Flaherty gives Clark a chance to avoid deep cuts to balance budget in short term

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty offered Christy Clark a big break this week, if she’s prepared to grab it.
Flaherty conceded the Conservatives can’t deliver on their promise to balance the federal budget by the 2014 fiscal year.
It’s more likely to take until 2016, he said, although the budget could be balanced a year earlier if the Harper government finds some $4 billion in annual spending to cut.
That revised plan is good news for Canadians. The pledge to end deficits by 2014, despite the continuing economic slowdown, was always dubious. Clinging to it would have meant damaging spending cuts or tax increases at a time when the economy is already faltering.
But Clark and the B.C. government are still committed to returning to surpluses by the 2013/14 fiscal year — a year earlier than the original federal plan, and perhaps two years ahead of Flaherty’s revised projection.
The provincial government has no credible plan to get there. The last budget, in February, was a stopgap. Gordon Campbell had been forced out. The Liberals didn’t have a leader.
So the budget plugged in some numbers to let the Liberals claim there was a plan to eliminate the deficit, even though they made no real sense.
The budget increased health spending 6.2 per cent this year. But somehow, miraculously, the government proposes to cut that to three per cent increases in each of the next two years.
Most ministries — 13 of the 16 — are dealing with budget cuts this year, and freezes for the next two years.
That’s not a realistic plan, even with a continuing wage freeze.
The government faces increasing costs across the board, as well as a number of specific, costly pressure. Community Living B.C. needs an extra $65 million a year. The federal government’s “tough-on-crime” legislation will cost hundreds of millions a year in court and jail costs. Education Minister George Abbott is promising new programs in schools.
The budget was also based on the continued higher tax revenue from the HST, which voters tossed out in the referendum.
In the September budget update, after the first three months, of the fiscal year, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon acknowledged that the plan no longer worked. The budget projected — optimistically — a surplus of $152 million in 2013/14.
Falcon said that reworking the numbers without the HST produced a projected deficit of $610 million for the same year.
If the government sticks to its plan — and its budget law — it would have to find $458 million in cuts, or revenue increases, to eke out a barely balanced budget, he said.
And cuts, remember, would be to budgets that are already inadequate to maintain core services.
That’s not the only problem. The government was reasonably conservative in its revenue forecasts, which might have created the potential for extra money. But the world economic situation has worsened. U.S. markets for B.C. exports remain weak, the growth in exports to Asia has slowed significantly and Europe is in disarray.
Sticking to the budget plan would require deep cuts to already underfunded ministries, or tax increases. Either would damage the economy. The prudent course would be to accept that the global economic problems justify a deficits for a few more years.
The timing makes this all tricky. The first surplus budget is supposed to be introduced in February 2013, three months before the next election. Many voters will likely recall the 2009 pre-election budget, and the forecast $495-million deficit that ballooned to $1.8 billion. The NDP and Conservatives will argue that any budget forecasts from the Liberals aren’t to be trusted.
And Clark has a problem in provincial Conservative leader John Cummins. His goal is to outflank the Liberals on the right, and he’ll be on the attack if Clark decides to abandon the current plan to balance the budget.
Flaherty’s announcement this week could help the Liberals deal with those attacks. If the Harper Conservatives consider it prudent to take more time to balanced budgets, why shouldn’t the B.C. Liberals take the same course?
Footnote: If the government is going to abandon the current plan to eliminate the deficit by 2013, they will likely be an indication later this month when Falcon presents the second quarter update on the first six months of the current fiscal year.

Former CLBC chair confirms, belatedly, underfunding

The Vancouver Sun had an odd letter to the editor from a former chair of Community Living BC today. (Not the current chair, as the published version indicated.)
Lois Hollstedt was the first chair of the board and served until 2010. She argues in the letter that the Crown corporation is underfunded - undoubtedly true.
And that more problems are ahead as the lack of funding, in the face of growing demand, creates a continuing crisis - also undoubtedly true.
But where was Hollstedt as the crisis developed?
Last year, as CLBC chair, she wrote the introduction to the corporation's annual report and concluded with this:
"Finally, as we continue to serve more and more people, our budget has expanded to meet demand," Hollstedt wrote. "It has been my privilege to be involved in these changes and I want to thank everyone for their roles in bringing CLBC into reality and for continuing to work toward our vision."
That was not true. The budget had not expanded to meet demand, as she now confirms. An honest and accurate report from the board would have raised the issues Hollstedt sets out in the letter to the editor much earlier.
So why did she say the opposite? Is the board representing the people CLBC was created to serve, or acting in the government's interest?
My intent is not to single out Hollstedt. But there has been a striking co-option of advocates, and the results have been damaging.

The published letter is below:

CLBC board chair hopes publicity results in money

BY LOIS HOLLSTEDT

Re: Community Living seeks to restore core values, Oct. 29

While your story presented a good and fair overview of CLBC's creation, it did not discuss the lack of money provided by government to fully fund the mission it gave to the organization.

Simply, the growth in people asking for and needing service has been greater than the money provided.

Demand has grown from four to six per cent a year, inflation is two to three per cent a year, and the money has not kept pace.

The 2010/11 Annual Report (page 26) shows over five years operating money grew 9.4 per cent ($622 million to $681 million) while adults served grew 29.6 per cent (10,400 to 13,481).

2011-12 budgets increased 0.79 per cent and the $8 million announced last month lifts it to a 1.2-per-cent increase for this year.

Your story indicates 2,800 people are on the wait-list. Without substantial new resources, people will not get the services they need, and government was told by me and by the CEO that this would happen.

In 2010-11 the equivalent of $39 million in service changes were redirected to new people, and without this difficult work by a dedicated staff across B.C. the problem would be so much worse.

Let us hope the publicity from this continuing story will result in significant new money for more people to have their needs met.

Lois Hollstedt CLBC Board Chair

A safe, useful way to keep the Occupy movement evolving

In Vancouver and Victoria, it's clear the cities are going to shift the Occupy campers from their current venues.
And it's equally clear some of the people involved are going to be inclined to resist.
Before people start getting arrested, or hurt, and before anything ugly that distracts from the issues that prompted the whole effort in the first place, all involved - city and occupiers - should consider the proposals of Mr. Beer and Hockey here.
He has spent time in the Occupy Vancouver camp, and was there when the young woman died this weekend. As a "a peaceful, gradualist, Godwinian Anarchist" he has a proposal worth serious consideration. (And read more on his blog when you're there, if you're not familiar with it. He's a heck of a writer and an astute observer.)

