Hydro's energy plan and Site C slam into political doubts

VICTORIA - The Liberals' pledge to keep politicians' hands off Crown corporations like BC Hydro is fading fast.
BC Hydro's brightest and best have been labouring away on a long-term energy plan, with the Site C dam as the centrepiece.
This week was supposed to be the big unveiling. Hydro CEO Bob Elton announced a press conference where he would be flanked by business types, and vice-presidents were fanning out to meet with the media.
And then 20 hours before the big announcement, the politicians pulled the plug.
"In consultation with government, we have now decided to postpone this release and will be doing further work to ensure that this plan meets the needs of ratepayers," Elton said in a terse news release. Hydro's future also needs to be "fully reviewed in the context of government's energy policies."
The order was not well-received in Hydro. The 20-year Integrated Energy Plan has been more than a year in the making, with a high-profile advisory committee, public meetings and lots of consultants and studies. It was to be the definitive look at energy needs for the next two decades, and the best way to meet them. The BC Utilities Commission was set to review it.
Something has gone seriously wrong when the politicians step in at the last minute, stepping all over Hydro's board and management.
Energy Minister Richard Neufeld said the government wanted more time to review the plan, which was presented to Liberal MLAs at a caucus meeting this week. The Crown corporation just got a little ahead of itself, he said.
But Neufeld didn't rule out changes before the plan goes to the utilities' commission.
The explanation leaves a few questions. The government has known for a year the plan was going to the utilities' commission this month, and for days that the announcement was scheduled for this week. There were no big surprises in the document, as energy ministry officials have been involved with the process all along.
So the last-minute cancellation suggests someone - the caucus, the premier's office - got nervous.
There's lots to get nervous about. Hydro's assessment of energy needs and the solutions it backs will have huge implications for the provincial economy. If it underestimates demand, B.C. will need to buy more expensive power from the U.S. If Hydro overestimates, the corporation will build power plants it doesn't need. Both would cost consumers money. If it makes the wrong choices on issues like big coal-fired plants versus small hydro projects, the province's economy is affected.
Hydro's preferred plan is likely based on building the Site C dam across the Peace River near Fort St. John, as well as energy conservation measures and additional power from private producers.
Site C makes a lot of people nervous. The $3.5-billion project was already scuttled by opponents once, in 1991. Independent power producers don't like the proposal, because they want to supply the electricity. First Nations have issues about lost hunting land when thousands of acres are flooded. And the accuracy of Hydro's cost projections have come under fire.
The Liberals have made much of the need to let Crown corporations operate without political interference, never missing a chance to talk about the $460 million lost thanks to the NDP's half-baked fast ferries project.
But there's been increasing recognition that leaving Crown corporations to their own devices carries its own risks and missed opportunities.
The BC Progress Board, a business panel appointed by the premier, weighed in last month with a report saying government, not BC Hydro, should be setting energy policy. "BC Hydro is seen by many concerned parties to heavily outweigh the ministry in staff and resources, which puts the government in the position of not being able to provide adequate oversight and direction," said the panel, chaired by Victoria newspaper mogul David Black.
The last-minute scuttling of the launch of BC Hydro's energy plan suggests the government has come to the same conclusion, and is reining in the Crown corporation.
Footnote: Things will get complicated quickly if the government wants significant changes to the plan. Hydro is supposed to present it to the utilities' commission within the next three months. Any major reworking could make it tough to meet the deadline - especially if BC Hydro's co-operation is less than enthusiastic.

