeniable and large. Corporations and businesses are paying a greatly reduced share of the province's bills.
That's by design, and a perfectly legitimate policy. The theory is that lower taxes would encourage companies to invest here, which would mean jobs and growth.
Families would have to pay more to make up for the corporate tax cuts, but, in theory, benefit from a strong economy.
But we haven't had a real public discussion about the tax shift. In part, that's why the HST - which shifted $1.9 billion a year off corporations and onto individuals and families - made people mad.
Dix proposed to claw back about $270 million in corporate tax cuts, which would still leave them paying about $700 million less in direct taxes than a decade ago.
Politically, it sets him apart from the main candidates from both parties, though it won't win business friends and supporters.
Meanwhile, Falcon has presented himself as the candidate of choice for B.C. business.
Falcon has racked up, and promoted, endorsements from a flock of business people. They bought a full-page ad in the Vancouver Sun and his campaign team has sent out press releases celebrating his corporate support.
It's impressive, at least to some Liberal party supporters.
But Falcon was already seen as business-friendly and likely had the support of those supporters. And he risks being seen as short on support from other groups.
What he needs, in terms of winning the leadership, are similar indications from other sectors.
He was the health minister, for example. Where are the patient groups or doctors or seniors' organization offering the same kind of ringing endorsement he's getting from the business sector. Or the women's shelter or teen group in his riding praising his insight and efforts?
Both Dix and Falcon are staking clear positions that reflect the interests their respective party's core supporters, which might help win support in the leadership contest.
That success might not translate as well into an actual election campaign, where the emphasis is on winning over moderate or uncommitted voters.
But Dix has, at least, started a needed debate on tax policy and who should pay for the services government provides.
The tax shift under the Liberals has seen business pay much less and individuals and families pay much more, without a great deal of public discussion of the impacts on the economy and British Columbians.
Footnote: Christy Clark and Falcon sparred a bit over his reliance on business support, or "insiders" as she called them. The bigger issue should be how much they spend to back his campaign. Candidates are limited to $450,000 in spending, but third party spending doesn't count against the cap. Falcon's business backers have already bought ads in his support.

Is the Liberal caucus chair sniping at Kevin Falcon?

The government caucus sent out a press release attacking recall efforts today that was hardly a favour to the Kevin Falcon leadership campaign.
Falcon's start in politics came as the organizer of an unsuccessful "Total Recall" campaign against the NDP in 1999. The campaign stalled, Falcon said then, because it couldn't raise enough money to launch credible efforts.
The recall effort looks much like the current version. Falcon said it was a bid to defeat the government, he defended the role of Liberals in the effort (he had done paid for work for the Liberals and campaigned) and the pro-recall forces were angry at Elections B.C.
The release is below.


BC LIBERAL GOVERNMENT CAUCUS
NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release
February 3, 2011

TIME FOR NDP TO END WASTEFUL, DISHONEST RECALL SCHEME

VICTORIA – Following the resounding defeat of the NDP-backed recall in Oak Bay-Gordon Head, it’s time for NDP president Moe Sihota and his party to abandon their wasteful and dishonest attempt to manipulate recall and re-fight the last election, says BC Liberal Caucus Chair Ron Cantelon.

Elections B.C. has said that each recall attempt costs B.C. taxpayers at least $500,000 per campaign. (Vancouver Sun, Sept. 24, 2010).

Two decades of failure on at-risk children, families

Note: Please read the specific examples in the posts below after reading this. Or, if pressed for time, just read them.


It’s now been 20 years of failure when it comes to the most vulnerable children in this province. Based on the scarcity of commitments from leadership candidates, another dismal decade could lie ahead.
The Representative for Children and Youth has released her latest report, on the deaths of 21 infants whose families had been involved with the children’s ministry in the year before the children died.
These babies didn’t really stand much of a chance. Many people in “the system” — the ministry, health authorities — knew the risks for them were high. But the response was fragmented. The people who could have helped were overworked and unsupported. We failed them.
None of these were easy cases. The children faced tough lives even with the best support in the world. The families were dirt poor. They lived in dismal housing: Mould-ridden hovels, motel rooms, overcrowded houses.
Most of the families had issues with addictions, mental illness and domestic violence. Almost three-quarters of the children were aboriginal.
You should read the report, Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems, at rcybc.ca. Especially the case examples, which set out the circumstances of some of the families, and was done — and not done - to keep the children safe.
The measures that could have helped aren’t all complicated or expensive. The representative found there are no provincewide rules or guidelines for child protection workers involved with a family expecting another child. (And where there are protocols, they weren’t followed.)
In three-quarters of the cases, the ministry had received reports that children already in the home might be at risk while the mothers were pregnant. Investigations were slow and in some cases inadequate. In only three of the cases was there evidence of planning for the infant on discharge from hospital.
Perhaps as a result, there was little support for the families after the babies were taken home. They were left living in terrible conditions, with no effective help in finding adequate housing, for example.
Public-health nurse visits could have helped protect the children and support the often ill-equipped mothers. But the province hasn’t created a standard of nursing support for at-risk infants.
And, of course, B.C. still has no provincial plan to address its ranking as the worst province in Canada for childhood poverty.
Just before the 2001 election, I wrote about the New Democratic government’s cruel mismanagement of the children’s ministry.
The column quoted the final report of Children’s Advocate Joyce Preston, an independent legislative watchdog foolishly eliminated by the Campbell government.
She described a decade of failure on the part of the NDP. “For the most part it has been a case of all talk and no action,” she said. Under the NDP, the ministry was underfunded, short-staffed and mismanaged, I wrote then.
Gordon Campbell promised much better. I believed him. But it was all empty talk.
The most obvious broken promise was the 2001 election campaign commitment to stop the “endless restructuring” that wasted resources and created disorganization.
Campbell had also stood in the legislature and urged an end to partisan fighting over vulnerable childen. All MLAs should figure out what the children and youth needed and find the money to support them, he said.
He repeated the promise in writing before the election. The children and families spending would be based on the need, not some arbitrary budget allowance, he pledged.
Campbell and the Liberals did the opposite. Budgets were slashed, without any analysis or plan. The Liberals launched — and spent tens of millions on — a plan for regional authorities, and then abandoned it. Almost 10 years after the Liberals were first elected, and the ministry is still perpetually “transforming,” though how and into what is unclear.
The Liberal government has defended its poor performance. It’s tough to keep social workers. There were staff shortages. We’re trying. Things will improve.
It was all exactly what the NDP government said a decade earlier.
Infants, children and youths who at risk, or in danger, deserve protection. Families need help. And for 20 years, the provincial government has failed them.

Judge for yourself if infants protected and families supported

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here are number five and six; the first four are in posts below.
You can read and judge if the system is working to protect children.

Case Example
This infant was born to a First Nations mother who had one older child living with her. Two older children had been removed by the ministry in the past and were living with relatives. There had been 12 child protection reports over a 10-year period. The reports involved drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence as well as exposing the children to dangerous situations and general lack of supervision and neglect. Investigations had found at one point that the family lived in very substandard housing requiring immediate attention due to the risks to the children.
The eleventh report regarding the care of the sibling was received when the mother was in the early stages of her pregnancy. It was not investigated. A second report was received subsequent to the infant’s birth, which also was not investigated. Both reports were signed by a supervisor and closed. A number of months later, after another report that was not documented as a child protection report was received, the children were removed.
By not responding to the initial report, the opportunity was lost to assess the family circumstances and plan for the birth of the infant.