Poll delivers bad news to Clark and Liberals

Christy Clark went all tough on crime this week, proudly enrolling in Stephen Harper’s “lock-em-up” camp. Strange for a federal Liberal, who mostly think the crime measures — mandatory minimum sentences and the like — are expensive, ineffective political pandering.
A day later, a poll showed why.
The New Democrats have the kind of support that would see them elected an 2013, the Angus Reid poll found.
And a big factor is John Cummins and the B.C. Conservatives, a rather serious problem for the Liberals.
The poll is bad news for Clark. It found 40 per cent of voters say they would vote for the NDP in the next election. The Liberals are at 31 per cent, a serious gap.
The Greens are at eight per cent support, in their typical range.
But the Conservatives are at 18 per cent, unprecedented heights for a party that has been firmly, even proudly, on the political fringes for more than three decades.
If the Conservatives hold that support, or anything close to it, the centre-right vote will be split and the Liberals will lose a lot of seats.
Of course, people often say they support parties with limited chances of success between elections, before returning to the fold when it matters.
But several things might make this different, with Cummins the main one. He’s an experienced, skilled campaigner, as shown by his six successful campaigns to be an MP under Reform, Alliance and Conservative banners. He has attracted others with experience to the party and knows how to do the basic stuff that other fledgling political efforts, like the Greens, tend to mess up. Cummins has been quick off the mark and effective in issuing news releases critiquing the Clark government, for example.
And Cummins has a chance, with some credible candidates, to make a pitch to voters who aren’t happy with either of thetwo main parties, a significant group these days.
The poll looked at how votes were shifting and found some interesting changes.
The Liberals have lost the support of about one-third of the people who voted for them in 2009, according the other poll results. About two-thirds of the defectors have shifted their support to the Conservatives, but more than one in four former Liberal voters now support the NDP.
But the New Democrats have also lost the support of 16 per cent of their former supporters — and half of those people have jumped to the Conservatives.
The poll isn’t all bad news for the Liberals. The poll found 25 per cent of those surveyed think Clark would make the best premier, compared to 19 per cent who pick Adrian Dix. She was judged significantly better-suited to deal with the economy, which was the top issue identified.
However she and Dix were tied in their approval ratings in their current jobs.
And, significantly, 12 per cent of respondents said their opinion of Clark had improved in the past three months, while 39 per cent said it had worsened. Dix fared better, with 18 per cent saying they were more impressed with him based on the last three months, while 17 per cent said their opinion had worsened.
Clark faced a formidable challenge in convincing voters that her Liberal government would be different than the Gordon Campbell version. The worsening poll results suggest she’s not succeeding.
And now she has to try to turn back the Conservative surge, which will also be difficult. Clark could push the Liberals to the right, as she did with her tough on crime talk, but that risks alienating more moderate voters.
The Liberals can argue, as they did this week, that voting Conservative would result in an NDP government. That, however, sounds both arrogant and uninspiring. “Vote for us, in spite of what we’ve done” is a weak slogan.
The election is stlill 18 months away. But Clark and the Liberals have a lot of work ahead of them.
Footnote: The poll was conducted Oct. 31 and Nov. 31 and based on an online sample of 803 people. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent.

More evidence independent CLBC review needed

Chelsea McGarry is 18. The young Quesnel woman has Down syndrome, autism, early onset Alzheimer’s, diabetes and celiac disease.
It’s been quite a struggle. But Chelsea had been receiving enough supports and service to allow her mum, Shelley, to care for her at home.
Until now. Because when Chelsea turns 19 in December, those supports get chopped and her file transfers to Community Living B.C.
And that problem-plagued Crown corporation, struggling with underfunding, refused to approve a care plan.
Chelsea’s mother has been battling for support. Children’s Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has advocated for her, and so has her MLA, Bob Simpson.
But only when Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines reported on the nightmare did CLBC agree to new meetings to resolve the issues, and the outcome of those is far from clear.
It’s yet another example of how vulnerable are, how fearful they are of making waves in case they face reprisals, and how badly an independent review of the troubled agency is needed.
CLBC was set up in 2005 to provide support and services to adults with developmental disabilities — mental handicaps — and their families. Many have other emotional, mental and physical problems that complicate their lives.
But every year since then, the amount of money available per client has been cut. Services have been reduced and the approximately 550 teens who “age out” and shift to CLBC supports face massive struggles to maintain the quality of their lives.
The corporation has pushed people from staffed group homes, sometimes after years of residence, into homeshares, a a cheaper alternative. CLBC has argued that some clients do better in the new settings.
But Kines uncovered a review of one of the companies managing homeshare services in the Lower Mainland. The consultants report, done for CLBC, was shocking. The consultant could find no evidence basic background checks had been done on some of those providing homeshares to vulnerable adults. There was a lack of training and poor oversight. Homeshare providers weren’t given the information they needed on client’s behavioural and health problems, leading to potentially dangerous incidents and a series of “crisis situations.”
The company, which manages 44 homeshare contracts, was stretched too thinly to properly monitor care. Its manager noted the rush to close group homes — almost 10 per cent have been closed — created similar pressures across the province.
It’s far from the only example of problems.
CLBC refused for months to provide information on wait lists, before revealing that 2,089 people — about one in six clients — receiving some services were waiting for supports to meet identified needs. Another 751 people were getting no services and waiting for help and support. It’s still not know how long the waits last.
The government was forced to come up with an extra $6 million in September because inadequate funding had left clients facing urgent threats to their health and safety, an indication of a basic planning and budgeting failure.
And the government effectively acknowledged the problems, recently firing the CEO of Community Living BC and the minister responsible, Harry Bloy. (The corporation has reported to four different ministers in the last year.)
New Social Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux has promised internal reviews and a greater focus on responding to families’ concerns.
That’s not good enough. CLBC has already betrayed families’ trust by repeatedly denying that people were being forced from group homes before finally admitting that was simply untrue.
And the attempts to deal with individual cases when they capture media attention themselves raises more concerns.
What of the people with developmental disabilities without advocates — those whose parents are dead, or families estranged? There is no one to speak for them, and many can’t do it themselves.
The government has acknowledged its failures in this important are. And independent review, with input from families and advocates, and a public report are needed to chart a way out of this crisis.
Footnote: The Representative for Children and Youth only has authority to investigate problems and advocate for individuals until they turn 19. Turpel-Lafond has suggested that be raised — perhaps to 24 — in recognition that adulthood is instantly attained on the 19th birthday. That too would be a useful change.

We too walk past those who need our help

Two-year-old Wang Yue wanders into a Guangdong street and is knocked down by a van that speeds on. Eighteen people pass here as she lies in the street without stopping to help. She cries, laying in her own blood. At last, a peasant woman picks her up off the street. She died Friday.
The horrible scene, captured on closed-circuit TV and seen by millions, has sparked a global discussion. Why are people in today’s China so indifferent to a child in pain, crying, bloody, in the street? How can they turn away from suffering? Has the rush for economic success drained people of humanity?
Last week in B.C., John Gaffney finally got out of hospital, after five months. He wasn’t sick. Community Living B.C. didn’t want to pay for a group home for Gaffney, who is 46 and has Down syndrome and dementia. His parents didn’t think he would be safe in the home share CLBC proposed. So he stayed in hospital. (That wouldn’t happen to someone without a disability.)
Gaffney is a symbol. It’s clear that CLBC has lost its way. The focus has shifted from supporting adults with mental handicaps in living full lives, to dealing with “urgent health and safety needs,” as the corporation said in seeking more funding. The government has shuffled ministers, fired the CEO and offered a series of changing stories about what’s going on.
But until last week, no one in government acknowledged the people being forced from group homes they had shared for years, or the clients who lost every support when they turned 19.
They walked around those people.
With good excuses, I’m sure. Deficits and finite resources and other priorities. Some of the people who walked and rode past Wang Yue probably had good excuses too.
Then Liberal MLAs Randy Hawes and John Van Dongen joined families and advocates and the opposition in saying the government was failing people who really needed support. But the indifference to their plight lasted at least a year, as threats to health and safety and quality of life grew.
Last week in B.C., the missing women’s inquiry was getting underway in Vancouver. The first witnesses were testifying about how Robert Pickton could kill women for years without being apprehended.
There are lots of reasons. But fundamentally, Pickton and many others could prey on the women because we — governments, police and most of us — choose to make it easy. We walked around them, as people in that Guangdong market walked around Wang Yue’s broken body.
Consider the evidence in just the first few days of inquiry. A majority of Vancouver street-level sex trade workers reported suffering beatings, rape and other violence, testified Kate Shannon, a public health researcher and a professor in the faculty of medicine at the University of B.C. Most never reported the attacks to police, because if they did officers would sometimes pick up them late at night, detain them and then drop off in some distant part of the city to find their own way home. Others feared harassment, arrest or theft by officers.
The desire to avoid police also meant workers took greater risks, like getting into a car without assessing the danger or ignoring lists of dangerous potential clients.
John Lowman, a Simon Fraser University criminology professor who researches prostitution, said public and police pressure forced sex workers into darker and more dangerous neighbourhoods, where they were easier prey.
Catherine Astin, a nurse who worked on the Downtown Eastside, said she and colleagues noticed women were disappearing. But they didn’t go to the police.
Police and frontline workers shouldn’t be singled out.
Prostitution is legal in Canada. But the government, on our behalf, has passed laws that increase the danger for workers. Communication for the purposes of prostitution is illegal, forcing women into the shadows and preventing them from screening clients.
Living off the avails of prostitution is illegal, so women cannot band together in a safe location and hire their own security.
Everyone knew those laws, and the way they were being selectively enforced, put women at risk, led to them being beaten and killed. No one cared enough to do anything about it. Lowman testified predators found it easy to justify violence against people that society had signalled were disposable.
Maybe we wouldn’t walk past a child lying in the street. But we’re certainly prepared to turn away from others whose suffering is just as real.