The facts say children at risk aren't being properly protected

VICTORIA - Child protection is the tough front line for social workers.
A teacher calls and reports a little girl is coming to school on snowy days with no coat. A neighbour reports that a toddler keeps showing up with new bruises. A teen is reported to be using drugs, or in the sex trade.
The ministry has to investigate to make sure the children are safe, and take action if they aren't. It can be risky to leave children in a home; it can be tragic to remove them and send them to live with strangers, or even family
members. There are few easy choices.
By its own standards, the ministry is failing. The ministry's standard says that child protection investigations are concluded "when all the information is gathered to determine whether a child needs protection, and what steps, if any,
are required to address the child's need for protection."
That work is supposed to be done in 30 days.
But the New Democrats released figures for October that showed that barely one in five child protection reports was being completed in the appropriate time.
Almost 45 per cent of cases were still open three months after the investigation started.
The ministry was dismissive, characterizing the issue as one of "paperwork." If there is any indication a child is at high risk the ministry acts immediately, said minister Stan Hagen. And anyway, staffers said, things were as bad under the NDP.
The last observation - supported with several years worth of statistics - is entirely irrelevant. The public doesn't care about politics, or which party has the worst record. They want to know if children are being protected.
Trivializing the problem as one of paperwork seems incredible. The standard, for starters, doesn't say anything about filing reports. It says child protection investigations are complete when the risk is assessed and needed
steps taken to ensure child safety. That's supposed to happen within 30 days, and it's not.
And the observation that the ministry moves quickly when it detects high risk isn't really reassuring. The policy calls for complete, thorough prompt investigations. The statistics suggest that is not happening, and that's bad
news for children.
It's not just the NDP that is raising the concern.
The BC Association of Social Workers says child protection workers are swamped. "The caseloads are unmanageable, there's no support and there are no resources for people." says association head Linda Korbin. Reports of neglect and abuse aren't being investigated because social workers don't have time.
And Susanne Dannenberg, a child protection worker in Victoria, resigned over the issue. It can take months before serious safety concerns are investigated, she said. Dannenberg said the fear that child would die because of something she had been unable to do had become too much.
It leaves you, as the people who have a responsibility to help these children, in a tough spot.
The ministry says everything is fine.
But the statistics and the workers say that is not true. That children are at risk every day because warnings aren't being investigated.
It is another reminder of how badly B.C. needs a Children's Commission.
This is exactly the kind of issue the commission investigated and reported on. The commission would audit a sample of child protection cases, assess the strengths and weaknesses in the ministry's response, and report. It would
follow up, to see if things improved.
If there was no cause for concern, the public would know.
If there were problems, the public could demand that it be fixed - before some tragedy like the death of Sherry Charlie prompted a flood of overlapping reviews and investigations.
British Columbians have lost something very important. We're no longer have the ability to be confident that we're fulfilling our responsibilities to the children who need us the most.
The Liberals say trust us. Everything is fine.
It is an answer they would have never have accepted in opposition. It's one we shouldn't accept now.
Footnote: Hagen accused the NDP of fear-mongering on the issue in a response later posted to a government web site. Premier Gordon Campbell is taking a different approach. Dix and the New Democrats raised issues that needed to be
fixed, he said, and the government will act on them.

Harper's law-and-order drug talk the same failed approach

VICTORIA - It's hard to take seriously any politician who calls for mandatory minimum sentences.
That's what Stephen Harper did on his first campaign stop in B.C., casting himself as the non-nonsense sheriff from an old Western. It's time get tough on crime, especially drugs, said Harper. No conditional sentences, an end to harm reduction efforts like safe injection sites and mandatory minimum sentences for people who sell heroin, cocaine and crystal meth.
Mandatory minimum sentences are popular with politicians who can't figure out what else to do, in spite of two problems - they don't work, and they guarantee injustices.
In an earlier life I stood in a Red Deer church and watched a young mother and her three small children make their way to their usual pew without the dad who was there every Sunday. He was in a federal penitentiary.
The family business had been on the brink of collapse, and he was desperate, depressed and terrified. To get enough money to keep going for one more week he took an unloaded rifle and robbed a local bank branch, a stunningly stupid plan. He got about $2,000, was stopped by the police within five minutes, surrendered and admitted everything.
The sentencing guidelines then demanded a five-year minimum sentence for robbery with a weapon. So off he went to prison.
He had done a crime, and a serious one. The bank tellers were terrified, and despite the unloaded weapon something very bad could have happened.
But a five-year prison term made no sense.
Sentencing serves three purposes - to deter others who might offend, rehabilatate the criminal and express society's anger.
This sentence wasn't going to deter similar offenders; the essence of the crime was its lack of judgment and foresight. A five-year term wasn't needed to ensure rehabilitation, just some counselling. And most people reacted with compassion, not anger.
All that was really achieved by the strict sentencing rule was to wreck a family, leave three children without a father for a couple of years and send someone off for an expensive, destructive jail stay.
I have little doubt that without the minimum requirement, the court would have imposed house arrest or a brief jail stay.
Harper's proposed two-year minimum sentences for people arrested for drug trafficking would create the same injustices. A long sentence for a hapless addict for making a delivery or for people growing a dozen marijuana plants is not going to reduce crime.
Despite the promised minimum sentences, it's not even really going to happen. There isn't space in jails, for starters. B.C.'s prison costs are already expected to be $4 million over budget this year because of an increased number of inmates.
In fact mandatory minimum sentences often result in reduced penalties. Criminal Code penalties for impaired driving have become increasingly tough. The practical result has been that more people have fought the charges, and police and prosecutors can't handle the workload. Today only one-in-six drinking drivers caught by B.C. police is actually charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rest receive 24-hour roadside suspensions and are sent on their way.
Expect the same approach to small-time drug traffickers if Harper gets his way.
Harper's drug strategy is based on two basic fallacies - that drugs can be dealt with by attacking the supply side, and that addiction is a moral issue. "Our values are under attack," he said in Vancouver.
From Prohibition to today attacks on the supply side have failed. When enough people desperately want a product, others will profit by providing it.
The solution lies in reducing demand, through education, accessible treatment and and an attack on the issues - like poverty and mental illness - that drive addiction.
In the meantime, safe injection sites, methadone and even prescribed drugs help stabilize the problem and reduce the crime that comes when addicts scramble each day to stay alive.
Harper's drug plan is just more of the same tired, failed exercises.
Footnote: Crime is likely to continue to be an issue, because of high-profile killings in Toronto and a perception that addiction-driven property crime is a growing problem in many communities. But the fact remains that the rate for both violent crimes and homicides are lower today than they were a decade ago, according to StatsCan.

