The teachers' union big win in court this week has created big headaches for Christy Clark.
Practically, the ruling that the Liberals acted illegally in stripping class size and composition limits from teachers' contracts in 2002 could end up adding to the education.
It will certainly make contract talks with the B.C. Teachers Federation, already underway, much more difficult.
Politically, the ruling raises questions about Clark's judgment. She was education minister at the time and a key architect and defender of the discredited legislation.
And it reminds people that, while Clark has been working to distance herself from the Campbell years, she was a cabinet minister and deputy premier for the Liberals' first three years in government, when some of the most controversial decisions were made.
The issue isn't complex. The teachers' union had successfully bargained to have class size and composition limits in contracts. (Composition refers to the number of special needs students in a class.)
In 2001, the newly elected Liberals thought the limits were too restrictive, costly and properly a matter of education policy.
So they passed laws in 2002 to strip them from the contract and bar the union from negotiating the issues in future.
The Liberals had a point. Class sizes are matter of education policy, which should be the responsibility of school trustees and MLAs.
But a sensible government would recognize they are also an issue of working conditions. Unions negotiate working conditions. There needs to be some balancing of interests.
Clark didn't see it that way. The government used legislation to strip the contracts. (In spite of Gordon Campbell's pre-election promise to honour all signed agreements.)
It did the same thing with health workers, leading to the firing of some thousands of employees to be replaced with people working for much lower wages.)
The health unions won their lawsuit in 2007. That cost taxpayers $85 million in settlement costs.
Now the teachers' union has won a similar victory. The court found there was no justification for stripping the contract and removing teachers' right to bargain working conditions - especially when they had agreed to other concessions in negotiations in return for the class size and composition limits.
The court didn't rule teachers had an absolute right to negotiate class size limits.
But it found the government hadn't made any real case that the issues couldn't have been addressed through bargaining and had made no effort to find other, less draconian solutions.
Before Clark and company stripped the contracts, there months of consultation with the B.C. School Employers' Association, which bargained for school districts.
But none, literally, with the B.C. Teachers Federation on ways of dealing with the underlying issues.
OK, the BCTF was a difficult union. (And still is - the union is seeking outlandish wage increases in the current round of negotiations.)
But the government's failure to make any effort before using legislation to strip contracts was thuggish and incompetent.
And costly. If the government had made any sort of real effort to seek solutions to real problems, the outcome of the court case might have been different.
The law on bargaining rights was unclear at the time. The health unions' 2007 Supreme Court of Canada victory changed that.
But practically and ethically, seeking a solution without attacking the bargaining rights of teachers - and creating years of costly conflict - would have been much smarter.
Instead, the government blundered ahead. In court, it couldn't provide any evidence class size limits were a real problem. It couldn't offer any evidence that a negotiated resolution wasn't available. And it conceded it didn't even try to solve the problem without a harsh law.
Those were costly mistakes. The court gave the government 12 months to address the rights' violation, but the teachers' union is not going to sign a new agreement that doesn't reflect the judgment.
Clark faces an early test. And not an easy one.
Footnote: It's also surprising that the government didn't try to negotiate a settlement with the teachers once the health unions won in 2007.
The clear legal victory gives the BCTF considerable bargaining clout in the current talks, which the union will certainly use.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Debate draw is a good outcome for Harper
It always seems a bit goofy to be scoring a political debate like a boxing match or a dog show.
But that's largely what these one-off encounters are about. The four party leaders spent Tuesday evening trying to persuade voters to give them the prize for best in show.
And like a dog show, the ribbon doesn't go to the smartest or friendliest, but to the one who looks like the best example of his breed.
On that basis, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives should be pleased. Harper's message was simple - economic growth is the priority, his government is competent and people should pay no attention to all that talk of contempt for Parliament and wasteful spending.
That's all "bickering," not something Canadians should be worried about.
He had an advantage. Front-runners always do. The other leaders - especially Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff - had to look significantly better than people expected; Harper just had to avoid looking worse.
Mostly, he did that.
But not always. It should irritate some voters that Harper seemed so dismissive of the finding that his government had wrongfully concealed information from MPs and been found in contempt of Parliament.
That is not just squabbling, or political games. The Speaker supported the finding and any fair reading of the record shows that the Harper government's secrecy made it impossible for MPs to do their job of scrutinizing the costs and benefits of legislation,
And Harper's claims that he did not contemplate some form of coalition government in 2004 were contradicted by NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, who co-signed a letter to then Gov.-Gen Adrienne Clarkson that certainly seemed to suggest that was his plan.
Ignatieff spent much of the debate stressing three themes. Harper is an undemocratic control freak who won't work with others; the Conservatives will waste money on more prisons, fighter jets and corporate tax cuts at the expense of the interests of ordinary Canadians; and the only alternative is a Liberal government. "You didn't tell Parliament the truth," he said. "You abused democracy."
Ignatieff was OK. But there was no magic moment of connection that would make an uncommitted voter suddenly sit up and decide that Ignatieff really gets it and would be a great leader.
Layton performed at a similar level. He had one of the better lines - "I don't know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the Senate."
But while he was successful in challenging the Conservative's record and raised fears about their actions if they won a majority, Layton had a harder time differentiating the New Democrats from the Liberals.
As always, Duceppe had an advantage. His job was just to push the other leaders into positions that would play badly in Quebec, demanding, for example, that the province's language laws be extended to cover federally regulated workplaces.
He too had a good line. The debate was based on six questions from Canadians. When Harper responded to the first, Duceppe congratulated him for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in the campaign.
There wasn't a lot of policy discussion, beyond the themes the parties have already laid out.
That was particularly striking when the leaders dealt with the last question, about health care.
None of them had any new ideas or approaches. The issue quickly became how to pay for health care. Harper said tax cuts meant a stronger economy and more money for services; Layton and Ignatieff said any government would have to choose between health care and jails, jets and corporate tax giveaways, to use the talking point.
Three weeks to go until election day. Perhaps some of the debate themes will stick - the Conservatives should be vulnerable on their undemocratic tendencies, for example. Or perhaps new issues, like the suspect $50 million in G8 spending will emerge.
If not, we are likely on the way to another minority government. Nothing the leaders did Tuesday was enough to change that.
Footnote: B.C. got short shrift. There was a video question about crime and light sentences from a man in Gibsons, which never struck me as a particularly dangerous place.
And Layton accused Harper and Ignatieff of imposing the HST on the province. Beyond that, there was nary a mention that I noted in the two-hour debate.
But that's largely what these one-off encounters are about. The four party leaders spent Tuesday evening trying to persuade voters to give them the prize for best in show.
And like a dog show, the ribbon doesn't go to the smartest or friendliest, but to the one who looks like the best example of his breed.
On that basis, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives should be pleased. Harper's message was simple - economic growth is the priority, his government is competent and people should pay no attention to all that talk of contempt for Parliament and wasteful spending.
That's all "bickering," not something Canadians should be worried about.
He had an advantage. Front-runners always do. The other leaders - especially Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff - had to look significantly better than people expected; Harper just had to avoid looking worse.
Mostly, he did that.
But not always. It should irritate some voters that Harper seemed so dismissive of the finding that his government had wrongfully concealed information from MPs and been found in contempt of Parliament.
That is not just squabbling, or political games. The Speaker supported the finding and any fair reading of the record shows that the Harper government's secrecy made it impossible for MPs to do their job of scrutinizing the costs and benefits of legislation,
And Harper's claims that he did not contemplate some form of coalition government in 2004 were contradicted by NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, who co-signed a letter to then Gov.-Gen Adrienne Clarkson that certainly seemed to suggest that was his plan.
Ignatieff spent much of the debate stressing three themes. Harper is an undemocratic control freak who won't work with others; the Conservatives will waste money on more prisons, fighter jets and corporate tax cuts at the expense of the interests of ordinary Canadians; and the only alternative is a Liberal government. "You didn't tell Parliament the truth," he said. "You abused democracy."
Ignatieff was OK. But there was no magic moment of connection that would make an uncommitted voter suddenly sit up and decide that Ignatieff really gets it and would be a great leader.
Layton performed at a similar level. He had one of the better lines - "I don't know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the Senate."
But while he was successful in challenging the Conservative's record and raised fears about their actions if they won a majority, Layton had a harder time differentiating the New Democrats from the Liberals.
As always, Duceppe had an advantage. His job was just to push the other leaders into positions that would play badly in Quebec, demanding, for example, that the province's language laws be extended to cover federally regulated workplaces.
He too had a good line. The debate was based on six questions from Canadians. When Harper responded to the first, Duceppe congratulated him for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in the campaign.
There wasn't a lot of policy discussion, beyond the themes the parties have already laid out.
That was particularly striking when the leaders dealt with the last question, about health care.
None of them had any new ideas or approaches. The issue quickly became how to pay for health care. Harper said tax cuts meant a stronger economy and more money for services; Layton and Ignatieff said any government would have to choose between health care and jails, jets and corporate tax giveaways, to use the talking point.
Three weeks to go until election day. Perhaps some of the debate themes will stick - the Conservatives should be vulnerable on their undemocratic tendencies, for example. Or perhaps new issues, like the suspect $50 million in G8 spending will emerge.
If not, we are likely on the way to another minority government. Nothing the leaders did Tuesday was enough to change that.
Footnote: B.C. got short shrift. There was a video question about crime and light sentences from a man in Gibsons, which never struck me as a particularly dangerous place.
And Layton accused Harper and Ignatieff of imposing the HST on the province. Beyond that, there was nary a mention that I noted in the two-hour debate.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The case for a heritage fund
The Globe had an interesting piece on the collapse in B.C. gas exploration auctions. Oil and gas companies had been paying big prices for gas leases - $70 million a month, on average, last year. But the last three auctions have produce an average $6 million.
The action has moved on. The best properties had been claimed and natural gas prices are low.
Which has Energy Minister Rich Coleman thinking about selling the gas more cheaply by cutting royalty rates.
And me wondering again if a heritage fund for non-renewable resource sales would be more responsible and encourage better government decisions.
The action has moved on. The best properties had been claimed and natural gas prices are low.
Which has Energy Minister Rich Coleman thinking about selling the gas more cheaply by cutting royalty rates.
And me wondering again if a heritage fund for non-renewable resource sales would be more responsible and encourage better government decisions.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Coleman takes first step on B.C. Hydro rates
Energy Minister Rich Coleman's quick review of B.C. Hydro might ease the hit from planned 10-per-cent annual rate increases.
But it remains to be seen if the three deputy ministers tapped to do the investigation will be willing to go far enough in looking at the decisions that landed the Crown corporation in this spot.
B.C. Hydro plans to raise rates by almost 10 per cent a year for each of the next three years.
Infrastructure has been neglected, the corporation says, and it needs to spend about $6 billion - $3.4 billion in the next two years alone - to get things back on track.
And B.C. Hydro has been forced into some costly ventures by the government as part of Gordon Campbell's energy plans. Those too are sending rates soaring.
Coleman has asked three deputy ministers - John Dyble from the premier's office, Peter Milburn from finance and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland from the environmental assessment office - to take a quick look at B.C. Hydro.
They've got a mandate to examine everything, with the goal of keeping rate increases down and will report by June 30. It's a worthwhile exercise. And keeping the review in-house is cheaper and faster.
But it also raises concerns. For example, if B.C. Hydro's dams and transmission lines have really been neglected for years, meaning customers today are being stuck with big catch-up bills, how did that happen? Will the deputies point fingers at their political masters?
And it's unclear whether the three really have a free hand. Coleman has already said he's sold on B.C. Hydro's $1-billion plan to install smart meters in every home. Will the reviewers take a hard look at the costs and benefits?
The review should include a hard look at the energy policies of the Campbell government, particularly last year's Clean Energy Act.
That act, along with past government policies, set B.C. Hydro off in some very costly directions.
The government has insisted that B.C. Hydro make the province self-sufficient in meeting electricity needs.
That means more generating capacity and contracts with private producers than are actually needed most of the time so that B.C. Hydro can meet the peak demand with in-province power production.
It might well be less costly for Hydro - and thus its customers - to continue to buy some power from sources outside the province to meet peak demand.
The requirement is linked with another policy push to make B.C. a power exporter.
But again, that requires commitments of billions of dollars in infrastructure and long-term deals with private power producers. That new power comes at a very high rate; if B.C. Hydro can't sell it a profit, then customers must pay higher rates to cover the losses.