Case Example
The mother of the infant had been diagnosed with FASD at a young age. Her capacity to parent was limited. Prior to the infant’s birth she had transferred the care of her first child to her former spouse as she was unable to handle the child’s behaviour. She used harmful substances while pregnant with her second child. Her prenatal substance use, limited capacity and lack of financial resources were factors that the staff in the hospital felt placed her at risk.
The infant was born prematurely and was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit due to high medical needs. Prior to discharging the infant, health professionals noted concerns about the home the infant would be living in, the mother’s capacity and her social situation. The infant was discharged at six weeks of age.
When the infant was two months old, the social worker contacted the public health nurse to request that she provide information to the infant’s mother regarding safe sleep as the mother had informed the social worker that the infant currently slept in a car seat and also in the mother’s bed. The public health nurse contacted the mother, who said that she did not have a crib for the infant and could not afford one. The mother said that the infant was currently sleeping in a playpen. The nurse discouraged the mother from using a playpen and encouraged her to purchase a crib. On the same day, the nurse contacted the social worker regarding financial assistance for a crib. The public health notes indicate that the nurse planned to follow up with the MCFD social worker in two weeks. However, there is no indication of any further follow-up regarding the infant’s sleeping arrangements.
Over a number of weeks the mother’s capacity to take care of the infant began to deteriorate, and beginning at three months old, the infant was provided temporary respite care with increasing frequency in three different homes. The ministry social worker requested and received approval for the purchase of a playpen for the infant to sleep in while in respite care in one of the three homes because the caregivers did not have an appropriate place for the infant to sleep.
The third home offering respite care was an MCFD-approved foster home. The foster home file information did not indicate that the foster parents had received any specialized training with respect to caring for infants or caring for infants with high medical needs. In this home the infant also slept in a playpen. On the night of the death the infant was put to sleep on its side in the playpen, with a blanket placed against its back. A couple of hours later the caregiver found the infant unresponsive.
A post-mortem examination following the infant’s death indicated that an untreated kidney infection caused the death, and an inter-current viral infection and aspiration pneumonia were contributory. A pediatric review of the infant’s medical and post-mortem information indicated that the kidney infection was treatable, had it been recognized earlier. However, the infant’s symptoms may have been misinterpreted as a cold or flu.

You decide if children are protected

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here's number four; the first three are in posts below.
You can read and judge if the system is working to protect children.

Case Example
The mother of this infant was involved with MCFD child protection social workers during her pregnancy. She had two toddlers. The family lived on reserve in a home that had extensive mould. The pregnancy was assessed as high risk, and the mother was confined to bed rest. A service agency was contracted to provide assistance to the family to address housing- related issues. One of the stated goals of the service provider was for the family to find adequate housing. During the final weeks of her high-risk pregnancy and in the first few weeks following the infant’s birth, it appears that the infant’s mother was expected to locate adequate living conditions. In the months following the infant’s birth, it appears that the only help the mother received from the service provider was housing lists and contact phone numbers for low-income housing agencies. The infant was brought to the hospital three times between the ages of one month and five months for coughing, vomiting, fever and breathing difficulties. At approximately six weeks old, the infant was diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus. At that same time a sibling was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia. In the hospital the infant’s mother advised the treating physician of her concerns with regards to the mould in the family’s residence.
A few weeks after the infant was born, an MCFD social worker wrote a letter to B.C. Housing and a low-income housing provider requesting that the family be given priority on a waitlist for housing because all of the children were frequently ill with respiratory illnesses thought to be related to the mould in the house. A year later the family was still waitlisted for housing and had to move off reserve into a motel with the young children when the infant was one year old.
One day while the mother was at work, the children were being cared for by their father. The infant was placed to sleep on an adult bed in the room, propped up with a pillow and covered with a blanket. The infant began to vomit and defecate. The infant’s breathing became noisy and irregular, and the infant became unresponsive. Emergency health services were called and took the infant to the hospital, where the infant was pronounced dead.

Another child's short life

I've been posting case examples from the Representative for Children and Youth report Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems.
Here's number three; the first two are in posts below.

Case Example Three
One of the infants resided with an adolescent mother and a grandmother in a motel. Over a two-month period, 10 individual service providers had some involvement with the mother and infant, including child protection social workers, hospital social workers, public health nurses, hospital workers and a family support worker.
A public health nurse had observed the infant’s living conditions and documented that the family was to be “observed” for emotional status, postpartum depression and family functioning; however, the nurse also recorded “no apparent problem” in the notes of the visit. A second nurse who visited also documented that the family should be observed for provision of a safe environment and support systems.
During at least one of the visits, the nurse noted that two adults were smoking inside the motel room with the infant present. It was also noted that the mother smoked and used marijuana. The nurse advised the mother to wait two hours after doing so before breastfeeding the infant. However, in a follow-up conversation with the child protection worker, the nurse expressed no concerns related to the infant’s care. The infant’s living conditions were not noted as a concern for the service providers.

Another child whose life we wrote off

"The Ministry of Children and Family Development missed opportunities to learn from its mistakes by failing to review a number of infant deaths, B.C.'s independent child advocate says," reports Lindsay Kines in the Times Colonist today.
"Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who examined the deaths of 21 infants for a recent report, noted that the ministry conducted its own internal investigations in just 14 of the cases."
All the deaths should have been reviewed based on the ministry's standards, the representative found. In the 14 deaths that were reviewed, "a number took too long complete, ignored key issues or failed to recommend changes that would fix identified problems."
The representative also said regional directors were reviewing cases in which they were involved - an obvious conflict of interest. Minister Mary Polak agreed and said some changes would be made. But the ministry has been "transforming" itself for years with no clear improvements. Where is the accountability for managers who failed to ensure an effective independent review process?
The article is here.
The representatives report, Fragile Lives, Fragmented Systems, is here.

But the individual case studies from the report tell much of the story.
Here's the second one. (The first one is in the post below.)

Case Example Two
This First Nations child was born into a home with other young children. The family lived in poverty and often relied on relatives, transition housing and motels for accommodation. MCFD became aware that the mother was expecting early in her pregnancy.
The mother had been admitted to hospital after being assaulted by her spouse during her pregnancy. Prior to the infant’s birth, 14 child protection reports had been made to the ministry, primarily about alcohol abuse and domestic violence. Four of these reports were made while the mother was pregnant with this infant; they included concerns about inadequate housing, emotional abuse of the infant’s siblings and substance abuse. One of the reports was investigated and not substantiated. The other three were not investigated. The MCFD file was closed before the infant was born.
According to the MCFD file information, the newborn was assessed at birth by a program in the local hospital that worked in conjunction with the public health unit. The program reportedly assessed newborns for medical as well as social/emotional risk factors. The newborn was assessed by the program as low risk and was discharged from hospital the following day. It does not appear the hospital was aware that the family had no reasonable housing and a history of substance abuse and family violence. It appears this MCFD information was not shared with the hospital following the infant’s birth.
The infant was seen three times by public health nurses from birth to three months of age. At the second visit, the mother reported that the infant had noisy breathing while asleep, which a doctor thought was possibly the result of a floppy epiglottis.
Approximately two months later the mother took the infant to see a doctor because the noisy breathing persisted and a cough had developed. The doctor thought these symptoms were possibly due to an infection and prescribed amoxicillin. At the third visit with the public health nurse, the mother informed the nurse that the infant’s noisy breathing persisted, and she also informed the nurse about the previous visit to the doctor. No follow-up regarding the infant’s breathing was noted on the record of the visit.
The infant died four days after the last visit with the public health nurse. On the evening of the death the infant had been left in the care of adolescent babysitters. There was no crib in the home. The babysitters placed the infant to sleep in a car seat that was on top of a soft mattress. Sometime later the car seat turned over, and the baby was asphyxiated.

The key point is that the child's bleak future was foreseeable and the death could have been avoided. The baby never really had a chance and no one took the small steps that could have made a difference for the children in this messed-up family.

Behind the statistics on children we failed

There is a useful editorial on the Representative for Children and Youth report on the death of 21 children involved with Ministry of Children and Families here.
And the entire report is on the representative's website.
But the individual case studies tell much of the story.
Here's one.


Case Example
The mother of this First Nations infant was actively involved with MCFD child protection social workers during the prenatal period due to concerns regarding the care and safety of an infant sibling.
The MCFD file information indicated a lengthy history of involvement with the infant’s family over a number of generations. When the infant’s mother was a child, she had been removed from the care of her own parents due to domestic violence, mental health issues, neglect, sexual abuse and lack of medical attention. The infant’s grandparents had suffered the impacts of attending residential schools and lived in severe poverty. The infant’s mother
was suspected to have been affected by prenatal exposure to alcohol.
Numerous health hazards in the family’s home had been reported to MCFD. Despite the information regarding the historical abuses affecting the family and active child protection involvement, no discharge planning was done by MCFD and the hospital when the infant was born. MCFD did not make contact with the family until six weeks after the birth. Public Health had extensive and frequent contact, noting the infant’s medical concerns relating to care and hospitalization for failure to thrive. MCFD was not advised of the hospitalization, nor did they appear to be monitoring the situation in order to know that the infant had been hospitalized.
MCFD received another report regarding the infant’s care, and the infant was removed from parental care at approximately four months of age. At the time of placement in the foster home, the foster parent noted that the infant’s body was covered with eczema and that the infant made “odd sounds.” The foster parent attempted to access medical care for the infant at a walk-in clinic but did not get to the clinic before it closed for the day. The infant died that night. The death was identified as sudden unexplained death in infancy with contributing health problems.