Why the federal campaign started off so dumb

VICTORIA - Day one of the federal campaign, and already the love that dare not speak its name had made the headlines.
Or loves, since as well as same sex marriage the media got all tangled up in whether politicians love their country.
It was all a warning that this campaign will be consistently weird, thanks in part to the hyperactive Blackberry-wielding operatives on both sides.
Stephen Harper raised the same sex issue right out of the gate, promising a free vote in Parliament on ending gay marriage.
It was a curious start, unless Harper just wanted to get the issue over with before the serious campaigning started. Polls show that a majority of Canadians want the law recognizing same sex marriage to stand.
They recognize that the change has no practical impact, since same sex couples already had the same legal and economic rights as other couples. Churches aren't compelled to recognize same sex marriages. (As we saw in the BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling, the Knights of Columbus can even legally deny same sex couples the rental of their hall for a reception.)
The whole debate is only about whether people can get a piece of paper from the state that says they're married. But it is the kind of issue that spooks voters looking for a moderate alternative to the Liberals. Eliminating same sex marriage means using the notwithstanding clause to remove Charter of Rights protections for some Canadians. That rightly scares people.
It wasn't just the love between people that made the news on day one.
Two questions into Harper's first scrum, and a reporter noted Paul Martin had already been talking about his values and affection for Canada. "Do you love this country," the reporter asked the Conservative leader.
It strikes me as a stupid question, but I'm sure other reporters have thought the same thing about some of the things I've asked.
"I think Canada is a great country," Harper said, and then talked about his travels across the land.
But, like some nervous guy hovering at the critical point in a new relationship, he didn't use the ''L" word.
Then things got really weird, thanks to the gaggle of spinners hovering around the candidates and lurking in their campaign war rooms. (A name that should offend people who fought in real wars.) Technology has meant campaigns are increasingly about instant responses to real and imagined missteps by the other side. Printing press releases was too slow; now email messages fly through space into handlers and reporter's Blackberries.
So within an hour the Liberals were zipping off emails to reporters saying Harper doesn’t love Canada. Within two hours, some commentators were speculating that the Conservatives had planted the question to make Harper look good, while others suggested the Liberals planted it to make Harper look bad.
By mid-afternoon, Martin had incorporated the issue into his speech, mocking Harper's reticence and yelling out his love for Canada like a giddy schoolboy.
Within another hour Harper's handlers had rewritten his speech, so at the next campaign stop he complained that Martin was suggesting only Liberals could really love Canada.
It was all wildly foolish, manufactured and irrelevant, and you can expect a lot more of the same over the next seven weeks.
Desperate for some fresh angle to make the news, political operatives in all campaigns have moved into instant response mode. The bulletins and fact checks and gloating comments fly back and forth so quickly that it sometimes seems the candidates' camps are having a conversation largely with each other. The relevance to voters is certainly dubious. (A fact forgotten by reporters trapped in the strange world of the leaders' campaigns, desperately seeking something new to write about the same speeches.)
They all love Canada, or like it a lot, or have warm feelings toward it, even Gilles Duceppe probably. It was a stupid issue. And it won't be the last.
Footnote: The campaign in B.C. is off to a slow start, with the Liberals and the Conservatives rushing to get a full slate of candidates nominated. All three main parties hope to gain ground in the province, with Liberals buoyed by improved poll standings and New Democrats hoping the party's provincial resurgence is a good sign.