Christy Clark has been quick to signal a new direction in some areas. But the private power companies are keen on the lucrative long-term contracts and would object to any changes. It's hard to know where the deputy ministers will be willing - or have time - to reconsider the policy.
The Clean Energy Act also weakened the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The commission is supposed to regulate hydro rates. It reviews the Crown corporation's applications for rate increases and scrutinizes its spending plans to make sure no more money is being spent than is necessary. That included a review of capital projects and plans to buy energy from private suppliers.
It's an important function anytime there is a monopoly supplier.
But the act barred the commission from scrutinizing a wide range of projects, from the proposed multibillion-dollar Site C dam on the Peace River to the northwest transmission line.
And it prevented the utilities commission from reviewing B.C. Hydro's call for high-priced clean or renewable energy from private companies.
Removing that protection put consumers at risk.
Coleman's panel might be a useful start. But a thorough review of the government's energy policy is needed.
Footnote: The government's position on smart meters is puzzling. The meters are controversial; the best argument for them is that they allow different electricity rates at different times of day. Rewarding people for using power at off-peak periods means less capacity is needed and overall rates can be lower. But Coleman has ruled out that kind of pricing.
But it remains to be seen if the three deputy ministers tapped to do the investigation will be willing to go far enough in looking at the decisions that landed the Crown corporation in this spot.
B.C. Hydro plans to raise rates by almost 10 per cent a year for each of the next three years.
Infrastructure has been neglected, the corporation says, and it needs to spend about $6 billion - $3.4 billion in the next two years alone - to get things back on track.
And B.C. Hydro has been forced into some costly ventures by the government as part of Gordon Campbell's energy plans. Those too are sending rates soaring.
Coleman has asked three deputy ministers - John Dyble from the premier's office, Peter Milburn from finance and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland from the environmental assessment office - to take a quick look at B.C. Hydro.
They've got a mandate to examine everything, with the goal of keeping rate increases down and will report by June 30. It's a worthwhile exercise. And keeping the review in-house is cheaper and faster.
But it also raises concerns. For example, if B.C. Hydro's dams and transmission lines have really been neglected for years, meaning customers today are being stuck with big catch-up bills, how did that happen? Will the deputies point fingers at their political masters?
And it's unclear whether the three really have a free hand. Coleman has already said he's sold on B.C. Hydro's $1-billion plan to install smart meters in every home. Will the reviewers take a hard look at the costs and benefits?
The review should include a hard look at the energy policies of the Campbell government, particularly last year's Clean Energy Act.
That act, along with past government policies, set B.C. Hydro off in some very costly directions.
The government has insisted that B.C. Hydro make the province self-sufficient in meeting electricity needs.
That means more generating capacity and contracts with private producers than are actually needed most of the time so that B.C. Hydro can meet the peak demand with in-province power production.
It might well be less costly for Hydro - and thus its customers - to continue to buy some power from sources outside the province to meet peak demand.
The requirement is linked with another policy push to make B.C. a power exporter.
But again, that requires commitments of billions of dollars in infrastructure and long-term deals with private power producers. That new power comes at a very high rate; if B.C. Hydro can't sell it a profit, then customers must pay higher rates to cover the losses.
Christy Clark has been quick to signal a new direction in some areas. But the private power companies are keen on the lucrative long-term contracts and would object to any changes. It's hard to know where the deputy ministers will be willing - or have time - to reconsider the policy.
The Clean Energy Act also weakened the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The commission is supposed to regulate hydro rates. It reviews the Crown corporation's applications for rate increases and scrutinizes its spending plans to make sure no more money is being spent than is necessary. That included a review of capital projects and plans to buy energy from private suppliers.
It's an important function anytime there is a monopoly supplier.
But the act barred the commission from scrutinizing a wide range of projects, from the proposed multibillion-dollar Site C dam on the Peace River to the northwest transmission line.
And it prevented the utilities commission from reviewing B.C. Hydro's call for high-priced clean or renewable energy from private companies.
Removing that protection put consumers at risk.
Coleman's panel might be a useful start. But a thorough review of the government's energy policy is needed.
Footnote: The government's position on smart meters is puzzling. The meters are controversial; the best argument for them is that they allow different electricity rates at different times of day. Rewarding people for using power at off-peak periods means less capacity is needed and overall rates can be lower. But Coleman has ruled out that kind of pricing.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Leaders eerily silent on our two wars
It's amazing that we're fighting two wars during an election campaign and nobody is talking about them as issues.
People might just be tired of Afghanistan. Our troops have been fighting for nine years. We're stepping back, sort of, this year.
Still, it's not clear how many Canadians will stay in the conflict, or whether anything lasting has been accomplished. Those should be campaign issues.
Libya is brand new. Canada signed on to a military mission there March 19, just before the election campaign started.
That should be a big decision. As citizens, we bear responsibility for government actions. And going to war should bring the greatest responsibility.
Not just for our troops. In fact, Libya has been pretty safe for them. Our role has involved bombing targets with no real resistance from Libyan forces.
But people get killed when you drop bombs. And once you jump into a fight in another country, you're committed.
This week, people in Libya described a massacre in Misrata, as government troops closed in on rebel forces. Our intervention set the stage for that massacre.
The original reason for United Nations intervention was to prevent Moammar Gadhafi from killing rebels who had been empowered by the spirit of protest in North Africa. Gadhafi has oppressed his people for decades; his people were rising up; the West would make sure they weren't slaughtered, but not actually help them fight.
It was all tidily limited. We'd bomb, but we wouldn't invade.
But surely someone in Canada's government, or Parliament, should have asked questions.
What if bombing wasn't enough, for example? Would we send troops to protect the insurgents, or watch them be massacred?
Canadians needed those answers. The insurgents needed them a lot more.
Stephen Harper, unlike most western leaders, said Canada was engaging in "acts of war" against the Libyan government. That suggests pretty committed support for the anti-Gadhafi forces now facing disaster as they confront trained, well-equipped government troops.
Harper also seemed surprisingly uninformed as he predicted western support would lead to Gadhafi's quick defeat.
"He simply will not last very long," Harper said last month as Canada signed on to the effort. "I think that is the basis on which we're moving forward. If I am being frank here, that is probably more understood than spoken aloud. But I just said it aloud."
But Gadhafi is lasting. He's killing the people who rose up, and who counted on us.
It appears now that Libya could be carved up into two nations - never a recipe for long-term stability.
It's also increasingly clear that little is known about the power groups within the rebel forces or their ability to co-operate if they do control all or part of the country.
After the world stood by as horrific massacres took place in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, Canada led in developing the concept or a "responsibility to protect."
When innocents were being massacred, the global community should not defer to national sovereignty, the doctrine holds. The greater duty was to those in peril.
In the real world, it is a difficult construct. Why Libya, and not the Ivory Coast? If aerial bombings are ineffective, does the responsibility demand arms support for the insurgents, or Canadian troops on the ground? How many years will Canadian jets patrol Libyan skies?
I have no idea. But surely our elected representatives should be discussing these questions seriously.
That has not happened. All four parties with representatives in Parliament supported the Libyan intervention. No MPs asked hard questions about what would happen if the plan didn't work. (The Green oppose the military intervention, favouring diplomatic efforts.)
It looks like a political issue for them. And life or death for Libyans.
The responsibility to protect people at imminent risk of violence is a fine principle.
But putting it into action requires careful thought and planning and a full public discussion of the goals, methods and what could go wrong.
All were missing in the Libyan intervention.
Footnote: Harper has used the mission to justify buying new jet fighters. The argument could equally be made that Canada could have fulfilled its role with other contributions and the Libyan interventions shows just how rarely the costly jets would be needed.
People might just be tired of Afghanistan. Our troops have been fighting for nine years. We're stepping back, sort of, this year.
Still, it's not clear how many Canadians will stay in the conflict, or whether anything lasting has been accomplished. Those should be campaign issues.
Libya is brand new. Canada signed on to a military mission there March 19, just before the election campaign started.
That should be a big decision. As citizens, we bear responsibility for government actions. And going to war should bring the greatest responsibility.
Not just for our troops. In fact, Libya has been pretty safe for them. Our role has involved bombing targets with no real resistance from Libyan forces.
But people get killed when you drop bombs. And once you jump into a fight in another country, you're committed.
This week, people in Libya described a massacre in Misrata, as government troops closed in on rebel forces. Our intervention set the stage for that massacre.
The original reason for United Nations intervention was to prevent Moammar Gadhafi from killing rebels who had been empowered by the spirit of protest in North Africa. Gadhafi has oppressed his people for decades; his people were rising up; the West would make sure they weren't slaughtered, but not actually help them fight.
It was all tidily limited. We'd bomb, but we wouldn't invade.
But surely someone in Canada's government, or Parliament, should have asked questions.
What if bombing wasn't enough, for example? Would we send troops to protect the insurgents, or watch them be massacred?
Canadians needed those answers. The insurgents needed them a lot more.
Stephen Harper, unlike most western leaders, said Canada was engaging in "acts of war" against the Libyan government. That suggests pretty committed support for the anti-Gadhafi forces now facing disaster as they confront trained, well-equipped government troops.
Harper also seemed surprisingly uninformed as he predicted western support would lead to Gadhafi's quick defeat.
"He simply will not last very long," Harper said last month as Canada signed on to the effort. "I think that is the basis on which we're moving forward. If I am being frank here, that is probably more understood than spoken aloud. But I just said it aloud."
But Gadhafi is lasting. He's killing the people who rose up, and who counted on us.
It appears now that Libya could be carved up into two nations - never a recipe for long-term stability.
It's also increasingly clear that little is known about the power groups within the rebel forces or their ability to co-operate if they do control all or part of the country.
After the world stood by as horrific massacres took place in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, Canada led in developing the concept or a "responsibility to protect."
When innocents were being massacred, the global community should not defer to national sovereignty, the doctrine holds. The greater duty was to those in peril.
In the real world, it is a difficult construct. Why Libya, and not the Ivory Coast? If aerial bombings are ineffective, does the responsibility demand arms support for the insurgents, or Canadian troops on the ground? How many years will Canadian jets patrol Libyan skies?
I have no idea. But surely our elected representatives should be discussing these questions seriously.
That has not happened. All four parties with representatives in Parliament supported the Libyan intervention. No MPs asked hard questions about what would happen if the plan didn't work. (The Green oppose the military intervention, favouring diplomatic efforts.)
It looks like a political issue for them. And life or death for Libyans.
The responsibility to protect people at imminent risk of violence is a fine principle.
But putting it into action requires careful thought and planning and a full public discussion of the goals, methods and what could go wrong.
All were missing in the Libyan intervention.
Footnote: Harper has used the mission to justify buying new jet fighters. The argument could equally be made that Canada could have fulfilled its role with other contributions and the Libyan interventions shows just how rarely the costly jets would be needed.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Harper raising trust issues - about himself
It's early days, but Stephen Harper could be blowing the election. He's making himself look like someone who shouldn't be trusted to govern.
Harper's harping on the threat of an evil NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition offers the best example of the problem.
It was a decent enough gambit to kick off the campaign.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion had attempted to forge a coalition government with the NDP in 2008, supported by the Bloc Quebecois.
Coalition governments are unfamiliar - though not unheard of - in Canada. (Though Britain has had one since last May.) And many people would object to a formal Bloc Quebecois role in a coalition.
So it was reasonable for Harper to claim that unless the Conservatives won a majority the three opposition parties might come up with a common program and form a government.
Then Michael Ignatieff clearly ruled out a coalition.
That might have been foolish; a Liberal-NDP government could be preferable to another election. But it made continued dramatic warnings about a coalition less credible, more bluster than substance.
Still, Harper might have been able to keep up the attacks.
Except NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said Harper had laid plans to form a coalition government with them in 2004 if the Liberal minority government fell on a non-confidence motion.
The three leaders even signed a letter to then governor general Adrienne Clarkson urging her not to automatically call an election if the government fell, but to consult the opposition parties and "consider all of your options."
That sounds like a coalition. And Tom Flanagan, Harper's former chief of staff, said the goal in 2004 was to install Harper as prime minister with the support of the other two parties.
Then a TV interview from 1997 emerged, in which Harper predicted the Liberals would eventually lose office when they were in a minority, with the largest number of seats. The opposition parties could then co-operate and form a "coalition" to govern, he said.
A fair observer would conclude Harper was attacking Ignatieff, who had rejected a coalition, even though he had tried to form one and publicly supported the principle.
The big problem is Harper's response. He didn't drop the claims or say he once thought coalitions were OK but had changed his mind.