Heed's 'star candidate' status looking dim

You could make a pretty good movie based on Kash Heed's disastrous political career. A cautionary tale about ambition, the perils of modern politics and the risks of a "star candidate."
Heed was supposed to be a golden boy in the Liberal ranks. He looks good, presented well, at least in a superficial way, and was most recently chief of the West Vancouver police. Ambitious, confident of great things in his future, encouraged by Liberal operatives who pushed Wally Oppal out of the way to create a safe riding for Heed.
And it's all gone to ruin.
Heed is now going to B.C. Supreme Court to try and hold on to his seat. An Elections B.C. audit has determined that his campaign broke the rules. Candidates could not spend more $70,000 on their campaigns; an audit found he spent $4,165 over the limit, the office says.
There are a lot of other issues around the tainted campaign. But let's start with the spending.
It matters. Heed won by less than 850 votes. Illegal campaign spending could have tipped the balance.
B.C. has a Wild West approach to political donations that allows big backers to write unlimited cheques to support parties and candidates. Any violation of the few rules is significant.
Elections B.C. has been asking for a new finance report from the campaign since June and granted Heed repeated extensions.
Last month, it warned Heed's election could be declared invalid and a byelection held.
Heed is pleading ignorance. That's never a great defence, and particularly bad for a police chief and political star.
But in an affidavit filed on Christmas Eve, Heed says he had nothing to do with his campaign spending or financial reports. Oppal recommended two people to run the campaign. Heed says he accepted and they made all the decisions.
Heed says he can't compel them to provide the information and he knows nothing. So all should be forgiven.
But that would mean an election might have been stolen by cheating.
It's a scandal in itself. But there's more.
A Chinese-language brochure smearing the NDP with false allegations was sent out in Heed's riding near the end of the campaign. It was illegal, because there was no indication who sponsored it.
But an investigation linked it to the Liberal campaigners.
Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall faces five charges as a result, including obstructing justice, submitting a fraudulent document and improper election advertising. Two others involved with the campaign also face charges.
The unreported spending on the brochure is part of the campaign overspending, Elections B.C. alleges.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general while the incident was investigated.
Last May, a special prosecutor cleared him. Gordon Campbell, off at a meeting in Europe, put him back in cabinet.
And then the special prosecutor revealed his law firm donated to Heed's campaign. He resigned. Heed stepped down again.
And a new special prosecutor was appointed and the investigation started again.
The police report is now with the new special prosecutor.
Now an RCMP application for search warrants alleges Heed used $6,000 in public funds that was supposed to furnish his office to pay two campaign workers, including the campaign manager.
It's quite a spectacular mess.
Heed has the right under the Election Act to ask the court to clear him if he acted "in good faith."
But his affidavit doesn't reveal any effort on his part to get the needed information or press his campaign's financial agent to complete the reports. And the act appears to say the "good faith defence" applies only if the financial agent and the candidate both are found to have met the standard. It's not enough for the candidate to plead ignorance.
The Liberals - politicians and party officials - have been silent on the affair.
But the prospect of a continuing scandal, and perhaps a byelection, can't be cheering.
Footnote: The searches also uncovered a 2008 e-mail in which Heed touted his prospects to his future campaign manager.
"Think of things this way: You are a trainer that has a few horses in your stable ," he allegedly wrote. "Wally [Oppal] is getting on and needs to be put out to pasture soon. You have a stallion that has been in training for some time and you and everyone else know he's a winner, but can't wait on the sidelines forever."
Oppal gave up his seat for Heed and lost in a new riding.

On Kash Heed and the RCMP contract

Two useful editorials in the Times Colonist today.

Heed's tainted election

"Liberal MLA Kash Heed is trying to escape the consequences of illegal campaign actions by pleading ignorance. It is a defence that cannot be allowed to stand, as it undermines the basic principles of fairness and democracy."

Read more here.

Changes needed in RCMP deal

"Citizens have a right to demand two things from police - accountability and a commitment to learn from mistakes and address problems. The RCMP has, so far, failed to meet the required standard.

The force's official response to its handling of the Robert Pickton case is disturbing. It raises serious doubts about the RCMP's willingness to change."

That editorial is here.

How serious is campaign spending oversight?

The Kash Heed affair is covered well elsewhere.
But a review of his affidavit material suggests a casual/sloppy attention to financial reporting.
The auditor's report on campaign finances, attached to the affidavit, was prepared by Robert Ikoma, the Burnaby chartered accountant who signed the opinion.
The heading says it's the "Auditor's Report on Kash Heed's Election Financing Report Pursuant to the Election Act."
But in the first paragraph, the auditor refers to the financial agent for Linda Reid, another Liberal candidate.
It looks like a standard form letter was prepared and candidates' names pasted in as needed.
And not, as this gaffe indicates, with any great care.

FSA tests far too useful to boycott or kill

It's important to know how we're preparing our children for the challenges ahead.
And it's stunning, even tragic, that the teachers' union campaign to kill the Foundation Skills Assessment tests in B.C. schools has made such gains.
The tests, introduced by the NDP government in 2000, provide a snapshot of student performance.
Every year, students in Grade 4 and Grade 7 write tests to assess their basic skills in reading, writing and math.
Of course, the results aren't definitive. But they give parents a report on how their children are doing in developing basic skills that are essential for life today. (And no, report cards with their often bafflingly oblique comments are not a substitute.)
The results also identify classrooms, schools and districts where children are doing better than average in learning to read, write and do math.
That's important. A teacher might have come up with great ways to help children soar in math skills.
But unless the success is measured and identified, the knowledge might never be transferred to other schools.
The value goes much farther. We have more than a decade worth of data now, information that's invaluable for researchers.
The University of B.C.'s Human Early Learning Partnership, for example, used FSA data to look at the link between where children lived and how they did in school.
The researchers followed 2,648 students from kindergarten to Grade 7. Partly, the findings were expected. Children from affluent neighbourhoods had better skills, unsurprising given advantages from preschool programs to better nutrition.
But the study also found that even if students moved to more affluent neighbourhoods, their performance in basic skills lagged.
That's important for anyone who cares about equal opportunity for children. The research shows the focus has to be on children's lives from birth to the time the start kindergarten.
And according to the researchers, the study would have been impossible without the FSA test results.
The B.C. Teachers Federation has waged war against the tests. They take too much time, the union says. But six tests in 12 years of schooling hardly seems onerous.
Some teachers spend too much time in preparing students, the union says. But that's a professional problem for teachers to deal with.
Results can be misused, the federation complains. Indeed they can; but it's insulting to claim the rest of us are incapable of identifying misuse.
Schools do much more than help students read and write, the union argues. Which is true; but it's not an argument against assessing progress in those skills.
Parents and policy makers know you can't reasonably compare results from an expensive private school and a school drawing students from a poor community where many children are learning English as a second language.
But you can compare two schools and classes from similar rural communities. And you can learn something it one is much more successful in helping children develop the core skills for a successful, happy life.
The union's opposition is disheartening. It hasn't offered a pragmatic alternative.
The campaign seems aimed at removing any independent assessment of children's progress in learning basic skills. That's in the interests of the union's members. And, legally, that is the first priority for the union.
But it's not in the interest of students or of society.
It matters that children should be able to read and write and comfortably calculate interest rates and the costs of groceries.
The teachers' federation has waged a fairly effective boycott campaign. And, on some level, many others in the system are also keen on the idea of killing one of the few measures that let us look at one aspect of how well our kids are doing in developing basic competence. Politicians are caving.
It's sad time for anyone who believes it's important for all children to have a fair chance at success in this life.
Footnote: The government undermines the tests as well. If the information was used to find ways of improving student learning - from anti-poverty measures to new approaches to teaching and learning - the government would have a much stronger argument. That has happened far too rarely.

Christy Clark's baffling campaign

A couple of items last week raised questions about Christy Clark's campaign positions.
Over at closer-look.blogspot.com, Jody Paterson reprints a Clark release on the role of non-profits and comments:.

"Here's Christy Clark on...what, exactly? I do quite a bit of work with the non-profit sector and am familiar with the initiatives she mentions here, but I still couldn't make heads or tails out of what the Liberal leadership candidate was actually saying in this news release."

And Les Leyne of the Times Colonist tried to puzzle out what Clark was actually saying about the HST referendum. Her explanations were nearly incomprehensible. His conclusion was summed up by the column's headline.