Taylor woos the unions with a tempting cash offer

VICTORIA - Finance Minister Carole Taylor has made a useful stab at improving public sector bargaining, offering some $1.3 billion worth of carrots.
She didn't need to bring out any stick; the government's willingness to whack unions around is already well-established.
Taylor needed to find a new approach. The government is heading into negotiations with unions and associations representing some 300,000 workers over the next six months, about 90 per cent of the public sector. It has lots of extra money that unions are eying, and learned from the teachers' strike that the public is tired of imposed settlements.
So Taylor tried to rejig the process.
No more standard wage mandates - a freeze, or two, two and two.
Now the government will set different mandates for groups based on market conditions. Skilled labour, much in demand, can expect bigger increases. Groups already paid ahead of their private sector counterparts, or other provinces, can expect less.
And she's hoping unions and employers will tailor individual agreements to their circumstances. Some people may want time off, or more support, more than they want money.
There's still an overall ceiling on wage and benefit cost increases. The government figures surpluses between now and 2010 will be about $14 billion. (Likely a low estimate.)
It wants to spend $2.6 billion on debt repayment, and split the rest between contract settlements and other expenses.
That leaves about $5.7 billion, or enough to increase total wage and benefit spending by 2.7 per cent a year over each of the next four years.
Not a bad starting point. Unions are going to be looking for increases that match inflation - figure two per cent a year - and provide some catch-up for the ground they lost to wage freezes and rollbacks in the last contract. The money on the table gets them close.
But Taylor went farther. Soaring natural gas prices have pushed the expected surplus for this year to almost $3 billion.
The government has offered unions and associations like the BC Medical Association have a shot at $1 billion of that money - if they can negotiate quickly enough to sign a new contract by the time the fiscal year ends March 31.
The money would have to be used for a one-time payment, but that leaves a lot of room. The cash - about $3,300 per person - could be paid out as signing bonus, or used to bail out benefit plans running into difficulty.
Practically, there are some big hurdles. Most of the unions are still preparing their bargaining positions. Getting a deal in the limited time remaining - especially given the history of mistrust - will be a huge challenge.
But the money is a strong incentive for the unions, while employers who drag their feet will face even tougher talks once the $1 billion is off the table.
The province has also tried to encourage four-year deals, taking the contracts past the Olympics and the next election. As long as there is at least a $450-million surplus in 2010, the unions that sign longer deals will share in $300 million. That means at least an extra 1.6 per cent that year, on top of the negotiated increase.
A lot can go wrong.
Unions traditionally have huge difficulty with settlements that offer different members different rewards. The government would like an electrician - much in demand - to get a bigger raise than the janitor who works the same shift. That's a tough sell.
And the different wage mandates for different sectors - although entirely appropriate - are going to spark fierce debate in the union movement.
Negotiators for the employers, who have become used to just saying no, will also have to show creativity and flexibility.
I have no idea if it's going to work.
But this a well-crafted starting point, with the potential to help both sides develop a much more mature, productive bargaining relationship.
Footnote: The new approach faces a tough test in the form of talks between the government and the BC Medical Association. Doctors have to decide early in the New Year whether to go to arbitration or continue talks. Their approach may send a message about whether the government's approach will fly.