Harper came up with excuses and evasions. He claimed he hadn't been talking about governing coalitions, but about uniting the right.
That's simply not credible given the letter to the governor general and the clear statement in the TV interview.
That creates a trust issue. If voters believe Harper will say anything to win - even in the face of evidence that he's being hypocritical at best, dishonest at worst - they will wonder if they can trust any promises he makes over the course of the campaign.
And that's a damaging, a self-inflicted wound.
Harper made another serious stumble. When Green leader Elizabeth May was barred from the leadership debates Wednesday, Harper said he was "open to any number of possibilities," including May's participation.
"We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself," Harper said. "After all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support." (That coalition thing again.)
Great, Ignatieff said. Let's have a one-on-one debate.
But the next day, Harper was in retreat. He's only willing to do the two group debates, one in English and one in French, he said. He refused to debate Ignatieff.
And Harper dodged the debate on the same day questions were raised about his tightly controlled campaign. Unlike the other leaders, he will only take five questions a day - four from the journalists on the campaign, one from local media. There are no public events; only Conservative supporters on pre-approved lists can attend.
The election was seen as Harper's to lose. Based on the early days, he might.
Footnote: Getting bounced from the debate got May great media coverage, and she should have been included. More importantly, the TV companies should have clear, consistent criteria for their decisions and the debate schedules. The backroom deals between companies and parties breed suspicion.
Harper's harping on the threat of an evil NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition offers the best example of the problem.
It was a decent enough gambit to kick off the campaign.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion had attempted to forge a coalition government with the NDP in 2008, supported by the Bloc Quebecois.
Coalition governments are unfamiliar - though not unheard of - in Canada. (Though Britain has had one since last May.) And many people would object to a formal Bloc Quebecois role in a coalition.
So it was reasonable for Harper to claim that unless the Conservatives won a majority the three opposition parties might come up with a common program and form a government.
Then Michael Ignatieff clearly ruled out a coalition.
That might have been foolish; a Liberal-NDP government could be preferable to another election. But it made continued dramatic warnings about a coalition less credible, more bluster than substance.
Still, Harper might have been able to keep up the attacks.
Except NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said Harper had laid plans to form a coalition government with them in 2004 if the Liberal minority government fell on a non-confidence motion.
The three leaders even signed a letter to then governor general Adrienne Clarkson urging her not to automatically call an election if the government fell, but to consult the opposition parties and "consider all of your options."
That sounds like a coalition. And Tom Flanagan, Harper's former chief of staff, said the goal in 2004 was to install Harper as prime minister with the support of the other two parties.
Then a TV interview from 1997 emerged, in which Harper predicted the Liberals would eventually lose office when they were in a minority, with the largest number of seats. The opposition parties could then co-operate and form a "coalition" to govern, he said.
A fair observer would conclude Harper was attacking Ignatieff, who had rejected a coalition, even though he had tried to form one and publicly supported the principle.
The big problem is Harper's response. He didn't drop the claims or say he once thought coalitions were OK but had changed his mind.
Harper came up with excuses and evasions. He claimed he hadn't been talking about governing coalitions, but about uniting the right.
That's simply not credible given the letter to the governor general and the clear statement in the TV interview.
That creates a trust issue. If voters believe Harper will say anything to win - even in the face of evidence that he's being hypocritical at best, dishonest at worst - they will wonder if they can trust any promises he makes over the course of the campaign.
And that's a damaging, a self-inflicted wound.
Harper made another serious stumble. When Green leader Elizabeth May was barred from the leadership debates Wednesday, Harper said he was "open to any number of possibilities," including May's participation.
"We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself," Harper said. "After all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support." (That coalition thing again.)
Great, Ignatieff said. Let's have a one-on-one debate.
But the next day, Harper was in retreat. He's only willing to do the two group debates, one in English and one in French, he said. He refused to debate Ignatieff.
And Harper dodged the debate on the same day questions were raised about his tightly controlled campaign. Unlike the other leaders, he will only take five questions a day - four from the journalists on the campaign, one from local media. There are no public events; only Conservative supporters on pre-approved lists can attend.
The election was seen as Harper's to lose. Based on the early days, he might.
Footnote: Getting bounced from the debate got May great media coverage, and she should have been included. More importantly, the TV companies should have clear, consistent criteria for their decisions and the debate schedules. The backroom deals between companies and parties breed suspicion.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Harper's family tax plan misses the mark
Stephen Harper wasted no time unveiling his first big campaign promise, a proposal to let families with children split their incomes to reduce their tax bills.
It's likely a political winner. But it's bad public policy, especially if the aim is to strengthen families.
The big beneficiaries are the rich - people who least need help with the cost of raising children.
It's also a distant prospect. Harper says the change won't come until the budget is balanced, which isn?t supposed to happen until 2015.
The theory is that some two-parent families with children under 18 should pay less tax.
Harper proposes that they be allowed to shift up to $50,000 in income from the highest paid spouse to the one who earns less, or stays at home. The high earner then drops into a lower tax break and pays less.
The Conservative news release offered examples. Someone earning $70,000 with a stay-a-home spouse could shift half the income. Each parent would pay taxes on $35,000. Because they would be in lower tax brackets, they would save almost $2,000.
But the release didn't set out other scenarios.
For example, someone being paid $200,000 a year could transfer $50,000 to a stay-at-home spouse. That family would pay $7,000 less in taxes.
And a large number of families would get nothing out of the change. Two people both earning $40,000, for example, would see no change in their tax bill.
Neither would any family getting by on a modest income, because they are already paying minimal taxes.
And single parents - most in need of assistance - would be left out entirely.
In short, the people who really need help raising their children would get little benefit; the people who didn't would get the biggest tax cut.
Providing this tax break is expensive. The Conservatives estimate it will cost $2.5 billion a year.
That leaves two options. Other taxes will have to go up to cover the lost revenue, which could mean other taxpayers will pay more to subsidize people already well off.
Or the government will have to cut $2.5 billion worth of services.
Politically, it's not a bad campaign promise. Supporting families always sounds good. People with families vote - especially affluent people with families.
And social conservatives see the tax change as a way of making it easier for families to get by on one income, so moms can stay home and look after the children.
That's not a goal that should be dismissed. There are benefits to having a parent in the home with children, to the family and society. Stay-at-home moms - and a relative handful of dads - also make a big contribution in volunteer roles.
But the tax change won't really do much to achieve that goal. The Conservatives say the average tax reduction would be $1,300. That isn't going to let most families give up a second income.
What was also missing was a consideration of what else a prudent government could do with that $2.5 billion a year. Based on population, that's about $330 million a year for British Columbia.
That much money, targeted to the children and families who really need help, could make a huge difference. Early childhood education, longer parental leave, nurse support for new moms, more affordable day care - there are many options that could improve life - now and for generations - for children starting out in tough circumstances.
That kind of approach would pay a lot greater return than a tax cut that delivered the greatest benefits to people who were being paid two or three times the average wage of British Columbians.
But Conservatives calculated the tax change would play well, or believe affluent families should pay much less in taxes.
That's a legitimate position, of course. But voters assessing the party platforms should be clear about what Harper offered in his first major commitment.
And about who would win, and who would be left behind.
Footnote: Why a promise that won't take effect for four years. The Conservatives said they couldn't agree to NDP demands for more support for seniors, a move which might have averted the non-confidence vote and election, because there is no money. That makes it hard to offer any promises not already in the defeated budget.
It's likely a political winner. But it's bad public policy, especially if the aim is to strengthen families.
The big beneficiaries are the rich - people who least need help with the cost of raising children.
It's also a distant prospect. Harper says the change won't come until the budget is balanced, which isn?t supposed to happen until 2015.
The theory is that some two-parent families with children under 18 should pay less tax.
Harper proposes that they be allowed to shift up to $50,000 in income from the highest paid spouse to the one who earns less, or stays at home. The high earner then drops into a lower tax break and pays less.
The Conservative news release offered examples. Someone earning $70,000 with a stay-a-home spouse could shift half the income. Each parent would pay taxes on $35,000. Because they would be in lower tax brackets, they would save almost $2,000.
But the release didn't set out other scenarios.
For example, someone being paid $200,000 a year could transfer $50,000 to a stay-at-home spouse. That family would pay $7,000 less in taxes.
And a large number of families would get nothing out of the change. Two people both earning $40,000, for example, would see no change in their tax bill.
Neither would any family getting by on a modest income, because they are already paying minimal taxes.
And single parents - most in need of assistance - would be left out entirely.
In short, the people who really need help raising their children would get little benefit; the people who didn't would get the biggest tax cut.
Providing this tax break is expensive. The Conservatives estimate it will cost $2.5 billion a year.
That leaves two options. Other taxes will have to go up to cover the lost revenue, which could mean other taxpayers will pay more to subsidize people already well off.
Or the government will have to cut $2.5 billion worth of services.
Politically, it's not a bad campaign promise. Supporting families always sounds good. People with families vote - especially affluent people with families.
And social conservatives see the tax change as a way of making it easier for families to get by on one income, so moms can stay home and look after the children.
That's not a goal that should be dismissed. There are benefits to having a parent in the home with children, to the family and society. Stay-at-home moms - and a relative handful of dads - also make a big contribution in volunteer roles.
But the tax change won't really do much to achieve that goal. The Conservatives say the average tax reduction would be $1,300. That isn't going to let most families give up a second income.
What was also missing was a consideration of what else a prudent government could do with that $2.5 billion a year. Based on population, that's about $330 million a year for British Columbia.
That much money, targeted to the children and families who really need help, could make a huge difference. Early childhood education, longer parental leave, nurse support for new moms, more affordable day care - there are many options that could improve life - now and for generations - for children starting out in tough circumstances.
That kind of approach would pay a lot greater return than a tax cut that delivered the greatest benefits to people who were being paid two or three times the average wage of British Columbians.
But Conservatives calculated the tax change would play well, or believe affluent families should pay much less in taxes.
That's a legitimate position, of course. But voters assessing the party platforms should be clear about what Harper offered in his first major commitment.
And about who would win, and who would be left behind.
Footnote: Why a promise that won't take effect for four years. The Conservatives said they couldn't agree to NDP demands for more support for seniors, a move which might have averted the non-confidence vote and election, because there is no money. That makes it hard to offer any promises not already in the defeated budget.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Both sides to blame for coming teachers' strike
We're heading toward another teachers' strike in B.C., and parents and taxpayers should be angry at the government and the B.C. Teachers Federation.
The bargaining relationship - or non-bargaining relationship - between the union and the government is needlessly destructive.
Worse, the parties - the BCTF, the school employers bargaining association and government - seem incapable of taking the basic steps to fix it.
The current contract expires June 30. The government says teachers will be subject to same two-year compensation freeze as all other public sector unionized employees. That still leaves room to shuffle money around - higher salaries in return for reduced benefit costs, for example.
The union wants raises to bring salaries in line with Alberta and Ontario; by its assessment, that means a 12- to 20-per-cent wage increase. The BCTF also wants to be able to bargain workload issues like class sizes and the number of special needs students per class.
Bargaining always involves some posturing, positions taken just so they can be given up in a later show of purported good faith. But a bid for a 20 per cent pay increase in these economic times is just silly.
Especially because the only justification is that teachers somewhere else are getting more money.
There is no widespread teacher shortage in B.C. Would-be teachers continue to spend years as substitutes because the prospect of a full-time job is so alluring. University teaching programs are over-subscribed.
The union could argue that teaching is no longer attracting the best people, but it hasn't. (Pay ranges from about $42,000 for a beginning teacher with minimum qualifications to $80,000 for a teacher with years on the job and additional education. Holidays are very good; the work is important and challenging.)
Parents might as well begin thinking about how to occupy their children this fall during the ritual teachers' strike, followed by a back-to-work order and imposed settlement. Back-to-work legislation is inevitable in a strike. No government can allow long school closures; the NDP has legislated teachers back twice, the Liberals once.
This is all especially discouraging because the parties have been offered two different approaches that could avoid a pointless deadlock.
Vince Ready, asked to look into a 2006 dispute, recommended a new bargaining approach for this round.
Both parties should establish their objectives eight months before the contract expires, he wrote. That would have been last Sept. 30.
A facilitator/mediator - either agreed to by both parties, or appointed by the labour minister - should then immediately begin to meet with them in negotiating sessions, and where helpful make recommendations. A senior government representative should be at the table. And the parties should develop an agreed on statement of facts about the current situation - cost of compensation and benefits, recruitment issues and the rest.