Cover-up fears as taxpayers pay $30 million to mining company

The provincial government’s $30-million payout to Boss Power Corp. stinks.
Taxpayers are paying compensation to the company because the government bungled its ban on uranium mining
The last-minute settlement suggests the government paid a premium so damaging evidence wouldn’t be heard in court.
And there is every reason to believe politicians ordered government managers to break the law and penalized a manager who tried to do the right thing.
Boss Power had the rights to the Blizzard claim, a uranium deposit about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. The company could expect fierce opposition to any mine, but a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining lapsed in 1987. The company planned to press on with the project.
In 2007, Kevin Krueger, then the junior minister mines, confirmed the government had no policy or regulations prohibiting uranium development, although he acknowledged public opposition.
In 2008, that changed. The government issued a news released headlined “Government confirms position on uranium development.”
It set out a new approach. Uranium mining wasn’t part of the province’s plans, Krueger said.
Boss Power sued. The company had staked its claim, spent money on developing the deposits and said it had been encouraged by the government.
The ban took away its rights and the government should pay compensation, the company said.
The government’s statement of defence was revealing. It said the ban only applied to new projects. Boss was free to go ahead.
But 10 months later, the government brought a blanket, retroactive ban. The lawsuit went ahead.
Meanwhile, the government, according to the its own court filings, was breaking the law.
Boss Power applied in 2008, before the ban, to do exploratory work on its claim. The law requires the chief inspector of mines, then Doug Sweeney, to assess the application on its merits.
But the then-deputy minister, Greg Reimer, and assistant deputy minister John Cavanagh ordered Sweeney to ignore the application. They had asked the Attorney General’s Ministry for an opinion on whether it was legal.
It wasn’t, they were told, according to the government’s admissions in the legal case.
Then they repeated the order that Sweeney not fulfill his statutory duty.
Sweeney had legal and ethical concerns. He was relieved of his responsibilities for the file, and the marching orders went to more compliant officials. Sweeney ultimately left government, and says his family, career and reputation were damaged by the affair. (Cavanagh disputes the accuracy of the government’s admissions.)
These facts emerged as Boss Power’s case moved through the courts.
When Boss found out what had happened behind the scenes, it added a charge of “misfeasance of public office” to the lawsuit.
Basically, that alleged the government abused its power, which would givethe company a claim to additional compensation.
All this was set to come out in court if the case went ahead. The officials would have testified, and had to answer questions about whether politicians ordered them to break the law.
Until the government came up with $30 million of your money, plus more to cover Boss Power’s legal costs, to end the case.
Which inevitably brings to mind the decision to cover $6 million in legal costs for Dave Basi and Bob Virk to head off the revelation of potentially damaging evidence in that case.
The NDP raised the issue in question period Monday, but got no answers.
So we don’t know who gave the order to ignore the company’s application, or why the Attorney General Ministry’s legal opinion was ignored. We don’t know how much the settlement costs rose because of the government’s abuse of power.
We do know that a government that can’t find money to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities can come up with $30 million to keep potentially damaging evidence from being heard in court.
Footnote: The government issued a news release on the settlement late on Oct. 19, the day the shipbuilding contracts were dominating the news. If it was an attempt to hide the news, it failed miserably.
The other interesting question is whether this would be an issue, or if there would be ban, if the deposits were in the north, not the Okanagan.

Uranium ban costs taxpayers $30 million

From the files:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Uranium a glowing problem for government

The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court...

Back in 2009, I wrote about the risk to taxpayers of a uranium mining ban imposed by the government.

Unfortunately, the column was accurate. This week the government announced it's paying $30 million, plus legal costs, to Boss Power Corp. as compensation for its belated decision to ban uranium mining.Back in 2009, I noted the potential cost to taxpayers as a result of the government's mishandling of the controversial issue of uranium mining in the province.

The government issued its new release on the same day as the shipbuilding announcement, an indication it might not have wanted people to notice the payment.

The rest of the 2009 column is here.

Hawes, Clark and an MLA's job

Randy Hawes and Christy Clark offered up two very different visions of what MLAs are supposed to be doing on Monday.

And our democracy, and society, would be a lot better if more politicians acted like Hawes.

In the morning, New Democrat Nicholas Simons introduced a motion calling on the government to halt the closing of group homes for people with mental handicaps. About 65 have been closed, almost 10 per cent, often forcing longtime residents into new, less supportive settings. Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation delivering services to people with developmental disabilities, is trying to cut costs.

The motion was a gesture. It will never be passed.

Liberal MLA Kevin Krueger, briefly the minister responsible for CLBC, spoke against it. The closures are good, he said, everything is fine. Nanaimo Liberal MLA Ron Cantelon offered the same general view.

A couple of New Democrats, as expected, supported the motion put forward by Simons.

And then Hawes spoke. He talked about the concerns his constituents had raised. A man in his 70s, with a wife slipping into Alzheimer's, had cared for their developmentally disabled son for 50 years. The father still wanted to care for his son, and his wife, and thought he could - if he get two more days a week of respite care. But CLBC couldn't provide it, so the man faced the "heartbreaking choice" of placing his son in care, which would cost the government much more, Hawes recounted.

A single mother, who had worked and raised and supported her mentally handicapped daughter who needed round-the-clock care, was told supports would be cut when the girl turned 19. The mom was told she would have to quit her job, go on welfare and try to provide the care her daughter needed.

Hawes said this just wasn't right. He said the former minister responsible, Harry Bloy, had told the legislature no clients were being forced out of group homes against their will.

That wasn't true, he said.

Simons's motion was simplistic, Hawes said.

But something has gone wrong, he continued. There should be a "top-tobottom examination of CLBC, which included the parents and the selfadvocates that originally set this up."

And while that's happening, Hawes said, the government should immediately provide services to those who need them.

"We need to give those families that today aren't seeing hope . We need to give them hope, and we need to give it to them now," he said.

About two hours later, CLBC was the topic in question period, the 30 minutes allocated for the opposition to raise issues with the government. The New Democrats, again, pressed Premier Clark for a review of CLBC and a moratorium on group home closures.

Clark said the government is spending quite a lot - about $50,000 per client a year, if you count welfare - on people with developmental disabilities.

But she rejected, again and again, calls for an independent review of CLBC - the "top-to-bottom examination" Hawes had urged.

And then Clark offered up something revealing.

New Democrat Carole James prefaced a question with a reference to the "heartbreaking stories from families about a lack of care for their children." She cited the case of a mentally handicapped woman forced from the group home she had lived in for 19 years.

Clark said the opposition is being negative.

"And you know what?" she said. "I don't necessarily begrudge them that. I used to sit as children and families critic. I know the game the member is playing."

I didn't realize Clark was playing a game back then, as I watched the debates. I thought the lives of children at risk were important enough that MLAs would be serious and honest.

Just like Hawes on the lack of support for people with developmental disabilities.

"In the over 10 years that I've been in this legislature, there's no issue that's caused me more loss of sleep or more concern for those most vulnerable people," he said. "We need to act now."

I'd rather have an MLA who loses sleep than one who thinks the legislature is a place to play political games.