"One flaw in Clark's HST plan: It's nuts"

Kevin Falcon's promise to solve Victoria's traffic congestion - something he never paid any attention to in five years as transportation minister - also gets a look in the Times Colonist, in an editorial.

Meanwhile, an important and concrete commitment from George Abbott hasn't got much attention.
Abbott has pledged to bring in civilian oversight for the RCMP.
More significantly, he's also said the current RCMP policing contract should be extended for two years to ensure that the oversight actually happens and is included in the agreement. He also says the delay in signing a new 20-year deal would allow recommendations from the inquiry into the missing women case to be included in the contract.
The government seems intent on rushing into a new long-term commitment; Abbott offers a smarter, more responsible course.
His release is here.

New Democrats off to disastrously self-destructive start

The New Democrats’ stumbling start to the leadership race should leave loyalists in despair and raise questions - again - about the sense in forcing Carole James out as leader.
The contest has barely begun and it has been hit with a divisive scandal.
To be eligible to vote in the April 17 leadership ballot, people had to join the party by 5 p.m. last Monday.
All the campaign teams had scrambled to sign up new members who would vote for their candidate. They carted in completed membership applications - each accompanied by the required donation - through the day.
But organizers for Adrian Dix showed up with big batches of memberships and separate piles of cash, then started attaching the money to the application forms.
Candidates Harry Lali and Mike Farnworth both cried foul, Lali most vigorously.
The complaints were that the memberships weren't submitted with the money, as required, and that the Dix workers were still pulling the material together after the 5 p.m. deadline.
But the fear was that the Dix campaign had undertaken a campaign of mass sign-ups of instant members in South Asian ethnic communities. The stacks of cash raised questions about whether the new party members had actually made the required donations themselves or whether the campaign was picking up the tab.
It's a common political tactic. Send some well-connected operatives into a close-knit community, sign up hundreds or thousands of members, and you can control a riding association or a leadership race.
It's also destructive. The instant members disappear the day after the vote. Real party members find they've been elbowed out of the process, so they drift away. Supporters of losing candidates feel cheated. And the party is left, in many cases, with a leader without real support.
The New Democrats hoped to reduce the problems by setting an early deadline for new members who would be eligible to vote. It didn't seem to work.
The other candidates are right to be concerned.
The NDP had something like 12,000 members when James was ousted. The numbers have climbed as candidates signed up new members, but an influx of several thousand instant members supporting one contender could tip the scales. The race could be over before real party members were even sure who was running.
NDP provincial secretary Jan O'Brien ruled the memberships were valid. They got there before 5 p.m. even if they weren't complete by that time.
O'Brien acknowledged the rules issued to all the candidates said each membership must be submitted with individual payments attached, but she had now decided that was a "redundant, internal process." She woudn’t enforce the rules.
At best, the New Democrats look like bunglers, setting campaign rules - which most candidates played by - and then ignoring them.
And at worst, the party looks to be condoning mass sign-ups paid for by third parties and favouring one candidate over the others.
Farnworth said he accepts the ruling; Lali says he hasn’t ruled out legal action over the memberships.
The party might be able to satisfy both with a pledge to contact a large sample of the new members to establish if they actually joined and made the required personal donation.
It's hard to see any renewal in all this, which the anti-James people said they were looking for.
The four leading candidates are holdovers from the Clark government of the 1990s. Farnworth and Lali were in cabinet; Horgan and Dix were political staffers, with stints in the premier's office. Dix resigned after faking a document in an attempt to help deflect attention from Clark in the casino scandal. Only Nicholas Simons is a relatively new face and he is a long shot.
The race is already tainted with scandal and allegations of fraud.
And the Liberals, I expect, are very pleased.
Footnote: The Liberals are looking wise in having adopted a process that gives each riding 100 votes, no matter how many members it has. The votes are allocated based on a constituency vote. This reduces the benefits of mass sign-ups and gives candidates from outside the Lower Mainland, where sign-ups are easier, a better chance.

Why MLAs don't get more respect

People should admire politicians, be proud of them. They should have the support of their fellow citizens, who selected them in an election process.
So why doesn't it work that way more often?
It's an important question. If the people we elect to represent us don't have our respect, neither does government or the rule of law. There is no reason to pay taxes or accept the rules of a government that you don't consider legitimate.
Rich Coleman just offered a pretty good example of part of the problem
MLAs have refused to reveal their expense claims - how much they get for food, housing in the capital and other costs.
They promised disclosure last May.
In July, it became a big issue when filings required by cabinet ministers revealed Ida Chong had claimed $5,921 in meal allowances - even thought she lived 10 kilometres from the legislature.
MLAs are entitled to a $61 per day meal allowance when the legislature is sitting or they're on government business. (No receipts needed; they can grab a bagel, pizza slice and burger for the day and pocket $40.) Chong claimed 98 days worth of meal allowances.
If you're from Dawson Creek, maybe you need a meal allowance. But not if you live in the capital and are paid $150,000 a year.
Chong is not likely alone. New Democrat MLAs from the capital region supported Chong. And they refused to say how much they had claimed in taxpayer-funded meal allowances.
But the good news was that the controversy forced MLAs to promise an end to secrecy by last September.
It hasn't happened. Mike de Jong, the former Liberal house leader, said MLAs were resisting disclosure of how they spent taxpayers' money.
No, said Coleman, the current house leader. "I'm not finding a lot of opposition to it."
It's January. Disclosure was supposed to happen four months ago. In the real world, that's a problem. There is no commitment on when taxpayers will get the facts.
Coleman wasn't being candid. If there was no resistance, the September commitment would have been met.
Kevin Krueger offered another reason politicians are held in disrepute.
The cabinet minister bristled during a Kamloops radio interview about an announcement of hospital improvements when the host noted New Democrat health critic Adrian Dix had campaigned for the changes.
"If there ever was a guy who shouldn't put his head up to get it shot off - as the soldiers refer to it - it's Adrian Dix," Krueger responded.
In the week after the week after a politician and 19 others were shot in Tucson, it was an especially dumb remark.
But it would have been a dumb remark anytime. Dix had pushed for needed improvements to the hospital, especially to equipment that left surgeons starting operations with dirty instruments. That's just the truth; slagging him doesn't change it.
Dumb remarks are human. Krueger said he realized right away he had made a mistake.
Still he initially told the Globe and Mail he wouldn't apologize.
Dix is "constantly negative" and has a "reprehensive history" in B.C. politics, Krueger said. "It was an off-the-cuff comment that I do regret, but I certainly don't think anyone owes Adrian Dix an apology."
So according to Krueger, only some people can be wronged. People who are "constantly negative" don't have the a right to expect fair treatment.
Krueger did apologize later. But it was too late. Who could know if it was his conscience, or the public affairs bureau commanding the change of heart.
These people can do better. Certainly many voters expect better of them.
The recall campaign against Chong looks like it will fall short of the required 40 per cent of registered voters. But it seems likely more people will sign petitions calling for her firing than voter for her in 2009.
Chong is a perfectly average MLA. The strength of the recall effort shows many voters expect more from their elected representatives.
Footnote: MLAs do have a high opinion of their own value. They can claim up to $19,000 a year for a capital residence if they're from outside Victoria. That's four times as much as a single disabled person gets in income assistance for shelter. Chong's meal claims were just slightly less than a disabled person gets for all expenses except housing for an entire year. And MLAs increased their pay 34 per cent in five years, while the average wage in B.C. rose 12 per cent.

'Melding news with drama, politics with theatre'

The Globe had an interesting weekend piece on "Five reasons why gun control has been disarmed" on the weekend.
Anyone interested in building public/popular support around issues should take a lok.
I was struck by a section on the gun lobby's response after "a string of catastrophic school shootings" before the U.S. elections in 2000.

"So they called in the pros.
The NRA hired the Mercury Group, a high-powered consulting company that describes itself on its website as 'masters at melding news with drama, politics with theatre, and public affairs with popular buzz to make your message sing and your story sell.'
Their client list includes the Navajo Nation, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Air Force Memorial Foundation.
Mercury Group worked with the NRA to identify key states to target with their new campaign: 'Vote Freedom First.'
The campaign featured radio and television ads, billboards, bumper stickers and 'other collateral materials.' Huge 'Freedom First' rallies were organized in dozens of cities in swing states leading up to election day.
Afterward, the NRA and Mercury Group declared victory, citing an 85 per cent success rate in state and local elections of sympathetic candidates, a pro-NRA majority seated in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and 'a pro-NRA President in the White House.'"