Don Wright, who reviewed bargaining in 2004, recommended another approach. If negotiations failed, he said, a third party should conciliate. If that didn't work, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement.
Instead, the negotiations are heading down the same pointless path.
The union is far from alone in bearing responsibility. The Liberal government has been both thuggish and incompetent in dealing with the BCTF. It ripped up contracts, broke the law, failed to keep class sizes at reasonable levels and dumped its problems on school districts.
And despite a lot of talk about education, there has been no progress in improved results during the Liberal decade. Schools are good, but not improving.
It's not too late. The parties could adopt Ready's approach and start realistic talks. The government could stick with its no net pay increase mandate. The union could win a commitment to cut class sizes and provide more preparation time. They could bargain.
But in the meantime, if you have kids in school, plan for some down time next fall.
Footnote: Education Minister George Abbott was disarming at the recent BCTF convention and deserves full credit for showing up. And if real bargaining starts, he might wish to talk to Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whose leadership campaign promises included more money for exceptional teachers.
The bargaining relationship - or non-bargaining relationship - between the union and the government is needlessly destructive.
Worse, the parties - the BCTF, the school employers bargaining association and government - seem incapable of taking the basic steps to fix it.
The current contract expires June 30. The government says teachers will be subject to same two-year compensation freeze as all other public sector unionized employees. That still leaves room to shuffle money around - higher salaries in return for reduced benefit costs, for example.
The union wants raises to bring salaries in line with Alberta and Ontario; by its assessment, that means a 12- to 20-per-cent wage increase. The BCTF also wants to be able to bargain workload issues like class sizes and the number of special needs students per class.
Bargaining always involves some posturing, positions taken just so they can be given up in a later show of purported good faith. But a bid for a 20 per cent pay increase in these economic times is just silly.
Especially because the only justification is that teachers somewhere else are getting more money.
There is no widespread teacher shortage in B.C. Would-be teachers continue to spend years as substitutes because the prospect of a full-time job is so alluring. University teaching programs are over-subscribed.
The union could argue that teaching is no longer attracting the best people, but it hasn't. (Pay ranges from about $42,000 for a beginning teacher with minimum qualifications to $80,000 for a teacher with years on the job and additional education. Holidays are very good; the work is important and challenging.)
Parents might as well begin thinking about how to occupy their children this fall during the ritual teachers' strike, followed by a back-to-work order and imposed settlement. Back-to-work legislation is inevitable in a strike. No government can allow long school closures; the NDP has legislated teachers back twice, the Liberals once.
This is all especially discouraging because the parties have been offered two different approaches that could avoid a pointless deadlock.
Vince Ready, asked to look into a 2006 dispute, recommended a new bargaining approach for this round.
Both parties should establish their objectives eight months before the contract expires, he wrote. That would have been last Sept. 30.
A facilitator/mediator - either agreed to by both parties, or appointed by the labour minister - should then immediately begin to meet with them in negotiating sessions, and where helpful make recommendations. A senior government representative should be at the table. And the parties should develop an agreed on statement of facts about the current situation - cost of compensation and benefits, recruitment issues and the rest.
Don Wright, who reviewed bargaining in 2004, recommended another approach. If negotiations failed, he said, a third party should conciliate. If that didn't work, union and employers would submit their best offers and the conciliator would pick one to form the new collective agreement.
Instead, the negotiations are heading down the same pointless path.
The union is far from alone in bearing responsibility. The Liberal government has been both thuggish and incompetent in dealing with the BCTF. It ripped up contracts, broke the law, failed to keep class sizes at reasonable levels and dumped its problems on school districts.
And despite a lot of talk about education, there has been no progress in improved results during the Liberal decade. Schools are good, but not improving.
It's not too late. The parties could adopt Ready's approach and start realistic talks. The government could stick with its no net pay increase mandate. The union could win a commitment to cut class sizes and provide more preparation time. They could bargain.
But in the meantime, if you have kids in school, plan for some down time next fall.
Footnote: Education Minister George Abbott was disarming at the recent BCTF convention and deserves full credit for showing up. And if real bargaining starts, he might wish to talk to Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whose leadership campaign promises included more money for exceptional teachers.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Budget shouldn't have provoked an election
OK, the federal budget wasn't a great effort - mediocre even.
But there was also nothing in it that justifies the apparent decision by all three opposition parties to force an election. Unless something changes, Canadians could be going to the polls - or staying home - as early as May 2.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget presentation Tuesday pretty much offered a status quo approach, one consistent with the Conservative's past practices and election platforms.
The government is on track to eliminate the deficits - ramped up after the 2008 economic meltdown - by 2015. It went ahead with planned corporate tax cuts.
And while spending will be tightly controlled, the budget numbers did not suggest draconian cuts lie ahead. Overall spending in the next three years is to rise by about 2.5 per cent a year. Given inflation and population growth, that means some curbs, but not deep cuts.
Uninspiring, perhaps, but hardly outrageous.
The opposition parties disagree. Liberal leader Michael Igantieff says the government's priorities are wrong, urging more spending on social initiatives and less on defence. (The jet fighter purchase will figure prominently in a Liberal campaign.)
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe wants, as always, more money for his Quebec.
And NDP Leader Jack Layton says the budget failed to deliver on the issues he had set out as critical for winning the party's support, including measures to help poor seniors, pension reform and the elimination of the GST on home heating.
The Conservatives could have made a better effort to find common ground with Layton and reduce the chance of an election.
The budget did offer a $50 a month increase in the old age supplement for the poorest seniors, a benefit that will help some 500,000 people. And it extends the EcoENERGY Retrofit program that subsidized home renovations to reduce energy use, another Layton demand.
But instead of addressing the other issues, the budget included measures that seem more aimed at providing photo ops in an election campaign.
The budget creates a Children's Art Tax Credit, which lets parents claim a tax deduction for the first $500 spent on art classes or music lessons. It should be politically popular, but it's foolish policy. Effectively all other taxpayers will be subsidizing people affluent enough to afford private lessons for their kids.
Volunteer firefighters will get a similar tax break.
And, more usefully, people who care for ill relatives will get a tax credit worth about $400 a year - small, but welcome, and a nice campaign plank.
It was tough to find any specific measures aimed at B.C. in the budget - so much so that a news service roundup of regional initiatives left the province out entirely.
There is $60 million in funding for forest-sector research across Canada.
But forest-dependent communities across B.C. face a looming crisis as pone-beetle-killed wood is harvested and future timber is decades away from being harvestable. They need support now, for economic diversification efforts and retraining.
There is still a chance an election could be avoided, by a measure as simple as having a few opposition MPs skip the coming non-confidence vote.
But it appears that within the next 10 days - and perhaps by the end of the week - the Harper government will have fallen and Canadians will be facing an election campaign.
That's likely to be a destructive effort. Not just because the campaigns will feature more of the attack ads that discredit all involved, but because polls suggest voters have no great enthusiasm for any of the parties or their leaders. Too many of us will hold our noses and vote for the least offensive party - or simply stay home.
And worse, the polls also suggest that the outcome will most likely be a return of the Conservatives with another minority government.
That's a lot of disruption just to maintain the status quo.
Footnote: A federal election hands Premier Christy Clark a challenge. The provincial Liberals are a coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. A hard-fought campaign risks leaving bruised feelings and divisions. The campaign could also limit Clark's flexibility in calling a provincial vote.
But there was also nothing in it that justifies the apparent decision by all three opposition parties to force an election. Unless something changes, Canadians could be going to the polls - or staying home - as early as May 2.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget presentation Tuesday pretty much offered a status quo approach, one consistent with the Conservative's past practices and election platforms.
The government is on track to eliminate the deficits - ramped up after the 2008 economic meltdown - by 2015. It went ahead with planned corporate tax cuts.
And while spending will be tightly controlled, the budget numbers did not suggest draconian cuts lie ahead. Overall spending in the next three years is to rise by about 2.5 per cent a year. Given inflation and population growth, that means some curbs, but not deep cuts.
Uninspiring, perhaps, but hardly outrageous.
The opposition parties disagree. Liberal leader Michael Igantieff says the government's priorities are wrong, urging more spending on social initiatives and less on defence. (The jet fighter purchase will figure prominently in a Liberal campaign.)
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe wants, as always, more money for his Quebec.
And NDP Leader Jack Layton says the budget failed to deliver on the issues he had set out as critical for winning the party's support, including measures to help poor seniors, pension reform and the elimination of the GST on home heating.
The Conservatives could have made a better effort to find common ground with Layton and reduce the chance of an election.
The budget did offer a $50 a month increase in the old age supplement for the poorest seniors, a benefit that will help some 500,000 people. And it extends the EcoENERGY Retrofit program that subsidized home renovations to reduce energy use, another Layton demand.
But instead of addressing the other issues, the budget included measures that seem more aimed at providing photo ops in an election campaign.
The budget creates a Children's Art Tax Credit, which lets parents claim a tax deduction for the first $500 spent on art classes or music lessons. It should be politically popular, but it's foolish policy. Effectively all other taxpayers will be subsidizing people affluent enough to afford private lessons for their kids.
Volunteer firefighters will get a similar tax break.
And, more usefully, people who care for ill relatives will get a tax credit worth about $400 a year - small, but welcome, and a nice campaign plank.
It was tough to find any specific measures aimed at B.C. in the budget - so much so that a news service roundup of regional initiatives left the province out entirely.
There is $60 million in funding for forest-sector research across Canada.
But forest-dependent communities across B.C. face a looming crisis as pone-beetle-killed wood is harvested and future timber is decades away from being harvestable. They need support now, for economic diversification efforts and retraining.
There is still a chance an election could be avoided, by a measure as simple as having a few opposition MPs skip the coming non-confidence vote.
But it appears that within the next 10 days - and perhaps by the end of the week - the Harper government will have fallen and Canadians will be facing an election campaign.
That's likely to be a destructive effort. Not just because the campaigns will feature more of the attack ads that discredit all involved, but because polls suggest voters have no great enthusiasm for any of the parties or their leaders. Too many of us will hold our noses and vote for the least offensive party - or simply stay home.
And worse, the polls also suggest that the outcome will most likely be a return of the Conservatives with another minority government.
That's a lot of disruption just to maintain the status quo.
Footnote: A federal election hands Premier Christy Clark a challenge. The provincial Liberals are a coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. A hard-fought campaign risks leaving bruised feelings and divisions. The campaign could also limit Clark's flexibility in calling a provincial vote.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Minimum wage increase good policy and politics
Christy Clark’s quick action on the minimum wage is both good public policy and politically smart.
Clark made increasing the minimum wage one of her first acts. The wage - stuck at $8 since 2001 - will go to $8.75 May 1, $9.50 on Nov. 1 and $10.25 the following May.
That will more than make up for lost ground over the last decade.
Practically, the change makes sense. About 40,000 employees in the province are paid minimum wage. Some work for minimum wage briefly, or are part-time workers supplementing family income.
But some are living and even raising families on the wage. Leaving them without an increase for a decade, mired in worsening poverty, is simply wrong and exploitive.
Most of the business community have accepted the need for an increase for some time, even as Gordon Campbell refused to act.
The increase still rankled with some. The restaurant industry warned about job losses.
But B.C. went from having the highest minimum wage in Canada in 2001 to the lowest today. Even after first increase to $8.75 in May, B.C. will still have the lowest.
If restaurants in every other province can operate successfully with higher minimum wages, surely managers and owners in B.C. can.
Some businesses warn that raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect - that all low-income workers will be affected.
But again, businesses in other provinces deal with that. B.C. businesses were able to pay higher real wages in 2001, based on the minimum wage then. Why not now?
And businesses worried about the size of the increase can reflect on their failure over the last decade to support small, regular incremental increases.
There’s an underlying philosophical issue at play.
A free market is generally a good way to determine pay. Employees offer their services; employers bid for them. Those with skills and a track record command more; if they contribute to a company’s success they are rewarded out of fear they might leave. (In real life, it’s not quite so tidy.)
But we’ve agreed people without bargaining clout, who do a fair day’s work, shouldn’t be protected from the effects of market forces. Just because some can only command $10 a day doesn’t mean an employer should be able to pay that little.
Or most of us have. The Campbell government’s long refusal to increase the minimum wage began to leave the impression it didn’t really believe in the concept.
Clark’s quick and significant action signalled a different approach, emphasized when she said the increase was “long overdue.” By phasing in the increase, she gave companies time to plan. And she linked it all to the “family first” theme.
The move was also quite a contrast to Campbell’s first act in government, a reckless 25-per-cent income tax cut that hadn’t been mentioned in the 2001 campaign and plunged the province into a deep deficit.