Gambling app and Clark's 'creeping sickness'

Christy Clark used to be clear on gambling expansion. She was against it. The Liberals, and Clark, promised to halt gambling expansion in their 2001 campaign.
Now her government is continuing a 10-year effort to increase both the number of people gambling and the already large amounts they lose.
The B.C. government already has the dubious distinction of being the first in North America to introduce online betting, a form of gambling with heightened risk of reckless betting and addiction.
Now B.C. Lotteries plans another first, by developing apps for cellphones and other devices so people can lose money while on the move.
What's wrong with that, some would ask? If people are foolish enough to lose money on bets, that's their problem.
In opposition, Clark offered pointed responses to that position.
The NDP government was considering gambling expansion to increase its take, then about $270 million.
Today, it's $1.1 billion.
"Does this government not realize that every dollar that they pull from the economy is another dollar that the consumer won't be spending here in British Columbia?" Clark asked. "This is money that won't be going to your local grocery store, clothing store or gas station."
OK, times change and new information emerges. A politician's principled stand in opposition fades when it's time to find more revenue to balance the budget. Clark might have decided that, indirectly, the losses stay in the province, even if local businesses are hurt.
But some flip-flops are hard to rationalize.
Here's Clark, again in the legislature, on the extensive research showing gambling expansion would hurt women and families.
"Those studies are all there that tell us over and over again that expanding gambling has a deleterious effect on women's health, on their personal safety and on their economic stability," she said. "Based on those studies, we know that."
Clark was right then. And the research findings haven't changed.
It's hard to rationalize choosing to harm the health and safety of women, and thus their children, in pursuit of bigger gambling profits.
Maybe Clark didn't believe any of the stuff she said; that it was just political posturing. But she and the Liberals seemed sincere. Certainly the campaign promise to halt gambling expansion was clear.
The government tried to justify online betting by arguing people would do it anyway, gambling on riskier websites outside B.C. That was a dubious claim; the fact those sites are risky deterred people.
There's no similar justification for introducing mobile gambling. The industry is in its infancy, with limited acceptance. The greatest interest is in jurisdictions where many people have cellphones and few have computer access.
But mobile gambling will help lure new, young gamblers. B.C. Lotteries, in its government-approved business plan, has targets for increasing the number of British Columbians who gamble regularly.

In 2010-11, about 61 per cent of adults - some 2.3 million British Columbians - gambled at least once a month. By 2013-14, the government hopes to increase that to 63 per cent, creating another 182,000 gamblers.
(The average loss per person, over a year, is $890. Somewhere between three and six per cent will become problem gamblers or addicts.)
Colin Campbell, gaming policy expert at Douglas College in Vancouver, called the plan "a deliberate attempt to target the youth market."
The lottery corporation has been advertising on websites offering free games widely used by the same group.
So much for families first, and Clark's view that gambling expansion is "a creeping sickness."
Footnote: Mobile gambling, like online betting, poses special risks, according to David Hodgins, head of the University of Calgary's Addictive Behaviours Laboratory. There is a greater risk of addiction, in part because of the easy access at any time, and a greater incidence of alcohol and drug abuse among online problem gamblers.
Teens seemed to show the highest likelihood for online gambling addictions. And the spread of Internet and mobile gambling continues the process of normalizing and legitimizing an activity that was once considered negative and damaging.

Teachers, government clash; students lose

Parents probably want to know one thing about the B.C. Teachers’ Federation latest excursion in B.C. Supreme Court — will it make escalating job action in the schools less likely?
Probably not. Barring big changes in the way the union and government are approaching the issue, the current labour dispute will follow the common path of escalating disruption, posturing by both sides and legislation imposing a contract.
The union went to court to ask Justice Susan Griffin for clarification of an earlier ruling. In April, she found the government had violated the teachers’ Charter rights by stripping provisions from their contract in 2002. Legislation removing class size and composition limits — that, is the number of special needs students allowed in any one class — was hastily introduced without consultation, negotiation or an effort to find a less draconian solution than gutting legal agreements, the court ruled. The teachers had a right to negotiate changes to contracted working conditions.
Griffin gave the parties 12 months to come up with a solution before she imposed one.
The BCTF starting point is that the government should put the former provisions back in the contract. That would cost about $300 million a year, as more teachers would have to be hired if class sizes were reduced, as well as more special needs workers.
The government, naturally, takes a different approach. It believes a good faith effort to resolve the issues through discussion should be enough to satisfy the court. Sort of a “better late than never” approach to what it should have done in the first place.
So far the government has promised $30 million next year, rising to $75 million in the following two years, to help improve the situation for special needs students and teachers. That’s about $18,000 per school in the first year, enough to hire an extra part-time aide. Education Minister George Abbott has refused to address the broader issue of class size limits.
The union went back to court to ask Griffin to clarify her ruling (or really, to back its interpretation). She told the union go away and sort out the problems with the government.
The most likely outcome would be a deadlock and return to the courts in April to let Griffin impose a solution, with both sides gambling they’ll prevail.
At the same time, in a parallel process, the BCTF and the employer (really the government) are in contract talks.
The union wants big pay increases and other contract improvements. The government says teachers will have to accept a pay freeze like other public sector unions, in part because any increase for teachers would trigger “us-too” clauses in other contracts.
Teachers’ job action is already affecting schools and Abbott has mused about imposing a contract. That’s not likely to happen until the government decides the public is fed up enough to accept a legislated agreement and the removal of the teachers’ right to bargain (and strike).
The class size and composition issue, if linked to contract talks, could be helpful. The government could maintain its pay freeze in the new contract. But teachers could get extra money — and more jobs for members — if there was action on class size or composition.
But that would require a pragmatic, mature approach to negotiations, something uncommon in BCTF-government talks.
Meanwhile, the government is preparing to launch a big education overhaul. It’s all vague so far, but Abbott promises personalized learning for every student, quality teaching and learning more flexibility and choice for students and parents and new technology, both in classroom and for students who choose to learn at home.
That initiative could offer opportunities for progress on the contract, if it meant more resources for teachers — or increase conflict if teachers oppose some of the measures.
Footnote: The education changes will include an overhaul or abolition of the B.C. College of Teachers, which certifies and regulates teachers. The college has been dominated by the union and appeared to be ineffective in dealing with wrongdoing, putting the interests of teachers ahead of the students. At least some of the changes will be included in legislation that could be introduced within days.

Independent review of CLBC is needed now

From today's Times Colonist editorial:

"The government's refusal to order an external review of Community Living B.C. is baffling. The throne speech, after all, promised reviews of all Crown corporations, beginning in January, "to ensure taxpayers and families are protected and the interests of all British Columbians are well served."

CLBC, as a Crown corporation, would be part of that process. All that's needed to respond to serious concerns about its performance and accountability would be to launch a review now, not in a few months.

The government has acknowledged problems at the corporation, which is responsible for supporting adults with developmental disabilities and their families. Last month, it added $8.9 million to the CLBC budget to meet "urgent health and safety needs" of clients.

When any organization requires emergency funding five months into the fiscal year because clients' health and safety are at risk, something has gone seriously wrong...."

You can and should read the rest here.

As evidence of the problems, the Times Colonist's Lindsay Kines also reports on the huge waiting lists for services for people with developmental disabilities.