The Mercury Group's description of their role is useful for anyone who is thinking about how to influence opinion (or is the target of such efforts).

Leadership races both entering important phase

The Liberal and NDP races are both finally under way, but much of the work right now is behind the scenes, as candidates scramble to sign up new party members who will support them.
That's critical, especially for the New Democrat hopefuls. Their leadership ballot is April 17; to be able to vote, people have to be party members by Jan. 17. The Liberal contest is Feb. 26, but anyone who joins by Feb. 4 will be able to vote
So the serious candidates and their camps are rushing to sign up new members. A few thousand new party members - if they vote - could tip the balance.
It's striking how much the leadership campaigns have come to resemble election campaigns, with pollsters, full-time staff and - paid or not - and tightly scripted agendas.
It's also striking, especially on the Liberal side, how important lobbyists and government relations consultants are to the candidates' efforts.
The practitioners increasingly move from lobbying politicians to helping them raise money or win elections or leadership races and then back to lobbying the same politicians.
Take the well-connected Progressive Group. The firm's Patrick Kinsella, of B.C. Rail fame, is helping Christy Clark. Mark Jiles, also of the Progressive Group, is assisting George Abbott's campaign, as is Sarah Weddell of National Public Relations, another company that sells companies advice on getting government to see things their way.
And the emails I get from Kevin Falcon's campaign come from the Pace Group. Norman Stowe, its managing partner is supporting Falcon; the company's vice-president for media relations is handling communications for the leadership contest. The Pace Group has millions of dollars worth of government contracts and advises others on dealing with governments.
And it's striking how much money these campaigns will cost. The New Democrats have set a campaign spending limit of $175,000 for candidates; the Liberals are rumoured to be imposing a $450,000 limit per candidate.
The parties also differ on donations.
The New Democrats have set a $2,500 limit on contributions. The idea is that large donations can create real or perceived conflicts of interest - that a successful candidate will be indebted to big backers, or that shape his actions to suit them.
The Liberals have no limits. A single business, for example, could entirely fund the campaign of the leadership candidate of its choice.
Both parties have to live by the Elections Act, which requires public disclosure of donations.
But the New Democrats have added a useful refinement. Candidates will have to publicly report all donations of more than $250 before party members vote.
That's a much more meaningful measure. If the sources of a candidates' cash cause concern, members will have a chance to ask questions and consider the issue before voting.
Once the membership sign-up deadlines are past, the leadership candidates will turn to courting the current party faithful, setting out a platform that differentiates them from their rivals and trying to show they are popular enough to win the next election.
The last task is important. It's one thing to appeal to people already in your party's camp. But most sensible party members will be looking for candidate who can win the next election, not one who offers the prospect of a noble defeat.
At this point, that might be good news for George Abbott, particularly if Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon end up running hard against each other and raise the fear of divisions in the party.
It's harder to figure out which New Democrat offers the best prospects for electoral success. John Horgan, Mike Farnworth and, likely, Adrian Dix, are credible candidates. (Harry Lali and Nicholas Simons are unlikely likely to persuade Liberal voters that they offer a better plan for the province.)
And none of the main NDP candidates represents renewal - Dix, Farnworth, Horgan and Lali are all associated with the discredited New Democrat government of the 1990s.
Footnote: The challenge for candidates in both parties is to stake out a distinctive position without attacking other hopefuls. That's important both to keep the party united and because no candidate is likely to get a majority on the first ballot; alienating supporters of other candidates could be costly.

Casino money laundering suspicious cases soar

Criminals love casinos. They're great places for loan sharking and passing counterfeit money.
And even more important for the serious crooks, casinos are the easiest place to launder money.
The CBC used freedom of information requests to learn that millions of dollars in suspicious transactions flowed through two B.C. casinos in three months last year. The casino companies told B.C. Lotteries, but no one passed the information on to police immediately.
These aren't slightly suspicious transactions. In one case, a man entered a New Westminster casino with $1.2 million worth of chips. He didn't place a bet. He just turned them in and took the money in cash.
He told staff he was boarding a flight and was concerned the money might look suspicious. So the casino gave him a letter confirming the money was a casino payout.
It's a classic money-laundering scenario. Crime - drug dealing, robbery, whatever - can produce lots of cash. Banks have to report deposits of more than $10,000 to FINTRAC, a federal agency that fights money laundering and organized crime. Even if money is broken into smaller deposits to come under the limit, a criminal might end up having to explain where all the money came from.
Instead, criminals can buy chips in casinos, cash them in and get a cheque or, in this case, cash with a letter suggesting they were winnings. The money is clean.
In another case uncovered by the CBC, a man entered a Richmond casino with a bag stuffed with $460,000 in $20 bills and bought chips. The casino reported that there was nothing suspicious in the transaction.
All told, there were 90 large transactions worth $8 million in three months.
The RCMP only learned about this after the fact. Insp. Barry Baxter, with the unit that tracks the proceeds of crime, said the police suspect money laundering. "The common person would say this stinks," he said.
Casinos also have to report large transactions to FINTRAC, the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, and also report to police and the province's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch. But the reports aren't required for 30 days; a quick first step would be to require immediate reporting to police.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for gambling, initially downplayed the reports. He later promised an investigation.
But none of this is surprising.
The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, warned of a crime explosion at casinos, with investigations into offences like loan sharking and money laundering more than doubling in a year.
Last year, it was revealed B.C. Lotteries had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing. There were more than 1,000 infractions; in eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000.
FINTRAC said fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law."
Despite the warnings, enforcement has been minimal. In 2009, the government shut down the five-year-old specialized police unit created to target gambling-related crime.
And the enforcement branch's just-released annual report for the 2009-10 fiscal year reveals that it opened 635 investigations into money laundering, loan sharking and counterfeit offences in casinos, without laying a single charge.
Again, none of this is surprising. Casinos want to make money. Coleman and B.C. Lotteries are responsible for increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the average amount each one loses and the province's take.
Cracking down on transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers.
The obvious, and long overdue, first step is end the inherent conflict in having one minister responsible both for promoting gambling losses and fighting crime in casinos.
Footnote: The CBC reported that reports to FINTRAC showed that while the dollar value of suspicious transactions at casinos in other provinces stayed the same or went down in the past year, they tripled in B.C.

A lot more oversight for fish farm industry

The Times Colonist has an interesting editorial looking at the shift of most responsibilities for the fish-farm infustry from the provincial to federal government as a result of a lawsuit.
The numbers tell the story. The federal DFO is adding 52 positions in B.C. — most on the Island — to monitor the farms, enforce regulations, share information and develop managememnt policy.
The provincial government is eliminating 13 positions as a result of the shift.
The feds are committing four times as many people to do the same work.
The editorial is here.

Falcon's confusing merit-pay pitch underwhelms

Kevin Falcon's proposal to introduce merit pay for teachers remains a mystery. That's not a good thing in a leadership campaign.
In interviews this week, Falcon proposed a radical re-ordering of teachers' compensation that would lead to huge battles with their union.
No more pay grid based on seniority with regular raises. "Teachers' growth in income shouldn't just be determined by how long they have been in a classroom, but by how well they are doing their job," he said.
Hard to argue with in the abstract. My children had teachers who were brilliant, committed and devoted great amounts of extra time to helping students and they had some who were duds. It would be nice if their pay recognized their effectiveness.
And the idea is would appeal to the party's right wing.
But it's pointlessly impractical. There's no way to measure teacher effectiveness currently in place in B.C. Any effort would involve huge costs, including much more testing.
It's not a realistic goal in bargaining with the B.C. Teachers Federation, which is adamantly opposed. Going ahead would mean - once more - using legislation to rip up contracts the government has already agreed to.
And there is mixed evidence on whether merit pay actually improves educational outcomes for students.
All in, not a sound public policy proposal.
In a campaign press release, Falcon changed directions, proposing a "master teacher incentive program." Better teachers - judged on a range of criteria, from test result improvements to peer reviews to parents' reviews - would get extra pay.
They would be encouraged to share their skills and experience as mentors. The program could be extended to whole schools, Falcon said.
The model could be based on a proposal by Australia's Labour government, he said.
That would be expensive. Australia proposes to pay almost 10 per cent of teachers an extra $8,000 a year in merit pay. The cost in B.C. would be about $25 million.
And Australia hasn't actually done it, so there are no results to monitor.
But it's a more sensible proposal than empty talk about a merit-pay plan with no chance of implementation or strong supporting evidence.
The whole process left Falcon looking like a less-than-serious candidate. No one should expect fully costed, studied proposals during a leadership race. Part of the point is to hear new ideas from the contenders.
But it's reasonable to expect clarity about what the candidate is proposing, rather than two contradictory versions.
It would also have been welcome if Falcon had talked about a more modest, inclusive approach, rather than another provincewide edict from government.
Why not invite three school districts to submit merit pay plans, developed with teachers (and their union), principals, school board and school councils, fund them and see what worked?
All the candidates should be addressing some of the major education issues - dismal graduation rates for aboriginal students, the loss of students to private schools, the failure to improve student achievement (while acknowledging it is, compared to other jurisdictions, very good).
Falcon also got things wrong in his press release. "A high quality education system is the best anti-poverty initiative and the best health program government can advance," he said.
Educational achievement is critical for creating opportunities for individuals and a strong province. Educated graduates are healthier and less likely to be poor.
But Falcon has it backward.
Reducing the number of poor kids in B.C. is the best educational and health program government can advance.
Children who grow up in poverty have lower educational achievement, worse lifetime health and lower incomes and are more likely to commit crimes. Those are facts.
Instead of expecting the school system to change all that, we need to hear a plan - so far missing after nine years of Liberal government - to reduce the number of children living in poverty in this rich province.
Footnote: George Abbott rejected, nicely, Falcon's plan. He called for a broader focus on helping students in their first years in school. Christ Clark said the idea had merit, but wasn't worth the conflict it would create. Mike de Jong said he needed more information before commenting.