Clark didn’t take the next logical steps. The minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living or the average wage in the province — like MLAs’ salaries - so big catch-up jumps wouldn’t be needed.
And she could have announced action to help another group of dirt-poor British Columbians who have seen their real incomes eroded over the last decade - people living on income and disability assistance.
You can’t really have a family first agenda when children are being raised in dire poverty. But income assistance for a single parent with two children, deemed employable, is less than $300 a week (and less than a minimum wage job). Those children are in trouble.
Still, changes to rates or to give people on income assistance the chance to earn a few dollars without being penalized - a move that would cost the government nothing - might be just ahead.
Meanwhile, give Clark credit for “long overdue” and equitable action on the minimum wage.
Footnote: Clark also eliminated the $6 "training wage" employers were allowed to pay new hires.
But she announced a $9 minimum wage for servers in establishments with liquor licences. Their income generally includes tips which take them above the minimum wage level.
Clark made increasing the minimum wage one of her first acts. The wage - stuck at $8 since 2001 - will go to $8.75 May 1, $9.50 on Nov. 1 and $10.25 the following May.
That will more than make up for lost ground over the last decade.
Practically, the change makes sense. About 40,000 employees in the province are paid minimum wage. Some work for minimum wage briefly, or are part-time workers supplementing family income.
But some are living and even raising families on the wage. Leaving them without an increase for a decade, mired in worsening poverty, is simply wrong and exploitive.
Most of the business community have accepted the need for an increase for some time, even as Gordon Campbell refused to act.
The increase still rankled with some. The restaurant industry warned about job losses.
But B.C. went from having the highest minimum wage in Canada in 2001 to the lowest today. Even after first increase to $8.75 in May, B.C. will still have the lowest.
If restaurants in every other province can operate successfully with higher minimum wages, surely managers and owners in B.C. can.
Some businesses warn that raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect - that all low-income workers will be affected.
But again, businesses in other provinces deal with that. B.C. businesses were able to pay higher real wages in 2001, based on the minimum wage then. Why not now?
And businesses worried about the size of the increase can reflect on their failure over the last decade to support small, regular incremental increases.
There’s an underlying philosophical issue at play.
A free market is generally a good way to determine pay. Employees offer their services; employers bid for them. Those with skills and a track record command more; if they contribute to a company’s success they are rewarded out of fear they might leave. (In real life, it’s not quite so tidy.)
But we’ve agreed people without bargaining clout, who do a fair day’s work, shouldn’t be protected from the effects of market forces. Just because some can only command $10 a day doesn’t mean an employer should be able to pay that little.
Or most of us have. The Campbell government’s long refusal to increase the minimum wage began to leave the impression it didn’t really believe in the concept.
Clark’s quick and significant action signalled a different approach, emphasized when she said the increase was “long overdue.” By phasing in the increase, she gave companies time to plan. And she linked it all to the “family first” theme.
The move was also quite a contrast to Campbell’s first act in government, a reckless 25-per-cent income tax cut that hadn’t been mentioned in the 2001 campaign and plunged the province into a deep deficit.
Clark didn’t take the next logical steps. The minimum wage should be indexed to the cost of living or the average wage in the province — like MLAs’ salaries - so big catch-up jumps wouldn’t be needed.
And she could have announced action to help another group of dirt-poor British Columbians who have seen their real incomes eroded over the last decade - people living on income and disability assistance.
You can’t really have a family first agenda when children are being raised in dire poverty. But income assistance for a single parent with two children, deemed employable, is less than $300 a week (and less than a minimum wage job). Those children are in trouble.
Still, changes to rates or to give people on income assistance the chance to earn a few dollars without being penalized - a move that would cost the government nothing - might be just ahead.
Meanwhile, give Clark credit for “long overdue” and equitable action on the minimum wage.
Footnote: Clark also eliminated the $6 "training wage" employers were allowed to pay new hires.
But she announced a $9 minimum wage for servers in establishments with liquor licences. Their income generally includes tips which take them above the minimum wage level.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Harry Bloy and the problem with politicians
New cabinet minister Harry Bloy's performance after the swearing in Tuesday was described as "fatuous" by Vaughn Palmer.
And it was. Bloy was taking his turn answering reporters' questions about his appointment and his new job as social development minister.
But instead of answering, he just kept repeating meaningless talking points that seemed to come from some pre-event briefing by communications staff. He looked dim, evasive and insincere.
It's wrong to single out Bloy. Politicians routinely let themselves be turned into the equivalent of Chatty Cathy dolls. No matter what the question, it's as if someone pulled a string in the back of their neck and they repeat irrelevant prerecorded messages.
I have no reason to think Bloy couldn't have answered the relatively straightforward questions. His resume is vague, even by political standards, but he's been elected three times. He should be able to deal with questions effectively.
But he didn't.
Sean Holman has the event on video here. You can decide if talking points really work politically. Or, more importantly, serve the public interest.
And it was. Bloy was taking his turn answering reporters' questions about his appointment and his new job as social development minister.
But instead of answering, he just kept repeating meaningless talking points that seemed to come from some pre-event briefing by communications staff. He looked dim, evasive and insincere.
It's wrong to single out Bloy. Politicians routinely let themselves be turned into the equivalent of Chatty Cathy dolls. No matter what the question, it's as if someone pulled a string in the back of their neck and they repeat irrelevant prerecorded messages.
I have no reason to think Bloy couldn't have answered the relatively straightforward questions. His resume is vague, even by political standards, but he's been elected three times. He should be able to deal with questions effectively.
But he didn't.
Sean Holman has the event on video here. You can decide if talking points really work politically. Or, more importantly, serve the public interest.
Clark puts together a reasonable first cabinet
Christy Clark's first cabinet seems pretty astute. That's not surprising; Clark is good at this kind of stuff.
She made Kevin Falcon, the close runner-up in the leadership race, finance minister and deputy premier. Falcon was the business choice for premier. He's tight with federal Conservatives. (Clark is a federal Liberal.)
So by giving him good jobs, Clark reduces the chance of Liberal supporters defecting to a provincial Conservative party and strengthens the province's hand in negotiations with Ottawa if the HST is rejected in a referendum. (There is still that $1.6 billion in federal incentives to discuss if the tax is dumped.)
Other leadership contenders also got decent posts. George Abbott is education minister; Mike de Jong is health minister. It will be interesting to see whether they bring energy and ideas to the ministries. Both have been in cabinet for a decade; it's easy to become jaded about the prospects for real change. De Jong, particularly, doesn't have a track record of achievements in past ministerial posts.
Clark also wanted to show a fresh start - that this isn't the Gordon Campbell government version two.
Which, perhaps, explains Colin Hansen's dumping. Hansen was remarkably competent over the last decade, but the HST taint seemed to seal his fate, probably unfairly.
The other striking exclusion was Dr. Moira Stilwell. She's a doctor and radiologist and nuclear medicine expert. She ran a good outsider campaign for the leadership before withdrawing and supporting Abbott.
But she didn't get a cabinet job, while some lesser lights - at least on paper - did.
Clark did elevate other outsiders while dumping Campbell ministers. The biggest jump came for Mary McNeil, the Vancouver MLA who is now the children and families minister, replacing Mary Polak, who is moved to aboriginal affairs.
It's a good sign for the troubled ministry. Polak seemed trapped as a defender of the sad status quo and failed to deal effectively with the oversight of the Representative for Children and Youth.
Clark also replaced Lesley du Toit, Gordon Campbell's handpicked choice to manage the ministry. That change was overdue; the ministry has been mired in a never-ending "transformation" project that has had little apparent effect in improving frontline services.
Overall, Clark shrank the cabinet. It's down to 18 ministers, including the premier, from 24. That's a welcome change; some of the Gordon Campbell cabinet jobs - like a junior minister for building code renewal - were bizarre. It was, however, bad news for Kevin Krueger, Murray Coell, Stilwell and others who were squeezed out.
But the apparent shrinkage is misleading. Clark also appointed 10 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to help with the workload (and ease hurt feelings). (Ministers get $51,000 on top of the base pay of $102,000; parliamentary secretaries get $15,000.)
Clark also attempted to sort out the confusion Campbell created with a poorly executed re-org of ministries involved in land-decisions.
Energy and mines are also once again under one minister - Rich Coleman, who keeps responsibility for housing as well.
And forests, lands and natural resource operations are all one ministry under Steve Thomson of the Okanagan.
The only new ministry is jobs, tourism and innovation, under Pat Bell of Prince George. Clark has promised action to improve the province's disappointing job situation; it remains to be seen if the ministry has the tools to make a difference.
Clark maintained that emphasis with a new cabinet committee on jobs and economic growth and another on open government and engagement, each with Liberal ministers and MLAs on board.
Their effectiveness - and the chance for cabinet ministers to make a difference - will depend on Clark. Campbell started out as an enthusiastic supporter of strong caucus committees, but a penchant for centralized control saw them dwindle in usefulness.
On balance, Clark and the transition team deserve credit for a well-constructed cabinet.
Footnote: The cabinet changes stripped Coleman of his longstanding responsibility for gambling and liquor sales. But, sadly, it failed to address the conflict in having one minister - now Solicitor General Shirley Bond - responsible for both promoting increased gambling and bigger average losses by British Columbians and dealing with the resulting crime and addictions.
She made Kevin Falcon, the close runner-up in the leadership race, finance minister and deputy premier. Falcon was the business choice for premier. He's tight with federal Conservatives. (Clark is a federal Liberal.)
So by giving him good jobs, Clark reduces the chance of Liberal supporters defecting to a provincial Conservative party and strengthens the province's hand in negotiations with Ottawa if the HST is rejected in a referendum. (There is still that $1.6 billion in federal incentives to discuss if the tax is dumped.)
Other leadership contenders also got decent posts. George Abbott is education minister; Mike de Jong is health minister. It will be interesting to see whether they bring energy and ideas to the ministries. Both have been in cabinet for a decade; it's easy to become jaded about the prospects for real change. De Jong, particularly, doesn't have a track record of achievements in past ministerial posts.
Clark also wanted to show a fresh start - that this isn't the Gordon Campbell government version two.
Which, perhaps, explains Colin Hansen's dumping. Hansen was remarkably competent over the last decade, but the HST taint seemed to seal his fate, probably unfairly.
The other striking exclusion was Dr. Moira Stilwell. She's a doctor and radiologist and nuclear medicine expert. She ran a good outsider campaign for the leadership before withdrawing and supporting Abbott.
But she didn't get a cabinet job, while some lesser lights - at least on paper - did.
Clark did elevate other outsiders while dumping Campbell ministers. The biggest jump came for Mary McNeil, the Vancouver MLA who is now the children and families minister, replacing Mary Polak, who is moved to aboriginal affairs.
It's a good sign for the troubled ministry. Polak seemed trapped as a defender of the sad status quo and failed to deal effectively with the oversight of the Representative for Children and Youth.
Clark also replaced Lesley du Toit, Gordon Campbell's handpicked choice to manage the ministry. That change was overdue; the ministry has been mired in a never-ending "transformation" project that has had little apparent effect in improving frontline services.
Overall, Clark shrank the cabinet. It's down to 18 ministers, including the premier, from 24. That's a welcome change; some of the Gordon Campbell cabinet jobs - like a junior minister for building code renewal - were bizarre. It was, however, bad news for Kevin Krueger, Murray Coell, Stilwell and others who were squeezed out.
But the apparent shrinkage is misleading. Clark also appointed 10 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to help with the workload (and ease hurt feelings). (Ministers get $51,000 on top of the base pay of $102,000; parliamentary secretaries get $15,000.)
Clark also attempted to sort out the confusion Campbell created with a poorly executed re-org of ministries involved in land-decisions.
Energy and mines are also once again under one minister - Rich Coleman, who keeps responsibility for housing as well.
And forests, lands and natural resource operations are all one ministry under Steve Thomson of the Okanagan.
The only new ministry is jobs, tourism and innovation, under Pat Bell of Prince George. Clark has promised action to improve the province's disappointing job situation; it remains to be seen if the ministry has the tools to make a difference.
Clark maintained that emphasis with a new cabinet committee on jobs and economic growth and another on open government and engagement, each with Liberal ministers and MLAs on board.
Their effectiveness - and the chance for cabinet ministers to make a difference - will depend on Clark. Campbell started out as an enthusiastic supporter of strong caucus committees, but a penchant for centralized control saw them dwindle in usefulness.