Riot TV plan could backfire for Clark

For an astute politician, Premier Christy Clark is making some odd moves.
First there were the attack ads on Conservative leader John Cummins, which worked mostly to raise his profile in a positive way. It was a big boost for a leader still unknown in much of the province.
And now there is the weird push for televised trials of people charged in the Stanley Cup riots, which drew attention to the big problems in the justice system that her government hasn’t fixed - and has in fact made worse - over the past decade.
Clark says the public is interested in the court proceedings ands the riot was televised, so the trials and other court proceedings should be too. (She actually went farther, with comments that indicated she had abandoned the notion that people are considered innocent until proved otherwise.)
Televised court proceedings would be a good thing. Most people have never been inside a courtroom and have little idea of what goes on. Television could help change that.
There are potential problems. Some witnesses might be reluctant to testify if they thought they were going to be on the evening news. Lawyers might be tempted to perform for the cameras.
But cameras covered the Dziekanski inquiry, with no obvious ill effects. In the U.S., proceedings have been televised for years, generally successfully.
Still, if Clark and the government wanted televised trials, they could have started serious work long ago. Leaping in with a poorly considered bid to single out one group of accused people for political reasons is a poor way to advance openness.
That’s only one problem. The justice branch and Crown prosecutors are supposed to have a high degree of independence from their political masters. The idea is that they act in the interests of justice and shouldn’t take orders from politicians, preventing, for example, the use of the courts to harass opponents of government policy.
The justice branch rejected Clark’s throne speech call for televised trials and said prosecutors wouldn’t be making the requests.
That forced Attorney General Shirley Bond to issue an extraordinary order forcing the prosecutors to seek televised proceedings in riot cases.
It’s highly unusual political interference. Bond said it had happened in the past, but Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer reported the government cited three cases. “One was a directive to seek leave to appeal a sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada,” Palmer wrote. “One a directive to ‘consider, if appropriate’ applying to vary a probation order. The third created a brief amnesty from prosecution to encourage people to turn in firearms and other weapons.”
The whole controversy was also a reminder that another hockey season has already started and no one has been charged in connection with the riots.
The effort could also continue to be an embarrassment. Crown prosecutors can apply to open the court to cameras, but the judges decide. Defence lawyers and others involved will want a say. Clark’s ploy could add more delays to an already overburdened system. Excessive delays have resulted in dozens of cases being thrown out this year, including serious offences like drug trafficking and assaults on police. Families are waiting unreasonable times for critical hearing dates.
There are lots of factors in the delays, and some long-term solutions.
But the immediate issue is that there just aren’t enough judges, prosecutors and courtrooms to hold the needed hearings. There were 143 provincial court judges in 2005; today there are 127. The courts simply can’t cope with the volume of cases.
You can see how a few people tossing around ideas for the throne speech might come up with the notion of scoring some points with this gimmick.
But it’s hard to understand why someone didn’t think harder about the many potential problems, both practical and political.
Footnote: A new Ipsos Reid poll confirmed the Liberals are having political problems. The NDP has the support of 45 per cent of decided voters, with the Liberals at 38 per cent. Cummins and the Conservatives, with the Liberals’ help, are at 12 per cent and the Greens six per cent. Adrian Dix has stronger approval numbers than Clark, but she seen as the person who would make the best premier by more voters.

Riot gimmick aside, an adequate throne speech

Throne speeches are supposed to set out the government’s agenda for the legislative session. But they’re typically full of nice-sounding but meaningless phrases, big visions and praise for the party in power’s brilliance.
Clark’s first effort this week offered the usual rehash of past promises - in this case, barely past, since she replayed last week’s jobs strategy.
And it gave a hint of the government’s direction.
But it also featured the kind of poorly thought out gimmickry that threatens to build the perception of Clark as a less-than-serious premier.
First, the positive. Something is apparently going to happen in education, though it’s unclear what.
The B.C. College of Teachers, in charge of ensuring teachers are properly trained and certified, is going to be overhauled or replaced. That’s good. The college has been a captive of the teachers’ union, and locked in a conflict of interest.
And the government is going to do something about the lack of support for special needs students in schools. It doesn’t have a choice; a court ruling this spring found it broke the law in arbitrarily removing class size and composition limits from teachers’ contracts and gave it a year to fix the problem. The changes are a step toward that.
Beyond that, the education changes get fuzzy. The speech talks about abandoning “a 20th century curriculum with 20th century teaching methods.” Teachers skills will be improved and parents will get “in how, when and where education takes place.”
I have no idea what that means. The education budget is effectively frozen for the next two years, so there’s not a lot of money for new initiatives.
The speech sent confusing messages on the current two-year public sector wage freeze. It appeared to announce the freeze would be eased next spring, despite the weak economy. But the government says increases will only be available if unions and employer can find ways to cut costs within existing budgets, freeing some money for contract improvements.
It’s worth a try, and both sides should be motivated: The unions, to get increases for members; the government, to avoid pre-election job action.
There was the usual nod to health care. The government will try to ensure every British Columbian has a family doctor by 2015, promote disease prevention and seek efficiencies. All dandy, but hardly a new direction.
And the speech acknowledged the problems of delays in the justice system. The speech promised legislation to encourage people to settle family law disputes - divorce, child custody and the like - outside the court system. That should be a priority.
Then it rather bizarrely floated the idea of allowing cameras in the courtrooms when anyone charged in the Stanley up riot appeared.
Cameras in courtrooms, despite some potential problems, would be good. Most of us have no real idea how the system works, or the kind of cases that occupy the courts.
But the criminal justice branch and Crown prosecutors - independent of the politicians - have rejected the idea of singling out people charged in connection with the riots, as opposed to gangsters or other offenders. Judges might have similar qualms.
And spending more court time dealing with the issue, when people are being released across the province because of excessive delays, would be foolish. This week, in Rossland, the B.C. Supreme Court released a man charged with possession of meth for the purpose of trafficking and assaulting an RCMP officer by driving a truck into him because of delays. There simply isn’t enough time to deal with complicated trials in the region.
The speech didn’t address the shortage of prosecutors, judges and courtrooms, beyond a proposal to have retired judges work part-time on occasion.
There was the promise of a February Family Day holiday, beginning in 2013. There wasn’t anything on forestry, housing affordability or poor British Columbians.
Footnote: The speech was a departure from Gordon Campbell’s tendency to float grand visions, often forgotten, in his throne speeches. There were the five great goals for a golden decade, the conversation on health, the new relationship, the war on climate change, the focus on the Heartland. A more modest approach, given the tough economic times, was pragmatic.

Smart meters and policing big UBCM news

Smart meters were expected to a big deal at the UBCM meeting in Vancouver.
The surprise was Solicitor General Shirley Bond’s bombshell revelation that the federal government had issued a take-it-or-leave-it final offer for new 20-year RCMP contract.
First, smart meters, and a controversy that suggests the government hasn’t learned anything from the HST debacle.
I’m not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters, which transmit data n power use in every home and business wirelessly.
For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health.
And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure. I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them.
But it is troubling that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits.
In fact, the government passed legislation that prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.
And the government’s claim that the meters won’t ultimately lead to time-of-use billing — that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times - is unconvincing. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility, and it’s the best cost-justification for the project. Only Energy Minister Rich Coleman claims it won’t happen.
Time-of-use billing, done right, is actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.
What's been most striking about the smart meter debate is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST failure.
Coleman told the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions - no chance to opt out, or options for a wired alternative to the meters. No review by the utilities commission.
The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. The cabinet knows best.
The government’s assumption seemed to be that the opposition was a small group of kooks.
But UBCM delegates from across the province voted 55 per cent in favour of a moratorium on installation of smart meters as the convention concluded. That’s a large group of elected officials for Christy Clark and company to dismiss as too dim to know what’s good for them.
Especially when that same attitude got the government in so much trouble over the HST.
The RCMP dispute rates another column, but UBCM delegates were unanimous on this issue.
Earlier in the week, Bond said the federal government had broken off negotiations on a new 20-year policing contract. The province had to accept the last offer by Nov. 30, or the RCMP would begin pulling out in 2014.
It’s a bluff. The RCMP is building a $1-billion headquarters in Surrey (original cost estimate, $300 million). And pulling out of B.C. would leave it with 6,000 surplus employees. That’s a heck of a severance bill.
Bond tried to counter the ploy, saying the province would look at a provincial police force if it couldn’t get needed accountability on costs and service levels in a new deal.
That’s the right position. And in fact, it might be time to move away from the problem-plagued RCMP.
But municipalities are worried about losing the federal subsidy — 10 per cent for larger centres, 30 per cent for smaller — that helps cover RCMP costs.
They voted unanimously to urge the parties back to the bargaining table.
Footnote: One problem in RCMP talks has been the turnover in the solicitor general’s job. Bond is the sixth minister to hold the post in the four years since negotiations began. Some, like Coleman, were keen on retaining the RCMP; others, like Kash Heed, wanted to look at change. The lack of consistency has meant B.C. is ill-prepared for the current deadlock.