Government news, or party advertising

I wrote last month about a highly spun provincial government release on job grown reported in StatsCan monthly release, suggesting in a post that taxpayers shouldn't be paying for what looked like party advertising.
The point was reinforced this month. B.C. lost 22,000 jobs, 19,900 of them full-time, StatsCan reported.
But there was no release from the provincial government.
If news releases about job numbers are actually a useful government communications effort, then they would go out whether the numbers made the party in power look good, or bad, and would provide context.
If releases only are sent when the news is good, then the party should be paying — as the Liberals would have once, long ago, agreed.

Softwood border skirmish raises issue for B.C. taxpayers

The latest skirmish in the perpetual softwood lumber battle with the U.S. is worth your attention.
American lumber producers are complaining, again, that B.C. is subsidizing forest companies based in the province. That’s giving the companies an unfair advantage and costing profits and jobs in the U.S., they argue.
If the complaints are legitimate, it also means B.C. taxpayers are losing out on payments we should be getting for the trees.
The American grumbling is to be expected. The industry maintains a pretty much permanent effort to fight imported lumber from Canada, using lobbyists, political allies and the softwood lumber agreement appeals process.
But their criticisms are being supported by forest researchers here and at least one Canadian industry executive.
The issue is stumpage. We own most of the trees in the province. Companies have to pay for them when they cut them down. The price is set by government, partly based on market forces.
The American producers argue the stumpage system is rigged to give the companies the wood at a big discount. Their companies, which pay market prices for trees on private land, can’t compete.
The pine beetle is at the centre of the latest offensive.
The government sets a dirt-cheap stumpage rate for low-value wood - traditionally trees too small or low quality to be used for lumber, which ended up being shredded and made into pulp. The rate, at 25 cents per cubic metre, pretty much gives the trees away. The stumpage rate for trees destined for lumber has been about 50 times greater.
But since the latest softwood agreement was signed in 2006, more and more wood has graded at the lowest rate. About 10 per cent of logs used for timber used to qualify for the 25-cent rate, the U.S. industry says. That’s climbed to 50 per cent. (All this courtesy of a report in The Oregonian, Portland’s newspaper. The issue has been getting media attention south of the border.)
Forest Minister Pat Bell says the stumpage being charged is appropriate. Vast tracts of dead forest, killed by the pine beetle, are deteriorating in quality. The trees are worth less and tougher to use for lumber.
But Rick Doman, tracked down by the Oregonian, disagrees. He fought unsuccessfully to save Doman Industries, his families’ Island-based forest company and now runs Eacom Timber Group of Montreal.
Doman says the U.S. producers are right. Good quality wood is being graded falsely to give the companies a great deal. The pine beetle-killed lumber was good enough to use in the Richmond Olympic Oval, he notes.
The Canadian companies are getting a gift from government, the U.S. industry faces unfair competition and B.C. taxpayers are the “losers,” he told the Oregonian.
It’s tough to know who is right. Government forest revenues have plummeted from $1.2 billion in 2005-6 to about $345 million last year. But the recession and collapse of the U.S. housing market were the major factors.
Still, forestry revenues were equal to 19 per cent of the value of exports in 2005; that’s fallen to 12 per cent in 2009. If trees had been selling to the companies for the same average stumpage levels today as they were four years ago, taxpayers could expect an extra $200 million in revenue this year.
The consultation process under the softwood lumber agreement didn’t produce any settlement. The next step, while political pressure continues, is arbitration.
British Columbians should be watching that with as much interest as the American industry.
The whole issue would be a useful topic for review by the province’s auditor general. As well as concerns about stumpage rates, earlier reviews have highlighted risks in letting companies set their own grades for public wood, an inadequate number of spot checks and puny fines for violations.
Footnote: The low stumpage rates have protected jobs. The cheap timber has encouraged companies to invest in more efficient mills in the interior to deal with the pine beetle-killed wood and opened opportunities in using the fibre to produce electricity.

Government buys an addiciton treatment centre

Jody Paterson draws attention to a surprising announcement from the government three days before Christmas. It's stepping in to spend $3 million to buy the property occupied by the Baldy Hughes Treatment Centre near Prince George, and promising more than $1 million annually in operating funds.
The project, based on a program in Italy, was launched by former Liberal MLA and cabinet minister Lorne Mayencourt. It's an interesting project, but the one-off deal takes a lot of money as existing addiction programs struggle with underfunding.

So this is the New Year

I handle letters to the editor at work. Most are e-mailed, but some come by post or are dropped off.
I keep one of those stuck to my computer. It’s neatly printed on a small sheet of lined paper, ripped from a spiral notebook. The page got wet at some point - maybe the person was writing outside. Some of the words, written in black ink, smudged when the page was folded.
“What makes me happy,” it’s headed.
“Going out for walks along the ocean looking at the boats and fishing boats. Having a cup of coffee in a restaurant. Riding the bus when I have money for bus fare. Going shopping for food and clothes. Filling my fridge up with lots of food. Having money left over. Saving money for a rainy day.”
That was it. No name, or we might have used it as a letter.
I didn’t really think about why I kept the note. I just knew it was a message that I didn’t want to dump in the recycling bin and forget.
The list is charming, maybe a little heart-breaking, in its simplicity.
Charming because it has a kind of beautiful spareness. Walking by the ocean. A restaurant coffee. A chance to buy food and maybe have a few dollars left in case something goes wrong.
The list is not infected by overreaching ambitions; it just sets out ordinary pleasures.
That’s the heartbreaking part.
There must be a story behind the note of someone who often finds those pleasures out of reach. A restaurant coffee is impossible; there is no food in the fridge; pelting rain turns a walk beside the ocean into an ordeal.
But how can that be? The person who wrote the note - a woman, I’ve always thought - sounds like someone committed to making the best of life. Things might be rough, but she keeps on working at it.
So how can a society not make sure that the effort is rewarded with the small things that will make her happy?
There are limits, certainly, on what we can do. At current tax rates, the money to improve life for people with disabilities, unable to work, comes partly from minimum wage workers just getting by on tiny incomes.
But there are also moral limits to how wretched we can make their lives without diminishing ourselves.
There is a judgment here. You could provide an income equal to the average wage for those who can’t work because of a chronic illness, for example.
You could stick them in a poorhouse, spending just enough to keep them alive.
Or you could find some sensible point between the two extremes.
We haven’t done that. A mother who develops a disability that keeps her from working, raising a 13-year-old child, gets $570 a month for rent. Which, in Victoria, means a one-room apartment with a kitchen nook in a dodgy building.
There is an additional $796 a month for everything else - food, clothes, bus passes, phone, all the things a mom and 13-year-old girl need to get by.
The total annual income is less than $16,400 — $315 a week. That is one dismal life, for mother and child.
The note shows how the simplest pleasures can be out of reach.
I don’t think we’re that mean. B.C. voters didn’t say they thought tax cuts that caused suffering for thousands of their neighbours were a good or necessary idea.
Which leads, or lurches, to three wishes for the New Year.
Enjoy every cup of coffee in a warm restaurant, each day your fridge is well-stocked and every walk along the ocean.
Refuse to accept the diminished lives imposed on your fellow citizens, recognizing the shame it brings on us all. Demand better - and put your money and volunteer effort into making it so.
And consider how important it is to pay attention - really pay attention - to the people around you.
Your laughter, your praise, your concern, your love - those are the most precious gifts. And so easily given.