On balance, Clark and the transition team deserve credit for a well-constructed cabinet.
Footnote: The cabinet changes stripped Coleman of his longstanding responsibility for gambling and liquor sales. But, sadly, it failed to address the conflict in having one minister - now Solicitor General Shirley Bond - responsible for both promoting increased gambling and bigger average losses by British Columbians and dealing with the resulting crime and addictions.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Early looks at Clark's cabinet
The Times Colonist has an editorial online here.
One of the most interesting developments is the sacking of Lesley du Toit as deputy minister in the children and families ministry. The ministry floundered under her five-year tenure; Clark is signalling a new approach. The replacement - Stephen Brown - has been working in the health ministry and has an encouraging bio here.
The ministry also gets a new political leader in Mary McNeil. It's a needed fresh start.
One of the most interesting developments is the sacking of Lesley du Toit as deputy minister in the children and families ministry. The ministry floundered under her five-year tenure; Clark is signalling a new approach. The replacement - Stephen Brown - has been working in the health ministry and has an encouraging bio here.
The ministry also gets a new political leader in Mary McNeil. It's a needed fresh start.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Clark success uncertain in coming tough job
Christy Clark was excellent when th e Liberals were in opposition. Likable, quick, with a finely honed sense of how to score points when the NDP government stumbled. She had all the skills needed.
In government, not so much. And that raises doubts about her chances to be an effective Liberal leader and premier.
Clark’s leadership victory certainly confirms an impressive organization. But the fact that it took three ballots to win the support of 50 per cent of party members who voted shows she is hardly the first choice of most Liberals.
That’s emphasized by her lack of support among those politicians who know here best – her caucus colleagues from the old days.
The lack of support has been attributed to Clark’s absence for the last six years, since she decided not to run in 2005.
But it also reflects a lacklustre performance during her tenure in cabinet after the 2001 election. Clark struggled in education. Conflict with the B.C. Teachers Federation was inevitable, given the Liberal agenda. But Clark clashed with school trustees and did not build stong relationships with parent groups. It is difficult to point to any substantial achievements.
Her time as children and families minister was also unproductive.
Clark went from star status in opposition to underperformer in cabinet.
Now she has the top job at a time when the Liberals need to rebuild. The HST was certainly the flashpoint for public disaffection, but it was a symptom for a broader sense that the Liberal government had lost touch with the concerns of British Columbians and – worse - was not particulary worried about it.
Any leader, in any organization, has a matter of months to bring real change.
Clark starts with some advantages. The Liberals have been drifting since the last election – it is hard to think of any clear policy direction or initiatives on health, education or economic development.
That gives her a blank slate to set a new course, to offer programs that address the concerns of British Columbia’s families.
And this month’s placeholder budget gives her fiscal room to put her stamp on government with a mini-budget sometime in the next few months. She has about $1 billion available, for tax cuts or anti-poverty measures or economic development or deficit reduction. She can move beyond talk about families first or other themes to actions.
But Clark also has some problems. Her policy pronouncements during the leadership campaign were neither detailed nor coherent. Shaping them into budgetable progams will not be easy.
And she has to walk a fine line in naming a new cabinet and setting up her own senior staff. Clark doesn’t have a cadre of supportive cabinet ministers and MLAs to draw on. She has to risk putting former rivals in key roles, or perhaps more dangerousoly excluding them. And she has to balance the need to send a message of a new start for the party with the ambitions of the old guard.
Then there is the HST. The Liberals still want the tax approved in the referendum. But pushing that message places Clark back in the Campbell fold, a politically damaging place to be; renouncing it makes her colleagues who have defended the tax look foolish.
The timing of the next election is also an issue. Clark can get into the legislature quickly, assuming Gordon Campbell gives up his safe seat.
But she has also talked about the need for a new mandate from the voters. Clark ruled out a snap vote before the NDP selects a new leader in April, but could consider a vote this fall or next spring.
Underlying all this, there is the B.C. Rail scandal, which will not – and should not - go away.
It was an impressive win for Christy Clark. But the work ahead is difficult and risky and it is not at all clear that she has the required skills and support to get the job done.
Footonote: There has been talk of the challenge facing Clark, a federal Liberal, in holding together the provincial party’s coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. But the risks to the coalition are much broader. Anytime a long-time powerful leader like Campbell leaves, pent-up stresses within the organization can lead to fractures.
In government, not so much. And that raises doubts about her chances to be an effective Liberal leader and premier.
Clark’s leadership victory certainly confirms an impressive organization. But the fact that it took three ballots to win the support of 50 per cent of party members who voted shows she is hardly the first choice of most Liberals.
That’s emphasized by her lack of support among those politicians who know here best – her caucus colleagues from the old days.
The lack of support has been attributed to Clark’s absence for the last six years, since she decided not to run in 2005.
But it also reflects a lacklustre performance during her tenure in cabinet after the 2001 election. Clark struggled in education. Conflict with the B.C. Teachers Federation was inevitable, given the Liberal agenda. But Clark clashed with school trustees and did not build stong relationships with parent groups. It is difficult to point to any substantial achievements.
Her time as children and families minister was also unproductive.
Clark went from star status in opposition to underperformer in cabinet.
Now she has the top job at a time when the Liberals need to rebuild. The HST was certainly the flashpoint for public disaffection, but it was a symptom for a broader sense that the Liberal government had lost touch with the concerns of British Columbians and – worse - was not particulary worried about it.
Any leader, in any organization, has a matter of months to bring real change.
Clark starts with some advantages. The Liberals have been drifting since the last election – it is hard to think of any clear policy direction or initiatives on health, education or economic development.
That gives her a blank slate to set a new course, to offer programs that address the concerns of British Columbia’s families.
And this month’s placeholder budget gives her fiscal room to put her stamp on government with a mini-budget sometime in the next few months. She has about $1 billion available, for tax cuts or anti-poverty measures or economic development or deficit reduction. She can move beyond talk about families first or other themes to actions.
But Clark also has some problems. Her policy pronouncements during the leadership campaign were neither detailed nor coherent. Shaping them into budgetable progams will not be easy.
And she has to walk a fine line in naming a new cabinet and setting up her own senior staff. Clark doesn’t have a cadre of supportive cabinet ministers and MLAs to draw on. She has to risk putting former rivals in key roles, or perhaps more dangerousoly excluding them. And she has to balance the need to send a message of a new start for the party with the ambitions of the old guard.
Then there is the HST. The Liberals still want the tax approved in the referendum. But pushing that message places Clark back in the Campbell fold, a politically damaging place to be; renouncing it makes her colleagues who have defended the tax look foolish.
The timing of the next election is also an issue. Clark can get into the legislature quickly, assuming Gordon Campbell gives up his safe seat.
But she has also talked about the need for a new mandate from the voters. Clark ruled out a snap vote before the NDP selects a new leader in April, but could consider a vote this fall or next spring.
Underlying all this, there is the B.C. Rail scandal, which will not – and should not - go away.
It was an impressive win for Christy Clark. But the work ahead is difficult and risky and it is not at all clear that she has the required skills and support to get the job done.
Footonote: There has been talk of the challenge facing Clark, a federal Liberal, in holding together the provincial party’s coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives. But the risks to the coalition are much broader. Anytime a long-time powerful leader like Campbell leaves, pent-up stresses within the organization can lead to fractures.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Taseko's new plan shows B.C. too easy on mine approval
The Liberal government is looking a little inept in the Taseko Mines affair.
They certainly wouldn’t be a first choice if you needed someone astute to negotiate a good deal on a used car. They’ve proven to be too quick to believe the story about the former owner who only drove it to church on Sundays and too willing to pay the list price without asking any questions.
Since 1995, Taseko has been seeking approval for the open-pit Prosperity Mine 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake. The mine would make the company a lot of money and boost the economy, but there would be major environmental damage and conflict with First Nations’ interests.
The provincial government approved the project a year ago. The environmental damage would be significant, the provincial assessment process determined. A lake would be turned into a big tailings dump, for example.
But the provincial review process balances the damage against the economic benefits. Blair Lekstrom and Barry Penner — then the mines and environment ministers — decided the jobs from the gold and copper mine were worth the destruction.
But the project was big enough, at $800 million, that there also had to be a federal environmental review.
It was found the mine would have “significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations.” Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk.
The Harper government considered the review, decided the damage was too great and said no.
Gordon Campbell was unhappy. So were many people in the region. The mine would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. The north faces several decades of tough times while the forests recover from the pine beetle disaster; it hurts to give up opportunities.
The two governments took different approaches. The federal government focused on the damage done; the province on balancing the costs against the benefits.
They’re both legitimate. Any major resource project — or new road or trail — brings some environmental damage. But the provincial government’s approach calls for competence in reaching the best balance and making sure the company is doing all it can to address concerns.
The government, as it turns out, didn’t do that.
Because this week, Taseko announced a new plan. Copper prices are high, the company said. We can afford to build a tailings pond to hold the mine waste. We don’t need to destroy the lake after all.
But companies rarely make major investment decisions based on fluctuations in commodity prices over the course of a year.
It seems more likely Taseko thought governments would accept the cheaper, more environmentally destructive option of using the lake as a waste dump. That would save it $300 million — good news for shareholders.
The provincial government did accept the lake’s destruction; the federal government didn’t.
And as a result Taseko came up with a better plan.
That’s not too surprising. Taseko forecasts it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40 per cent pre-tax return. It can afford a significant capital investment. (The public, which owns the minerals, will get about $400 million.)
It’s reasonable to trade off the benefits and costs of development in assessing projects. But you need a competent government able to get the best deal for the public.
And in this case, at least, the B.C. government failed to ensure environmental protection which, it turns out, the company was able and willing to provide if pressed.
Enter Christy Clark. She made the mine an issue in her leadership campaign before Taseko unveiled its new approach. She called the federal decision “dumb” and promised to go to Ottawa and fight for a reversal. She backed the plan that would have — needlessly — destroyed the lake. The environmental damage was acceptable given the benefits, Clark said. (Stephen Harper said the project’s rejection was based on the facts and wouldn’t be reversed based on political lobbying. The government will review the new proposal.)
The Prosperity Mine case shows the provincial government — not the federal government — was a poor bargainer, too quick to buy the line that the lake had to go to make the mine viable. Taseko has now acknowledged that’s not true.
Which, of course, raises questions about the government’s skill in handling other projects and industry demands for subsidies and tax and royalty breaks.
They certainly wouldn’t be a first choice if you needed someone astute to negotiate a good deal on a used car. They’ve proven to be too quick to believe the story about the former owner who only drove it to church on Sundays and too willing to pay the list price without asking any questions.
Since 1995, Taseko has been seeking approval for the open-pit Prosperity Mine 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake. The mine would make the company a lot of money and boost the economy, but there would be major environmental damage and conflict with First Nations’ interests.
The provincial government approved the project a year ago. The environmental damage would be significant, the provincial assessment process determined. A lake would be turned into a big tailings dump, for example.
But the provincial review process balances the damage against the economic benefits. Blair Lekstrom and Barry Penner — then the mines and environment ministers — decided the jobs from the gold and copper mine were worth the destruction.
But the project was big enough, at $800 million, that there also had to be a federal environmental review.
It was found the mine would have “significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations.” Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk.
The Harper government considered the review, decided the damage was too great and said no.
Gordon Campbell was unhappy. So were many people in the region. The mine would mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the provincial government. The north faces several decades of tough times while the forests recover from the pine beetle disaster; it hurts to give up opportunities.
The two governments took different approaches. The federal government focused on the damage done; the province on balancing the costs against the benefits.
They’re both legitimate. Any major resource project — or new road or trail — brings some environmental damage. But the provincial government’s approach calls for competence in reaching the best balance and making sure the company is doing all it can to address concerns.
The government, as it turns out, didn’t do that.
Because this week, Taseko announced a new plan. Copper prices are high, the company said. We can afford to build a tailings pond to hold the mine waste. We don’t need to destroy the lake after all.
But companies rarely make major investment decisions based on fluctuations in commodity prices over the course of a year.
It seems more likely Taseko thought governments would accept the cheaper, more environmentally destructive option of using the lake as a waste dump. That would save it $300 million — good news for shareholders.
The provincial government did accept the lake’s destruction; the federal government didn’t.
And as a result Taseko came up with a better plan.
That’s not too surprising. Taseko forecasts it can take $3 billion worth of gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40 per cent pre-tax return. It can afford a significant capital investment. (The public, which owns the minerals, will get about $400 million.)