About those smart meters

I am not much worried about personal health risks from smart meters. For one thing, it would be hypocritical, since I happily enjoy WiFi, don't exercise enough and undoubtedly fail to do all I could to ensure good health. (I shun cellphones, but only because I don't like to talk to people on any phone.)

And I accept the experts who say that if there is a health risk, it's tiny beyond measure.

But I am troubled that this is a politically driven, $900-million project with no public consultation or any independent assessment of the costs and benefits. In fact, the government passed legislation that specifically prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from assessing the smart meter project and determining if it was in the best interest of B.C. Hydro customers. If it was a sound, cost-effective initiative, then utilities commission review would have been in the government's best interest.

I am unconvinced that the ultimate result won't be time-of-use billing - that power in peak periods won't cost more than electricity in low-demand times. B.C. Hydro continues to raise that possibility; it's only the Liberal politicians who claim it won't happen. (It's actually a perfectly sound idea; encouraging off-peak use reduces the need for additional generating capacity and saves everyone money.)

And I am sympathetic to people who are doing everything possible to avoid radiofrequency electronic magnetic fields but now are being forced to accept them by government.

What's been most striking about the smart meter debate at UBCM this week is how little the Liberal government learned from the HST debacle.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said he didn't care how many people were concerned and didn't want the meters. The government is going ahead, with no exceptions.

The message - as it was with the HST - is that people are just too stupid to know what's good for them. Municipal councils that passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on installations, or opt-out provisions, were dismissed as equally dim.

There are undoubtedly times governments have to go ahead with unpopular measures.

But, in this case, why not let people opt out? Or provide an incentive - a $20 B.C. Hydro credit - for accepting a meter? Why not let the utilities commission asses the costs and benefits to customers?

The government is, effectively, saying the families concerned about the meters, and the municipal councils supporting them, are just too clueless to be taken seriously.

And that, as we've seen, ends unhappily for those in power.

Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan

Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell’s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.

Clark kills valuable Progress Board in jobs plan

Christy Clark killed off one of Gordon Campbell’s good ideas last week, weakening government accountability and removing one of the few ways citizens have to assess its performance.
Most people forget, but back in 2001, Campbell, Clark and the Liberals had a populist bent and promised a new way of doing things.
They promised open and accountable government, with regular reports on the results it delivered to citizens.
The B.C. Progress Board, killed by Clark last week, was part of that. Campbell asked a group of business leaders — David Emerson was the first chair, Jimmy Pattison was on board — to set measurable goals for the province, report on progress each year and offer advice on critical issues.
The boards out six important areas — economic growth, standard of living, jobs, the environment, health outcomes and social conditions. Then it identified key indicators that could be used to measure how well the province was doing each year, things like exports per capita and birth weights and educational achievement.
And the Progress Board said British Columbia should be first or second in Canada in all six areas by 2010. The board would report each year on how the province stacked up against the other provinces, and northwest states, and whether B.C. was improving or falling behind.
It’s been a useful exercise. Citizens, and government, can see what is and isn’t working. The spin by government and opposition can be replaced by facts.
When Campbell was pushed out, I turned to the Progress Board reports to assess his government’s effectiveness over the years.
It was barely average, according to the board. B.C. slide backward in the rankings in more categories than it improved over Campbell’s tenure.
B.C. ranked fourth in economic output per capita in the board’s first report in 2002. It was in the same spot in the 2010 report. It was second in real average wage, also unchanged. Employment improved from fifth to fourth. Productivity ranking fell from fifth to seventh among provinces.
On balance, the economic rankings slipped slightly from the NDP years.
The other measurements were mixed as well. B.C. ranked sixth for poverty in the first report; now it’s tenth. Infant health has declined. High school graduation rates have improved.
Overall, the Progress Board found the government’s performance was average, maybe just a little but worse than average. B.C. improved in some areas, but so did other provinces, at similar rates.
There’s nothing wrong with average, really. The Liberal government was as effective, more or less, as its peers across Canada.
But politicians in power like to promote the idea that their leadership is better than average, whether it is or not.
That wasn’t the Progress Board’s only role. It had a small budget and issued research reports on important issues.
For example, Clark made attracting more international students a key part of last week’s jobs plan. But in 2005, the Progress Board prepared a comprehensive plan to build a B.C. brand in international education. It has offered reports on crime and regional policing, resource revenues and productivity.
But all that’s over. Clark killed the Progress Board last week, replacing it with a Jobs and Investment Board to encourage investment and identify barriers to development. (After a decade in government, you might expect those kind of issues to be addressed, or wonder why MLAs aren’t doing the work of finding out what’s blocking development in their regions.)
The loss of the Progress Board is significant. The annual report card, and the special reports, offered insight and a level of accountability rare from any government. The cost was modest. And a database of comparable performance measurements over years offered great potential long-term benefits.
Clark hasn’t offered any rationale for killing off the board. It’s a bad decision, but one that could still be released.
Footnote: The focus on measurement and accountability was a key part of the Liberal approach when they took power in 2001. Ministries and agencies were required to have three-year plans, with detailed targets so progress could be measured. But each subsequent year, the number of measurements were reduced and the benchmarks chosen became less meaningful. People like accountability, until they actually are held accountable.

Clark job plan does little for today’s unemployed

Premier Christy Clark’s job plan, despite all the flying around the province and flashy announcements, is a bit of a letdown.
There are some good measures. It’s worth trying to attract more foreign students, creating teaching jobs and bringing economic activity. Speeding up approvals for mines and logging and other activities, without compromising environmental standards, would be helpful. So would the promised agreements with First Nations to bring greater certainty for potential resource developments. And maybe all the new panels and committees and agencies will help bring economic activity.
But based on the advance hype, the more than 200,000 unemployed people looking for work probably expected more. After all, Jobs Minister Pat Bell promised a “seismic” impact from the strategy back in May. That suggested big changes and a lot more opportunities.
Instead, Clark delivered a package of promises that, for the most part, won’t result in increased employment for several years. There were promises of funding for infrastructure related to ports in the Lower Mainland and Prince Rupert, so, assuming speedy progress, there will be some construction jobs in the near term.
Most measures won’t produce significant results for years. Clark set a goal of eight new mines in operation by 2015, for example. That would bring many good jobs — but not now.
And the jobs plan is highly dependent on global economic recovery. Government can make B.C. a more appealing jurisdiction for mining companies committed to increasing production, for example. But they will only be interested if commodity prices are strong enough to encourage investment.
That’s the reality of the B.C. economy. We remain highly resource-dependent. Demand for minerals, logs and lumber and energy in other countries is required to fuel growth.
But it’s surprising, given the extent of joblessness in B.C. right now, that the plan did not include some short-term measures that are within the province’s control.
The federal-provincial stimulus program, now completed, offers one model. The infrastructure projects — with a few exceptions — were needed long-term investments in communities. Governments moved them up to provide jobs when they were needed, accepting the additional interest costs and earlier increase in the debt.
Jobs are still needed, and communities have a list of worthy projects. Clark could have announced a stimulus fund.
Or the government could rethink its commitment to make balancing the budget by 2013-14 it’s main priority.
Returning to a balanced budget as the economy improves should be a goal. But clinging to an arbitrary date could be bad policy. The federal government, for example, has given itself an extra year to return to eliminate its deficit.
Delaying the return to balanced budgets would give the government the ability to consider spending aimed at easing the impact of unemployment in the near term. Immediate measures could be taken to protect and increase employment — a subsidy for B.C. Ferries to allow a tourism promotion, for example. The government could protect families from the impact of prolonged job losses by funding training for people whose Employment Insurance has run out, or programs to fund needed community projects.
In fact, the fixation on the deficit could increase unemployment in B.C. Given the defeat of the HST and the slumping economy, the government is faced with making deeper spending cuts to meet its deficit targets, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says. Those cuts will inevitably mean job losses at a time when prospects for new work are slim, and likely mean a reduction in community services when they are most needed.
A long-term focus is certainly valuable. But for many families, the impact of joblessness — or the threat of joblessness — is immediate, and dire. And when they can’t spend, their communities suffer.
Clark’s jobs plan has many commendable features. But for those seeking work today, it has little to offer.