Sub, helicopter debacles bode ill for jet fighter deal

We often launch our kayaks on the Songhees reserve a few hundred metres from the shed where one of Canada’s hopeless submarines is being repaired.
Our kayaks, rentals bought at the end of a summer, were bargains.
The four used British submarines, in contrast, have been disasters.
The Defence Department confirmed just before Christmas that HMCS Victoria will stay in its custom-built shed in Esquimalt until sometime next year as repairs and refits drag on and on, and the bills mount.
The sorry history of the secondhand submarines should be a loud warning about the government’s $16-billion plan to buy new jet fighters.
The Defence Department and the government of the day celebrated the $891-million purchase of the submarines in 1998. Great boats, almost ready to go, strategically essential and a bargain for taxpayers, they said.
Victoria was delivered in 2000. The Defence Department said that after six months of maintenance in Halifax, it would be at sea keeping us safe from whatever submarines are supposed to keep us safe from.
The six months stretched into three years. Then Victoria sailed for CFB Esquimalt and, after a ceremonial welcome, was docked for 10 months to deal with new problems.
It sailed for a few months in 2004. Then a fire on Chicoutimi, another one of the subs, killed a crewman on its delivery voyage from England. Victoria was pulled from service for another seven months.
By May 2005, it was supposedly ready to sail again. But a few months later, Victoria was back into dry dock for what was supposed to be a two-year repair program.
More than five years later, it’s still sitting on land. The Defence Department has announced — and missed — a series of launch dates.
In the decade since Canada has had the ship, it has spent 115 days in service and 117 months undergoing repairs and refits, with the bills steadily mounting.
It’s like buying a used car and being able to drive it for three weeks in the first two years, with the rest of the time spent in the repair shop. And having the dealer keep telling you what a great purchase you made.
Only one of the other three submarines is in regular service. Chicoutimi has been in dry dock since the 2004 fire and is not expected to be ready until 2012.
You could argue the Defence Department just had bad luck with the submarines.
Except that it is part of a pattern of problem-plagued military purchases.
In November, auditor general Sheila Fraser slammed cost overruns and mismanagement in the purchase of two sets of helicopters.
Costs more than doubled, to $11 billion. The project to replace aging Sea King helicopters with CH-148 Cyclones is seven years behind schedule; the CH-147 Chinook program is five years behind schedule.
And, Fraser said, the contract award process for the Chinooks “was not fair, open and transparent” and the Defence Department deliberately downplayed the risks of overruns and delays.
Three big purchases, three big failures. Which, again, raises great concerns about the $16-billion plan to buy 65 F-35 jet fighters.
The costs have soared already, and no contract has yet been signed. The government and the Defence Department have struggled to justify committing to buy the jets from Lockheed Martin without a competitive bidding process. There are no guarantees of economic benefits for Canadian firms, usually part of such deals.
Fraser has warned of significant risks.
And critics suggest Canada doesn’t need the fighters to fulfill its military obligations.
The government has launched a big sales campaign to persuade Canadians that the jets are needed and the project will be properly managed. Trust us, the military and the Harper government ministers say.
But given the track record on military purchases, only a fool would trust a process that has stuck Canadians with inflated bills and left the forces without equipment for years as projects are delayed and delayed again.
Footnote: The other question I ponder, as I paddle past the submarine repair shed into Esquimalt Harbour, is how the government can claim the boats were urgently needed when we have managed perfectly well over the past decade without them.

Abbott's third place could be a good position

With the first lap of the Liberal leadership race done, George Abbott is looking a reasonable bet to be B.C.'s next premier.
Which is probably a bad thing for the struggling New Democrats.
Abbott, education minister before entering the race, isn't a front runner. He and Mike de Jong, who stepped down as attorney general. are tied for third, according to the latest Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll.
Christy Clark has the big lead. She quit cabinet in 2004 and didn't run in 2005, when the Liberals won their second term. Being out of government for five years, she can't be blamed for the HST and other problems. She's a skilled politician and has been a CKNW talk show host with a high profile in the Lower Mainland.
And she's ahead in the race. The poll found 46 per cent of British Columbians identified her as a good choice to be the next Liberal leader. That climbs to 66 per cent among Liberal voters.
Kevin Falcon, most recently health minister, is in second with the support of 28 per cent of the public and 45 per cent of Liberal voters.
And Abbott and de Jong are tied with the support of 25 per cent of the public and 33 per cent of Liberal voters. (Dr. Moira Stilwell, the fifth entrant, is at 10 per cent with both groups.)
There haven't been many big ideas in the campaign. All the candidates offer varying degrees of support for a higher minimum wage and an earlier referendum on the HST. Mike de Jong proposed lowering the voting age to 16. Falcon wants to make it easier to get farmland in the northeast out of the agricultural land reserve. Clark wants to look at an earlier election.
Four of the five candidates say they'll restore some of the cut gambling grants to charities, arts groups and community organizations, which is puzzling since three of the four were part of the government that made the cuts.
It's early in the campaign, of course. And a lot of the candidates' efforts now are targeted winning at influential Liberals and signing up new party members.
Every one who joins by Jan. 14 gets a vote in the Feb. 26 leadership election. Candidates are racing to sign up a lot of supporters.
The party will likely opt for a voting system that reduces the impact of mass sign-ups in urban areas. Every constituency will have 100 votes. They will be apportioned to reflect the voting of party members in the constituency. (So if there are 750 members in a riding, and 150 vote Christy Clark, she gets 20 leadership votes.)
The vote will also use some form of a preferential ballot, in which party members rank candidates. If no one gets a majority in the first count, the voters' second choices are considered.
Depending on the ultimate decision on rules, that could be good news for Abbott.
The provincial Liberals are a coalition, a political home for federal Conservatives, Liberals and even a few New Democrats. One of Gordon Campbell's accomplishments was keeping everyone united.
Clark is a federal Liberal; Falcon is seen as the choice of the federal Conservative faction.
The two camps have to play nice, thanks in part to the preferential ballot system. Slag the other candidate and you stand no chance of emerging as the second choice of his or her supporters.
Depending on how the preferential ballots are counted - that hasn't been settled - the divide between the Clark and Falcon camps could be a boost for Abbott. He could emerge as the compromise candidate to avoid a divided party.
Which is probably bad news for New Democrats. Both Clark and Falcon would have significant weaknesses in an election campaign. Falcon leans to the party's right and could alienate moderate voters; Clark had a spotty record during her three years in cabinet and is carrying some B.C. Rail baggage.
Abbott's third-place position isn't so bad.
Footnote: No candidates have entered the NDP leadership race. The Angus Reid poll found Mike Farnworth is the favorite choice, with 40 per cent of British Columbians and half of NDP voters saying he would be a good choice to replace Carole James. Adrian Dix is second, favoured by 24 per cent of the public 37 per cent of NDP voters.