It’s reasonable to trade off the benefits and costs of development in assessing projects. But you need a competent government able to get the best deal for the public.
And in this case, at least, the B.C. government failed to ensure environmental protection which, it turns out, the company was able and willing to provide if pressed.
Enter Christy Clark. She made the mine an issue in her leadership campaign before Taseko unveiled its new approach. She called the federal decision “dumb” and promised to go to Ottawa and fight for a reversal. She backed the plan that would have — needlessly — destroyed the lake. The environmental damage was acceptable given the benefits, Clark said. (Stephen Harper said the project’s rejection was based on the facts and wouldn’t be reversed based on political lobbying. The government will review the new proposal.)
The Prosperity Mine case shows the provincial government — not the federal government — was a poor bargainer, too quick to buy the line that the lake had to go to make the mine viable. Taseko has now acknowledged that’s not true.
Which, of course, raises questions about the government’s skill in handling other projects and industry demands for subsidies and tax and royalty breaks.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Predicting a Kevin Falcon third-count win
Not me. I have no idea how the Liberal leadership vote will go.
But Bernard Von Schulmann makes a good case for a Falcon-Clark final count, with a Falcon victory here.
But Bernard Von Schulmann makes a good case for a Falcon-Clark final count, with a Falcon victory here.
Winners and losers in years of tax changes
The Liberals have been cast as big tax cutters. But not everyone comes out ahead, based on the budget.
Poor individuals are the big winners; middle-class two-income families are the losers in terms of provincial and municipal tax bites.
Since 2005, the budget documents have included a chart showing the impact of taxes and fees on people in different income brackets and family situations. It’s a limited sample, but useful.
The latest budget shows of the two of the six selected examples are paying more to the province than they did six years ago.
A two-income family with two children and a household income of $90,000 — about average now for that demographic cohort — will pay 10 per cent more than they did six years go. Their “total provincial taxes” will be $9,427 — or $16 more a week than they paid in 2006.
The same family with a $60,000 household income will pay about four per cent more to the province, or about $5 a week.
Income tax is only part of the equation. The $60,000-income household will pay $690 less in income taxes, but more in MSP premiums, the HST, property taxes and the carbon tax, all included in the budget document report.
That’s why talking about income tax cuts in isolation isn’t useful; other fees and taxes are significant. For the $60,000 family, provincial income taxes are about 20 per cent of the total taxes paid to provincial and municipal governments.
The biggest reduction — at least in percentage terms — went to a single person with $25,000 in income. In 2006, someone in that unpleasant situation paid $1,520 in taxes and fees. This year, according to the budget, the provincial and municipal take will be $1,130, a 25-per-cent reduction.
Sounds good. But at $2,100 a month — figure a $13-an-hour full-time job — you’re struggling. And an extra $7.50 a week because of tax and fee changes isn’t life-changing.
An individual with an $80,000 income is paying about four per cent less in provincial and local taxes — about the same cut, in dollars, as the person getting by on $25,000.
The one senior example, a couple with equal pensions that provide $30,000 in income, basically break even. They’re paying the same amount in 2011 they did in 2006.
The real losers, in practical terms, are poor families. The budget looks at a family of four with two working parents and a total income of $30,000.
Those are people on the edge; their children growing up poor. But they paid $2,450 in provincial taxes and fees in 2006 and they will pay $2,100 this year. The reduction is about $7 a week, a dollar a day. That’s not going to change their children’s lives for the better.
The big tax cuts over the past six years have been in federal income taxes. The $90,000 family is paying $8,000 in federal income taxes, $2,500 less than in 2006.
When we spend money on most things, we’re concerned with value for money. We’ll spend more to get a reliable car.
But somehow lower taxes have become an unquestioned “good thing,” without considering the value of paying a little more.
Look at the middle-income family of four. They paid $2,000 in provincial income taxes in 2006, and will pay $1,300 in 2011. But what’s the benefit of $700 in tax cuts if one result is underfunding for public schools that means parents opt for private schools? The $700 in tax savings would be replaced by at least $15,000 in school fees for the two children.
Two observations leap out. The Liberals’ tax-cutting reputation is overblown.
And none of the leadership candidates, for either party, have been brave enough to suggest that government can — and does — provide services that people should be happy to pay for.
Poor individuals are the big winners; middle-class two-income families are the losers in terms of provincial and municipal tax bites.
Since 2005, the budget documents have included a chart showing the impact of taxes and fees on people in different income brackets and family situations. It’s a limited sample, but useful.
The latest budget shows of the two of the six selected examples are paying more to the province than they did six years ago.
A two-income family with two children and a household income of $90,000 — about average now for that demographic cohort — will pay 10 per cent more than they did six years go. Their “total provincial taxes” will be $9,427 — or $16 more a week than they paid in 2006.
The same family with a $60,000 household income will pay about four per cent more to the province, or about $5 a week.
Income tax is only part of the equation. The $60,000-income household will pay $690 less in income taxes, but more in MSP premiums, the HST, property taxes and the carbon tax, all included in the budget document report.
That’s why talking about income tax cuts in isolation isn’t useful; other fees and taxes are significant. For the $60,000 family, provincial income taxes are about 20 per cent of the total taxes paid to provincial and municipal governments.
The biggest reduction — at least in percentage terms — went to a single person with $25,000 in income. In 2006, someone in that unpleasant situation paid $1,520 in taxes and fees. This year, according to the budget, the provincial and municipal take will be $1,130, a 25-per-cent reduction.
Sounds good. But at $2,100 a month — figure a $13-an-hour full-time job — you’re struggling. And an extra $7.50 a week because of tax and fee changes isn’t life-changing.
An individual with an $80,000 income is paying about four per cent less in provincial and local taxes — about the same cut, in dollars, as the person getting by on $25,000.
The one senior example, a couple with equal pensions that provide $30,000 in income, basically break even. They’re paying the same amount in 2011 they did in 2006.
The real losers, in practical terms, are poor families. The budget looks at a family of four with two working parents and a total income of $30,000.
Those are people on the edge; their children growing up poor. But they paid $2,450 in provincial taxes and fees in 2006 and they will pay $2,100 this year. The reduction is about $7 a week, a dollar a day. That’s not going to change their children’s lives for the better.
The big tax cuts over the past six years have been in federal income taxes. The $90,000 family is paying $8,000 in federal income taxes, $2,500 less than in 2006.
When we spend money on most things, we’re concerned with value for money. We’ll spend more to get a reliable car.
But somehow lower taxes have become an unquestioned “good thing,” without considering the value of paying a little more.
Look at the middle-income family of four. They paid $2,000 in provincial income taxes in 2006, and will pay $1,300 in 2011. But what’s the benefit of $700 in tax cuts if one result is underfunding for public schools that means parents opt for private schools? The $700 in tax savings would be replaced by at least $15,000 in school fees for the two children.
Two observations leap out. The Liberals’ tax-cutting reputation is overblown.
And none of the leadership candidates, for either party, have been brave enough to suggest that government can — and does — provide services that people should be happy to pay for.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Progress Board reports show Liberal record barely average
By the numbers, the Liberal decade is looking distinctly average.
Not my numbers, but the report card from the B.C. Progress Board, established by Premier Gordon Campbell in 2002 to report independently on the government’s performance using quantifiable measurements.
Based on 21 key indicators set up by that board — initially chaired by David Emerson — it’s been a disappointing decade.
The board compares B.C. with other provinces. The goal, it said in the first report, was to see this province first or second in Canada in key measurements.
It hasn’t happened. In fact, the province has slid backward in more categories than it has improved.
B.C. ranks fourth in economic output for capita, the same spot it was in the board’s first report in 2002. It’s second in real average hourly wage, also unchanged from the NDP years. (The data was generally two years old.)
Employment has improved — up from fifth to fourth in the percentage of adults with jobs.
But in personal income, B.C. has fallen from third to fourth. In productivity — a key measure — it has fallen from fifth to seventh among provinces. Exports per capita have fallen from seventh to ninth.
For a government that touted its commitment to a stronger economy, it’s a shoddy performance.
On balance, the economic measurements show a slight decline from the final NDP years.
The record is equally bleak on management of the government’s finances, according to the Progress Board. The 2002 report, using the most recent numbers available, found B.C. had the second lowest level of taxpayer-supported debt in the country. The 2010 report found it has slipped one place, to third lowest — and that’s before the latest budget. (That’s not necessarily bad, if the debt is prudently undertaken and will pay future dividends.)
B.C. had the second-lowest tax rate for big earners back then; now it has the third lowest.
The province has moved from seventh to fifth in per-capita tax burden, a positive from the board’s perspective. But the 2002 report found B.C. had the third-lowest deficit, in relation to GDP, among provinces. The 2010 report says B.C. has fallen to fifth.
The province is doing better in terms of graduating people from high school and research and development spending. B.C. ranked sixth for that kind of investment in the 2002 report; now it’s third. Investment in fixed assets has increased, and the province has jumped from eighth to third among provinces for in-migration. People are moving here.
But university completion is unchanged from a decade ago and the province has gone backward in terms of developing science, engineering and tech workforces.
Sorry about all the numbers. Two things should stand out. First, on the board’s economy, innovation and education indicators, the province improved in six measures, went backward on seven and stayed the same on three.
It is a middling performance. A little worse than other provinces, but basically simply average.
Second, that’s not what the Progress Board wanted. The first report said that by 2010 B.C. should be first or second in expanding GDP per capita, personal income and jobs. It’s fourth, as it was when the Liberals took office.
The Progress Board looked at social and health measurements too. B.C. improved by two measures — cancer mortality and crime. We’re best in the country for cancer survival rates; the crime improvement is a less impressive move, from tenth to eighth.
But B.C. went backward on three other social and health measures. It has fallen from the sixth-worst province for poverty to last. Infant health, as measured by low birth weight, has gone from second to fifth place.
And in greenhouse gas emissions per person, supposedly a priority, B.C. has gone from third best to fourth best.
Overall, it’s a profoundly average record. For all the brave promises and enthusiastic spin, the Campbell government did no better — maybe slightly worse — than other provinces, based on its own independent peformance review.
There’s no disgrace in being average. But there’s not much to celebrate, either.
And it’s interesting that none of the Liberal leadership candidates have said they are aiming higher.
Not my numbers, but the report card from the B.C. Progress Board, established by Premier Gordon Campbell in 2002 to report independently on the government’s performance using quantifiable measurements.
Based on 21 key indicators set up by that board — initially chaired by David Emerson — it’s been a disappointing decade.
The board compares B.C. with other provinces. The goal, it said in the first report, was to see this province first or second in Canada in key measurements.
It hasn’t happened. In fact, the province has slid backward in more categories than it has improved.
B.C. ranks fourth in economic output for capita, the same spot it was in the board’s first report in 2002. It’s second in real average hourly wage, also unchanged from the NDP years. (The data was generally two years old.)
Employment has improved — up from fifth to fourth in the percentage of adults with jobs.
But in personal income, B.C. has fallen from third to fourth. In productivity — a key measure — it has fallen from fifth to seventh among provinces. Exports per capita have fallen from seventh to ninth.
For a government that touted its commitment to a stronger economy, it’s a shoddy performance.
On balance, the economic measurements show a slight decline from the final NDP years.
The record is equally bleak on management of the government’s finances, according to the Progress Board. The 2002 report, using the most recent numbers available, found B.C. had the second lowest level of taxpayer-supported debt in the country. The 2010 report found it has slipped one place, to third lowest — and that’s before the latest budget. (That’s not necessarily bad, if the debt is prudently undertaken and will pay future dividends.)
B.C. had the second-lowest tax rate for big earners back then; now it has the third lowest.
The province has moved from seventh to fifth in per-capita tax burden, a positive from the board’s perspective. But the 2002 report found B.C. had the third-lowest deficit, in relation to GDP, among provinces. The 2010 report says B.C. has fallen to fifth.
The province is doing better in terms of graduating people from high school and research and development spending. B.C. ranked sixth for that kind of investment in the 2002 report; now it’s third. Investment in fixed assets has increased, and the province has jumped from eighth to third among provinces for in-migration. People are moving here.
But university completion is unchanged from a decade ago and the province has gone backward in terms of developing science, engineering and tech workforces.
Sorry about all the numbers. Two things should stand out. First, on the board’s economy, innovation and education indicators, the province improved in six measures, went backward on seven and stayed the same on three.
It is a middling performance. A little worse than other provinces, but basically simply average.
Second, that’s not what the Progress Board wanted. The first report said that by 2010 B.C. should be first or second in expanding GDP per capita, personal income and jobs. It’s fourth, as it was when the Liberals took office.