Liberals' attack ads both incompetent and destructive

The Liberal attack ads aimed at B.C. Conservative leader John Cummins show that Christy Clark was wise to ditch the idea of a fall election.
Because if the campaign matched the ads for sleazy, self-destructive incompetence, the Liberals would be routed.
The Liberals launched the attack last week with radio ads, a website and news releases, with Aboriginal Relations Minister Mary Polak, apparently because of her conservative credentials, charged with leading the attack.
The radio ads capture the tone. A man and a woman are talking about Cummins.
“He opposed Christy’s minimum wage increase but takes a $100,000 pension from taxpayers,” the snarky woman says. “Another unprincipled politician,” the guy responds.
“He says he quote ‘owes it to his offspring,’” the woman snipes. You can’t trust Cummins, they conclude. (The quote about accepting the pension for the sake of his children is 16 years old.)
It’s a fair criticism, but not from the Liberals. They ran on a promise to get rid of MLA pensions, then brought in a rich pension plan that would be the envy of anyone in the private sector. Gordon Campbell will actually be eligible to collect a higher provincial pension — around $125,000 while still on the federal government payroll as high commissioner to London.
In the other ad, the couple grumble that Cummins, who says he voted NDP in the last provincial election, isn’t a real Conservative.
“A joke,” the guy grumps.
“So Cummins pretends he's a Conservative, then votes NDP,” the woman says. “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician."
“How can you trust a politician like Cummins who says one thing and does another?”
Challenging Cummins conservative credentials is ludicrous. He was elected as a Reform MP in 1993, then as a Canadian Alliance member and a Conservative. He’s a strong social and fiscal conservative. (Probably too strong for many B.C. voters.)
His NDP vote just illustrates his disdain for the provincial Liberals.
And how could Clark and company have been so tone deaf as to include the line criticizing politicians who say one thing and do another?
They’ve just been slapped for doing exactly that with the HST. Then there are the promises not to sell B.C. Rail, rip up contracts or expand gambling, all examples of politicians who say one thing and do another.
Cummins has the Liberals in a panic. They are concerned, rightly, that the Conservatives could attract enough of their support to allow an NDP victory. In 1996, Reform took just nine per cent of the vote, and the New Democrats won. The Conservatives were at 18 per cent support in a May Mustel Group poll.
But the ads were a gift to Cummins, who remains unknown in much of the province. The Liberals brought media attention, largely positive, to their nemesis. It was remarkably dumb.
The radio ads, and the anti-Cummins website with the standard attack ad creepy photo and allegations, also tie Clark to dishonest, sleazy, American-style attack ads — hardly a good thing for someone promising a new style of politics.
The ads sometimes work. The federal Conservatives attacked Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff relentlessly with slimy ads, and succeeded in defining them in negative ways.
But they are fundamentally dishonest and destructive to democracy and public life, encouraging mindless division and contempt for all politicians.
There are lots of reasons to criticize Cummins and the Conservatives and their policy positions. But these ads are about smearing a person, and presenting him not just as wrong, but as corrupt and “a joke.”
That should concern anyone who hopes for a functioning democracy.
And Liberals should also be concerned that the party has spent money on an amateurish smear campaign that does more damage to its own cause than the target.
Footnote: Cummins is a challenge for the Liberals. He’s skilled and quick — almost two decades in federal politics will do that — and has a reputation for speaking his mind and representing his constituents’ interests. He’s too extreme for many voters, but offers an alternative for people who would never vote NDP, but are angry at the Liberals, as well as voters who sat out the last few elections because they didn’t see a credible party that represented them.

Province, CLBC failing the disabled

Here’s how bad it has become for mentally handicapped people in B.C.
Barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency that’s supposed to be providing the supports they need has had to beg government for more money to meet “urgent health and safety needs.”
The planning and funding were so inadequate that these people’s health and safety were at risk. Not their quality of life, or their parents’ ability to sleep at night knowing their children had a shot at happiness.
Their health and safety.
We are talking about people with developmental disabilities — mental handicaps like Down syndrome or other limits. Many have other serious conditions, physical, mental and emotional. Their parents are often aging themselves and facing limitations.
In a caring society, these people can have rich lives. Families can often provide support, until parents grow too old and needs too great. Day programs, group homes, supported workplaces and other options offer a way for people to share in the joys and sorrows of life.
But in this province, we’re not even meeting urgent health and safety needs, let alone providing needed support.
Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation providing services, called a press conference to announce it had found an extra $8.9 million to meet “urgent health and safety needs” of its clients. The provincial government had contributed an extra $6 million. Another $2.9 million, allocated for helping people with FASD and other problems, was redirected, because, CLBC says, the money wasn’t needed to assist those people.
The corporation actually seemed to think this was a good news story.
It wasn’t. The corporation was acknowledging that it did such a bad job in planning — or the government cut its budget proposals so significantly — that five months into the year clients had “urgent” health and safety needs it couldn’t meet.
That means serious needs that fall short of the urgent threat to life and limb are still not being met.
Even with the $8.9 million, the provincial funding for CLBC is up just 1.8 per cent. The number of clients needing services is increasing 5.1 per cent, and many costs are also rising with inflation.
The money is obviously inadequate. Advocates, including the B.C. Association for Community Living, said a $70-million increase is needed to provide proper support.
CLBC per-client funding has been cut every year since the Liberal government created the agency six years ago. In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $46,000. Just returning to the original level would require an extra $85 million.
CLBC has been looking, appropriately, at ways to meet people’s needs more cheaply. Clients who have been in group homes, for example, a relatively cost form of housing and support, might be able to do as well or better in other arrangements. Supported workplace programs could be chopped and developmentally disabled clients encouraged to compete in the job market.
But families and advocates have complained —with convincing evidence — that the corporation is putting the priority on cutting costs, not client needs.
This has been particularly brutal for the 550 young people who will turn 19 this year. That’s the magic age when support through the children’s ministry ends and CLBC takes over. Supports are slashed, or disappear. Even when there are serious risk of harm, people are told there is no money to deliver the services that CLBC’s case planners agree are needed. CLBC can’t, or won’t, say how many people are on waitlists.
The underlying problem is that the agency — and Harry Bloy, the hapless minister responsible — have little credibility. Both claimed repeatedly that clients were not being forced from group homes. They acknowledge now that was not true.
This is a dismal failure, at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in the province.
Footnote: The problems are only to going to get worse. Despite an increasing number of clients in each of the next two years, the Liberal budget calls for funding to be effectively frozen and Finance Minister Kevin Falcon has been warning that even deeper cuts in government could lie ahead.

Liberals have seen the enemy, and he is John Cummins

Note: Saturday updates at end of post.

I don't know anything about professional politics, although I have some experience in the corporate kind.

Maybe the Liberals' sleazy attacks on John Cummins are just the way you win.

After all, the federal Conservatives' attacks on Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff seemed to work. American politicians and their handlers have great success with attack ads.