Political control of coroners needs review

I’m often baffled that MLAs don’t seem to push for the tools to do their jobs more effectively.
The current debate over the independence and effectiveness of the B.C. Coroners Service offers a good example.
Dr. Diane Rothon just quit or was fired as chief coroner after nine months on the job. She has said only that she had a disagreement with the government about the direction of the coroner’s service.
The Times Colonist has been digging a little deeper and found two likely issues — political interference and budget cuts making it impossible for the coroners service to do its job.
The work is important. The service is charged with investigating all “unnatural, unexpected, unexplained or unattended deaths.” Its job is to get the facts - who died, and how and why.
That’s important for families. And the reports help a whole range of organizations prevent future deaths.
In some cases, the coroner also calls inquests - a formal hearing, in front of a five-person jury, which is charged with finding the facts and make recommendations that could save lives in the future.
The work can be controversial. Inquests can highlight government failures or underfunding that costs lives. Recommendations can challenge the status quo and call for action that agencies resist.
The service also produces reports on broader issues — the deaths of children in the government’s care, for example, or youth suicide.
That’s why independence is important. Getting at the truth and making recommendations without political influence is central to the work of the coroner.
But the Times Colonist found three former chief coroners — including Terry Smith, who had the post from 2001 until 2009 - believe the service does not have the needed autonomy to do the work properly. It’s under undue government influence.
The service, for example, is under orders to submit its reports to the government’s political communications arm, the public affairs bureau, before they are released.
At the least, that order gives the government time to plan the best way to spin the report when it is released. But it also raises the spectre of greater influence — of pressure to change the contents of the report before it is made public.
There is an obvious solution. Smith says the government should consider making the coroner an independent officer of the legislature, removing the service from direct political control. “I think in order to have an effective Coroners Service, it needs to have a much higher level of independence," said Smith, who had eight often difficult years in the job. (The proposal is supported by Children and Families Representative Mary ETurpel-Lafond.)
That seems a sensible, practical change. Independent officers - like the children’s representative, information commissioner and auditor general - don’t report to a government minister. They report to committees of MLAs with representatives from all parties. They are, to a significant extent, insulated from political pressure.
MLAs from all parties also review and set the independent officers’ budgets. That makes it harder for politicians to use funding cuts to punish or silence agencies.
The coroners service, for example, has seen its staff fall from 91 in 2007-08 to 81 today. Its budget has been cut 18 per cent in two years and more cuts are likely ahead. The Child Death Review Unit, set up as a result of the Hughes report, is threatened.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman dismisses all the concerns. The service has plenty of independence and can handle the budget cuts, he says.
But simply saying something doesn’t make it so. Three former chief coroners - the people who did the work - say the service doesn’t have the required independence.
At the least, that should be enough to force an outside review of the issues.
It’s surprising that MLAs, given the importance of the work, aren’t calling for a review that might lead to a greater role for them in an area of importance to their constituents.
Footnote: The review should also look at the appropriate qualifications for coroners, especially chief coroners. Most provinces have placed doctors in the top job. B.C., until Rothon’s appointment, has generally opted for chief coroners without medical qualifications, often with a policing background.

Starting your pre-Christmas Saturday

I suggest preparing for the day with a little music here. And then buying more music by the Mountain Goats. The writing is as good as you'll find in music today.

Why the BC Rail scandal shouldn't be forgotten

The B.C. Rail scandal is back in the news, a good thing. New information from search warrants has been released thanks to a media application.
If British Columbians decide just to forget about this scandal, we’ll have given up something as a society.
The issues are huge — corruption tainting the sale of a public railway, broken promises, bribery to exert influence in two cabinet ministers’ offices and a $6-million benefit to two offenders, at taxpayers’ expense, that encouraged guilty pleas and stopped the trial.
This is like stuff from some sleazy Florida municipal government.
The new search warrant information is grim.
It hasn’t been proved in court, but police swore that Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, told them he started paying bribes to Dave Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001 — long before the B.C. Rail bribes.
The money was to pay for “his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters,” Bornman said.
After the election, Gary Collins became finance minister, and Basi was named his political aide. Bornman was with Pilothouse Public Affairs, a lobbying firm. Both Bornman and Basi were political operatives, working in federal and provincial Liberal campaigns, particularly active in the federal ones.
Bornman says he paid Basi, and in return Basi steered lobbying clients his way. He also got special treatment for the people who paid Pilothouse to influence government and “political support.”
There is a serious stench about this. Companies or individuals have a concern about government policy. They raise it and are told it might be wise to hire a specific lobbyist. The lobby firm pays a bribe to help get the problem solved.
And all involved co-operate to ensure the re-election of the party in power.
Too many questions remain unanswered.
Why wasn’t Bornman charged with bribery or tax fraud, since he told police he paid less in taxes because he made the bribes look like a legitimate business expense?
Who decided the people who took the bribes were a more important target than those who paid them?
And how much effort was spent ensuring these practices weren’t more common?
The search warrants include the claim Basi had bank deposits that showed unexplained income of $870,000 between 2000 and 2004. Defence lawyers say the Crown’s expert showed the real unexplained amount was $112,000.
But that’s much more than bribes paid by Bornman and capital region developers paying for Basi’s influence getting land out of the agricultural land reserve. Who else paid and benefited?
The warrants also reveal that Brian Kieran, a principal in Pilothouse, paid Basi $3,000 in cash. Basi and Bob Virk, political aide to then transport minister Judith Reid, took a free trip to an NFL game in Denver, thanks to Omnitrax, a bidder for B.C Rail. They paid for their airplane tickets to make it look legit, the warrants say, and Kieran came through with cash so no one would know about the freebie. He billed the client.
It’s all sordid and corrupt. At least some people paid money and got special treatment and favours from government. It mattered who you could pay and who you knew.
The important question is whether these are aberrations, or symptoms of an unhealthy relationship between people who float back and forth between lobbying, campaigns and political jobs in government.
And British Columbians really can’t know, based on the information that is currently available.
They know, for example, that a police search found Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark’s brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents “improperly disclosed” by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But how did he get the information, and what did he do with it? Those facts have never been revealed.
The Liberals would like people to forget about the scandal. To do that, without more answers, would be to say that British Columbians are comfortable with the threat of a government corruption.

Why Frank Paul died and everything after

I've been writing about Frank Paul since 2002. It was 12 years ago this month that he died in alley where Vancouver police dumped him. He had been picked up for being drunk and dragged into Vancouver cells. But a police officer said he was OK, so he was dragged out and left in an the alley in the cold. (You can read a primer on the sorry case here.)
The police investigation was sloppy and self-serving. Prosecutors did a shoddy job of reviewing the file. The police complaints commissioner and provincial politicians stonewalled calls for an inquiry for nine years.
The inquiry is concluding. Stephen Kelliher, lawyer for the Paul family, offered a clear explanation for how this all happened Tuesday, and it's reported here. It is important to read.

Welfare rates, rules keep people down

Take the time to look into welfare rates and policies and you might wonder why the government dislikes some citizens so much.
The National Council on Welfare released a report this week noting how destructive welfare rates and eligibility polices are across Canada.
A young Victoria woman put the reality simply years ago. She said it seemed the government wanted to provide enough income that she and her son could survive. But not enough that they could escape from the welfare trap. (That was, I note, under the NDP government.)
Premier Gordon Campbell said much the same thing last year. He made an unsuccessful pitch for federal money to increase welfare payments during the recession.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote in an op-ed piece in The Globe and Mail. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
In other words, they get trapped.
There's a perverse moral judgment involved. People should just try harder, the unspoken - or sometimes spoken - argument goes. If they can't get a job, they're flawed and don't deserve a decent life.
Of course, 58 per cent of the 132,000 people in income assistance in B.C. have disabilities that keep them from working. Another 8,000 have "multiple persistent barriers to employment."
And then are the kids dependent on income assistance and the people who have lost jobs, run out of employment insurance, used their savings and themselves on welfare, a little unsure how this happened.
And trapped.
If you're single parent with two children and the government has deemed you employable, income assistance provides up to $660 for rent (about half the cost of a two-bedroom place in Victoria).
Between welfare and the family bonus, there's another $623 a month to cover everything else for a family of three - food, clothes, bus passes, a phone, maybe cable, school fees. That's about $20 a day to cover all those things.
All in, the family is supposed to live on less than $300 a week - less than minimum wage. (A single person gets up to $375 for rent and less than $8 a day to live on. Try launching a job hunt while living on $8 a day.)
People get by. But their lives are crappy. And children raised in this kind of poverty face a lifetime of health, educational and work problems.
It's not just a question of income assistance rates, although they have only been increased once since 1994.
The rules grind people into perpetual poverty. In B.C., for example, people on disability assistance or with persistent barriers to employment can earn up to $500 a month without penalty.
But for 48,000 people on income assistance, the government claws back any part-time employment income. Hustle up some work cutting lawns and make $40, and it's deducted from your welfare cheque.
It's a cruel disincentive for people trying to get back into the workforce.
In Alberta, recipients get to keep the first $230 they can earn and one-quarter of any earnings above that. The government says people are "encouraged and supported to work" while on welfare. "Employment can increase their total income and provide valuable work experience."
The National Council on Welfare noted the requirement that applicants exhaust their savings before being eligible was also destructive.
Don Drummond, former chief economist of the TD Bank, supported that observation. "Those in need must essentially first become destitute before they qualify for temporary assistance," he said. "But the record shows once you become destitute you tend to stay in that state. You can't afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade your skills."
The current policies are cruel and ineffectual. Leadership candidates, for both parties, should be asked what they would do differently.
Footnote: The council report found B.C. support for two-parent families with two children was the third lowest in the country, exceeding only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Benefits are, in constant dollars, well below 1990 levels.