The Progress Board looked at social and health measurements too. B.C. improved by two measures — cancer mortality and crime. We’re best in the country for cancer survival rates; the crime improvement is a less impressive move, from tenth to eighth.
But B.C. went backward on three other social and health measures. It has fallen from the sixth-worst province for poverty to last. Infant health, as measured by low birth weight, has gone from second to fifth place.
And in greenhouse gas emissions per person, supposedly a priority, B.C. has gone from third best to fourth best.
Overall, it’s a profoundly average record. For all the brave promises and enthusiastic spin, the Campbell government did no better — maybe slightly worse — than other provinces, based on its own independent peformance review.
There’s no disgrace in being average. But there’s not much to celebrate, either.
And it’s interesting that none of the Liberal leadership candidates have said they are aiming higher.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Budget shows a drifting government
The weirdest moment in this year's budget lockup came when Finance Minister Colin Hansen was asked about the 15-per-cent income tax cut Premier Gordon Campbell proposed - and then withdrew - in the fall.
Didn't it now seem reckless to have proposed knocking $800 million off revenues when the province's debt will hit $60 billion by 2013, he was asked?
No, Hansen said. There were lots of savings the government could have made in ministry budgets - cutting things like travel - to offset the tax reduction.
So, why didn't it? Why wouldn't a cost-cutting government grab those savings anyway?
Basically, the budget is like one of those fake streets they build to shoot cowboy movies. Look around the back, and there is not much there.
The deficit is projected at $1.3 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, and is to shrink in the next two years before a return to balanced budgets in 2013.
Spending will increase for health - up 6.2 per cent in the coming year and about three per cent in each of the next two.
But most ministries will see their budgets cut in the coming year and frozen for the two following years.
Revenues are forecast to increase, with the HST and personal income tax leading the way.
But none of the numbers can be relied on too heavily.
The main aim in drafting the budget was to create a lot of room for the new premier.
So there is $950 million - about the same as the budget for law enforcement, jails and the courts - in various contingency funds in next year's budget. That's money the new premier can use to expand programs, cut taxes or bring in a balanced budget right away.
There are the easy cuts, according to Hansen, in ministry budgets that could deliver a lot more swag for the new leader to spend.
And it's likely revenues have been underestimated, as they were in the past year, given still more spending.
But while there was a lot of emphasis on creating political room for the new premier, there wasn't much on addressing the needs of British Columbians today.
The ministry of children and families, despite all its problems, faces a three-year funding freeze. The income assistance budget, despite rates that leave thousands of people with disabilities living in poverty, is also frozen.
There's no additional investment in universities or science, even though the government has made much of the need for innovation and a skilled workforce.
There was a lot of focus on debt in the budget lockup. The string of deficits, big B.C. Hydro capital spending plans and a huge infrastructure spending spree in the Lower Mainland - transit and roads and a new stadium roof and convention centre - are adding billions to the province's debt.
That's not necessarily bad. The infrastructure spending created jobs and the alternative to running deficits would have been deep spending cuts during the recession.
But the province's total debt will climb from $38 billion in 2008 to $60 billion in 2013. That's almost $13,000 per person. Interest payments will reach $2.9 billion a year by 2013; more if interest rates spike.
Debt is still at reasonable levels compared to the province's total economy. But the growth is extraordinary and while all British Columbians will share the obligation, it's unclear whether all will benefit from the spending.
The most striking thing about the budget was what was missing. Even with a leadership change, you would expect a mature government to have some policy goals and priorities that it would continue to fund over the next three years.
That was simply absent from a budget that looked more like a speadsheet exercise than an actual plan.
And so far, none of the Liberal leadership candidates have offered a vision or policy program that would fill the vacuum.
Footnote: The budget also faces a rewrite if voters reject the HST in the coming referendum. Hansen was vague about plans or costs, but hinted that unravelling the HST and returning to the PST could take longer than many people anticipate.
Didn't it now seem reckless to have proposed knocking $800 million off revenues when the province's debt will hit $60 billion by 2013, he was asked?
No, Hansen said. There were lots of savings the government could have made in ministry budgets - cutting things like travel - to offset the tax reduction.
So, why didn't it? Why wouldn't a cost-cutting government grab those savings anyway?
Basically, the budget is like one of those fake streets they build to shoot cowboy movies. Look around the back, and there is not much there.
The deficit is projected at $1.3 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, and is to shrink in the next two years before a return to balanced budgets in 2013.
Spending will increase for health - up 6.2 per cent in the coming year and about three per cent in each of the next two.
But most ministries will see their budgets cut in the coming year and frozen for the two following years.
Revenues are forecast to increase, with the HST and personal income tax leading the way.
But none of the numbers can be relied on too heavily.
The main aim in drafting the budget was to create a lot of room for the new premier.
So there is $950 million - about the same as the budget for law enforcement, jails and the courts - in various contingency funds in next year's budget. That's money the new premier can use to expand programs, cut taxes or bring in a balanced budget right away.
There are the easy cuts, according to Hansen, in ministry budgets that could deliver a lot more swag for the new leader to spend.
And it's likely revenues have been underestimated, as they were in the past year, given still more spending.
But while there was a lot of emphasis on creating political room for the new premier, there wasn't much on addressing the needs of British Columbians today.
The ministry of children and families, despite all its problems, faces a three-year funding freeze. The income assistance budget, despite rates that leave thousands of people with disabilities living in poverty, is also frozen.
There's no additional investment in universities or science, even though the government has made much of the need for innovation and a skilled workforce.
There was a lot of focus on debt in the budget lockup. The string of deficits, big B.C. Hydro capital spending plans and a huge infrastructure spending spree in the Lower Mainland - transit and roads and a new stadium roof and convention centre - are adding billions to the province's debt.
That's not necessarily bad. The infrastructure spending created jobs and the alternative to running deficits would have been deep spending cuts during the recession.
But the province's total debt will climb from $38 billion in 2008 to $60 billion in 2013. That's almost $13,000 per person. Interest payments will reach $2.9 billion a year by 2013; more if interest rates spike.
Debt is still at reasonable levels compared to the province's total economy. But the growth is extraordinary and while all British Columbians will share the obligation, it's unclear whether all will benefit from the spending.
The most striking thing about the budget was what was missing. Even with a leadership change, you would expect a mature government to have some policy goals and priorities that it would continue to fund over the next three years.
That was simply absent from a budget that looked more like a speadsheet exercise than an actual plan.
And so far, none of the Liberal leadership candidates have offered a vision or policy program that would fill the vacuum.
Footnote: The budget also faces a rewrite if voters reject the HST in the coming referendum. Hansen was vague about plans or costs, but hinted that unravelling the HST and returning to the PST could take longer than many people anticipate.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The FSA tests and Bountiful
Chris Selley suggests the discussion of good FSA tests from Bountiful schools misses the point.
Worth reading here.
Worth reading here.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
How serious are the Liberals about fighting membership abuses?
Last fall, the acting chief electoral officer took action over evidence false filings might have tainted the recall process, as this story indicates.
Anti-HST group claims Elections BC is derailing recall effort
JUSTINE HUNTER
VICTORIA— Published Monday, Nov. 08, 2010 offence
The top organizer of the Fight HST campaign says Elections BC is using intimidation tactics to derail recall efforts, after the non-partisan agency revealed it has asked the RCMP to investigate the conduct of seven canvassers involved in the group’s anti-tax petition.
But the Liberal party and the Kevin Falcon campaign staff haven’t shown any similar desire to discover how Kamloops Blazer junior hockey players - possibly the entire team - were signed up as party members without their knowledge or consent.
Who signed them up? Were signatures forged? How many other party members were signed up in the same way? Has the organizer been fired by the Falcon campaign?
And why hasn’t the party, if it is concerned about the integrity of the process, turned the information over to police?
It is a criminal offence to utter forged documents - that is to use or attempt to cause the use of a document known to be false. It's also against the law to "present a false fact with the fraudulent intent to induce a person to act on the misrepresentation." Like, possibly, claiming a 17-year-old junior hockey player has filled out and signed a membership form, and paid the fee, when he hasn't.
It’s tough to believe the party is serious about enforcing the rules if there are no consequences for violations, beyond the cancellation of the memberships if offenders are caught.
And the response of the Falcon campaign and the party to the story below suggests that's the case.
Blazers signed up as Liberals - without their knowledge
By Christopher Foulds - Kamloops This Week
February 08
Kamloops Blazers players were signed up to B.C. Liberal Party memberships by a supporter of leadership candidate Kevin Falcon.
The problem is, none of the players were aware of their membership in the party.
"We learned yesterday (Feb. 7) that one of our supporters had signed up several members of the Kamloops Blazers hockey team as members of the B.C. Liberal Party without their knowledge," Falcon's campaign manager Norman Stowe said.
"On learning the details, we immediately contacted party headquarters to advise them. We told them we believe these memberships are not valid and should be removed from the party membership list."
Stowe told KTW someone in the Blazers' organization signed up the players, though he did not know if the memberships were accompanied by the $5 youth membership fee.
Tom Gaglardi, majority owner of the Western Hockey League club, is a supporter of Falcon's leadership bid.
Stowe said the Falcon campaign learned of the dubious sign-ups when someone in Kamloops contacted the campaign.
"I'm only guessing, but it could have been the whole team," Stowe said when asked how many players had been made instant Grits.
For their part, the Kamloops Blazers issued a statement from vice-president and general manager Craig Bonner, which reads in full:
“I have been informed that applications for membership to the B.C. Liberal Party by our players were handled incorrectly. I take full responsibility for this communication error and have asked the B.C. Liberal Party to withdraw the subject applications for membership.”
Anti-HST group claims Elections BC is derailing recall effort
JUSTINE HUNTER
VICTORIA— Published Monday, Nov. 08, 2010 offence
The top organizer of the Fight HST campaign says Elections BC is using intimidation tactics to derail recall efforts, after the non-partisan agency revealed it has asked the RCMP to investigate the conduct of seven canvassers involved in the group’s anti-tax petition.
But the Liberal party and the Kevin Falcon campaign staff haven’t shown any similar desire to discover how Kamloops Blazer junior hockey players - possibly the entire team - were signed up as party members without their knowledge or consent.
Who signed them up? Were signatures forged? How many other party members were signed up in the same way? Has the organizer been fired by the Falcon campaign?
And why hasn’t the party, if it is concerned about the integrity of the process, turned the information over to police?
It is a criminal offence to utter forged documents - that is to use or attempt to cause the use of a document known to be false. It's also against the law to "present a false fact with the fraudulent intent to induce a person to act on the misrepresentation." Like, possibly, claiming a 17-year-old junior hockey player has filled out and signed a membership form, and paid the fee, when he hasn't.
It’s tough to believe the party is serious about enforcing the rules if there are no consequences for violations, beyond the cancellation of the memberships if offenders are caught.
And the response of the Falcon campaign and the party to the story below suggests that's the case.
Blazers signed up as Liberals - without their knowledge
By Christopher Foulds - Kamloops This Week
February 08
Kamloops Blazers players were signed up to B.C. Liberal Party memberships by a supporter of leadership candidate Kevin Falcon.
The problem is, none of the players were aware of their membership in the party.
"We learned yesterday (Feb. 7) that one of our supporters had signed up several members of the Kamloops Blazers hockey team as members of the B.C. Liberal Party without their knowledge," Falcon's campaign manager Norman Stowe said.
"On learning the details, we immediately contacted party headquarters to advise them. We told them we believe these memberships are not valid and should be removed from the party membership list."
Stowe told KTW someone in the Blazers' organization signed up the players, though he did not know if the memberships were accompanied by the $5 youth membership fee.
Tom Gaglardi, majority owner of the Western Hockey League club, is a supporter of Falcon's leadership bid.
Stowe said the Falcon campaign learned of the dubious sign-ups when someone in Kamloops contacted the campaign.
"I'm only guessing, but it could have been the whole team," Stowe said when asked how many players had been made instant Grits.
For their part, the Kamloops Blazers issued a statement from vice-president and general manager Craig Bonner, which reads in full:
“I have been informed that applications for membership to the B.C. Liberal Party by our players were handled incorrectly. I take full responsibility for this communication error and have asked the B.C. Liberal Party to withdraw the subject applications for membership.”
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.
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.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Another look at the Insite
Vancouver's safe injection site, Insite, gets a close look in the New York Times.
Friday, February 04, 2011
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
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.
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.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
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).
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 31, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