So Christy Clark has adopted the same approach. Find a way to portray other leaders as creepy, amoral, sinister figures, buy some ads and stick up some grisly photos to show them in their worst light. Make them not just people with bad policies, but evil, perhaps deranged or stupid, princes of darkness.

Use the attacks to solidify your base, as they say, and raise money.

The smear campaigns don't seem to make voters think you're desperate or fearful, or at least not often. Though it does seem odd that the Liberal party is buying radio commercials to attack a politician most British Columbians haven't likely heard of.

But couldn't parties win by arguing their opponents' policies were dumb or destructive, without vilifying them on a personal level or making up motivations for their actions and policies?

That would be a lot less damaging for democracy and public life.

If this kind of stuff works, it says something sad about us as voters.

Saturday updates:

Les Leyne has a good column in the Times Colonist on just how wretched and fake these attack ads are.
And the Gazetteer calls for a much stronger denunciation of a style of sleazy, destructive politics that threatens democracy itself. You should read him here.

CLBC funding boost inadequate, and an admission of bungling

From today's Times Colonist editorial on the announcement of additional money for CLBC:

"The government's grudging commitment of extra money for services for mentally handicapped adults falls far short of what's needed and shows inept handling of an important responsibility.

The government provided an extra $8.9 million for Community Living B.C. Wednesday in response to a public outcry over sharp cuts to services for some of the most vulnerable people in our province.

Obviously, any increase is welcome. But the increase is barely one per cent of the Crown corporation's budget, and far short of the $85 million needed to restore perclient funding to the level in 2005, when CLBC was created. Even with the increase, the province's contribution this year will increase 1.8 per cent, despite a 5.1 per cent increase in the number of people with developmental disabilities who require services.

CLBC executives said the money is needed to cover "urgent health and safety needs" of the Crown corporation's clients.

That is an admission of failure. It is not difficult to forecast the need for services. The government knows how many young people with developmental disabilities, currently supported by the children's ministry, will turn 19 and rely on CLBC. It can predict current clients' needs.

Yet barely five months into the fiscal year, the agency does not have enough money to cover urgent health and safety needs...."

You can read the rest here.

And reporter Lindsay Kines news coverage is here.

Lessons from Kienan's abduction and return

First, cheers and gratitude for the safe return of three-year-old Kienan Hebert, a remarkable happy ending to a nightmarish story.
The fact that stranger abductions are extraordinarily rare doesn’t lessen the heart-stopping impact of his abduction.
That celebration and the prosecution of the now-arrested suspect, Randall Hopley, will take some time. And it's important to remember there has not been a single piece of evidence offered to support the theory that Hopley did this.
But we need answers to broader questions.
Kienan’s father, Paul Hebert, has shown calm dignity throughout the ordeal. He has forgiven Hopley, he says, citing his own Christian faith and its requirement for forgiveness.
But on Monday, he set out his frustration with the justice system. Hebert didn’t offer an emotional response — no demands that such people be locked up forever, for example.
He wanted to know why Hopley didn’t get help that would change his behaviour despite his repeated contacts with the police and courts that stretched back almost to the 46-year-old man’s own childhood. And why, given that, he was free.
They are good questions. And the implications go far beyond this case.
Hopley is, based on media reports, an archetype. Our courts are full of people like him; they occupy a large amount of police officers’ time. They lead a life of petty crime, with occasional forays into something more serious.
Hopley fits the profile. He is neither smart nor educated; one of his defence lawyers told the court he was mentally handicapped. Hopley’s father died in a mine accident when he was about Kienan’s age. His stepfather, Doug Fink, said was out of control as a child, running away and constantly in trouble. “I didn't want nothing to do with him, he'd only stay so long and he couldn't help himself, he'd be in trouble again,” Fink said.
Dale Fedoruk, who lived in Sparwood, where Hopley has lived for about 16 years, said he was “a dirty, creepy guy.”
Hopley was a thief, breaking into businesses in an industrial park, stealing from cars. He wasn’t particularly good at it, and would sometimes confess to police when caught. Hopley had kept police busy since moving to Sparwood in 1995, an officer told a judge in 2003.
He pleaded guilty to stealing $795 from a business in that case, and got four months of house arrest, a year’s probation and an order to repay the money. He was to abstain from drugs and alcohol as well.
Those kinds of orders are common too. But Hopley, like many offenders, had a poor record in actually following the orders, frequently ending up back in court for breaches of various orders.
These people, often with addictions as well, are the frequent flyers in the criminal justice system. And the system does a poor job of dealing with them, undermining the sense of security in communities.
There were more serious charges as well. Hopley was sentenced to two years for a sex assault in the 1980s and faced charges — later dropped — of attempting to abduct a boy in 2007. Those should have been warnings, Paul Hebert says.
“The judges and the system failed us,” he said. “Hopley needs help and the system didn’t give him the help he needed and because of that, we have been affected. Our rights have been taken away and our family got hurt.”
The justice system - judges, prosecutors, police - are notoriously reluctant to accept scrutiny.
But it’s reasonable to make an effort to look at Hopley’s life of involvement with the courts and police and see if Hebert is right in believing that a better job cold have been done in protecting the public.
A Crown prosecutor sought a psychiatric examination for Hopley before sentencing in 2008, for example, but the defence objected and the court didn’t order one. Perhaps that might have been useful.
And, in fact, the issues might have less to do with the court system than with the lack of early childhood intervention to deal with people before they become criminals.
There’s a lot to learn from this case.
But first, there’s a lot to be thankful for.
Footnote: The RCMP also needs to provide answers, especially about the way in which Kienan was dropped off at his families’ empty home at 3 a.m., with police apparently unaware that someone had entered the crime scene. Police have said they “facilitated” the return, but need to explain what arrangements, if any, they made and how they managed the risk to Kienan and others.

CLBC cuts and the invisible minister

Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines has another report on the devastating cuts to services for people with developmental disabilities, this time focusing on the total lack of support when people turn 19 and Community Living BC takes over responsibility from the children's ministry.

Recommended reading here.

The problem, as I note here, is reduced per-client funding for CLBC every year since the agency was created by the Liberal government. The result has been worsening wait lists, clients forced out of group homes they have lived in for years and a dramatic reduction in the quality of life for people with disabilities.

So what does Social Development Minister Harry Bloy say about the service cuts, and the demand by advocacy groups for a $70-million funding increase to deal with what they call a crisis?

No one knows. Bloy has hidden from questions from reporters and the public, and since the legislature rarely sits he isn't held accountable there. Any day I expect to see his picture on the side of a milk carton.

Kines asked to talk to the minister for the story, as he and other reports have tried for many articles, and was refused.

Instead, communications staff write meaningless emails allegedly from Bloy.

Read the response below, which is typical, and judge for yourself whether this represents an open and accountable government able to explain and defend its decisions. If you were the parent of a disabled adult who was losing day support, or being forced from a group home, would your concerns and questions about the actions and future service reductions be addressed?

Or whether a $150,000-a-year cabinet minister simply won't even try to defend the indefensible.

"Lindsay:

"Minister Bloy sends his apologizes as he’s not available to speak to you in person. However, he has provided the following statement.
"As a parent, I understand and share the concerns of families whose loved ones have unique developmental challenges. As Minister responsible for Community Living BC, I am committed to finding solutions that best address the needs of our province’s most vulnerable citizens.
"This is not to suggest there aren’t challenges. CLBC serves over 13,600 developmentally disabled adults - 3,300 more than they did in 2007. Despite annual budget increases and an investment to date of more than $3.5 billion, the number of requests for CLBC services and supports from both new and existing individuals continues to grow. CLBC provided services for 766 new people last year, and over a thousand people already in the system got additional services.
"We are living in difficult financial times and we continue to investigate and adopt innovative solutions that will support any many families as possible. "We have always funded CLBC and will continue to fund them in the future. The care, comfort and well-being of developmentally disabled individuals and their families are, and always will be, government’s priority and my priority as Minister."