B.C. needs federal parties to rise above the muck

VICTORIA - Victoria-area Liberal MP Keith Martin summed up the election in a depressing way minutes after the government fell.
Who do you dislike less, he asked, Paul Martin or Stephen Harper?
OK, it wasn’t put quite that flatly, but I heard Martin offer a sorry choice. Sure, you may not like Paul Martin, he said, but jeez look at the alternative.
The interview could be a preview of the long, negative campaign ahead leading to the Jan. 23 election.
Keith Martin is right. Most Canadians are unhappy with the available choices.
Paul Martin is seen as a dithering opportunist with no principle more important than holding on to power. Martin was steadfastly silent on softwood, for example, never even calling U.S. President George Bush on the phone, until the election came closer and he turned hawkish. His party is linked to corruption and waste.
Stephen Harper strikes Canadians as an angry guy with some extremist candidates and an inability to offer a clear idea of what Canada would look like after a decade of Conservative government. (Jack Layton and the NDP may end up with an important role in a minority government; the NDP is not going to form the government.)
Polls show a majority of Canadians disapprove of the performance of both leaders.
It’s not an inspiring starting point for a campaign. With no dominant issues so far, and no positive momentum, both the main parties are looking at a largely negative campaign.
This will be an extremely close race. The polls vary, but most show the two main parties effectively tied. Unless there is a dramatic shift in support, every seat will be important.
That’s potentially good news for B.C. The province’s 36 seats are still much less significant than Ontario’s 106, but in this campaign all parties will have to focus on B.C. to capture critical seats.
The Liberals did that in the 2004 election, with some success. Paul Martins’ BC Dream Team included some weak links, but organizers claim the focus helped the Liberals move from five seats to eight, at the Conservatives’ expense.
Conservative organizers acknowledge the party fumbled in B.C. in ‘04, failing to tailor the campaign to regional concerns. The national effort - aimed at Ontario, naturally - failed to resonate. It treated the Liberals as the major opposition, even though the NDP was a serious factor in B.C.
And the Tories lost five seats, falling to 22 MPs. More critically, the party;’s share of the popular vote - despite the Alliance-Conservative merger - plummeted.
Strategists say they’ve learned their lesson, and promise a more targeted B.C. effort this time around.
But they face a big challenge. A Mustel Group poll found the Conservatives with the support of 24 per cent of decided voters, trailing the NDP, at 33 per cent, and the Liberals, at 38 per cent.
The anger at the Liberals over the sponsorship scandal is real, but Harper has not succeeded in presenting himself as a tolerable alternative. The anti-Liberal vote in B.C. is as likely to go to the NDP as it is to the Conservatives.
There is always hope for a better campaign. Perhaps by the time the real drive starts after Christmas the parties will become worried about the risks of a discouraged and alienated electorate, and begin speaking more about the issues that matter to Canadians and less about why the other leader is an ogre who can not be trusted.
British Columbians should hope so. There are a number of critical issues - softwood, the pine beetle, tourism, health care, First Nations - where federal leadership is needed.
A start has been made, with $100 million pledged for pine beetle aid and a number of commitments linked to the Kelowna summit on aboriginal issues.
But much more needs to be done. And that is what British Columbians should be demanding that all candidates talk about over the next seven weeks.
Footnote: Gordon Campbell says he’s confident that B.C.’s issues won’t be casualties of the election campaign. But even if initiatives like pine beetle aid and support for First Nations’ initiatives survive the election, action will be delayed, perhaps into next fall.

Take a bow MLAs, the legislature is a better place

VICTORIA - You can feel pretty good about the eight-week session of the legislature that just wrapped up.
Not great. There were still some bleak moments.
But the politicians patting themselves on the back as the session ended were right. The Liberals and New Democrats made a big effort to improve the way the B.C. legislature worked, with impressive results.
Some of the progress was just a question of modifying behaviour; some involved significant structural changes. The result was a legislature that did a much better job of reflecting your values and protecting your interests.
The legislature in the past has been described as a zoo with particularly loud and unpleasant animals. I've sat in the gallery and watched school children stare in horrified amazement at the bullying and shouting and insults. Behaviour that would land them in deep trouble on the playground was considered acceptable, maybe even clever.
It was mystifying how bright, responsible people could lose their way so totally.
But this fall they mostly haven't. There's been bluster and the occasional foolish rant, but overall people have been polite and courteous. They've listened when others were speaking, instead of shouting, and they've followed the capable direction of Speaker Bill Barisoff.
I know, it doesn't sound like much, but it's a big change.
But it's not just the tone that's different. The Liberals - to their credit - agreed to double the length of Question Period, to 30 minutes.
Question Period tends - rightly or not - to be the focus of political parties and journalists. It is the opposition's time to question ministers, and they generally hope to raise issues that will make the news.
At 15 minutes - the shortest in the Commonwealth - Question Period used to focus almost entirely on the one big hit, the issue that could lead the evening newscasts.
But the longer Question Period has created time for the opposition to raise many more issues. Regional problems that would never have got an airing, individual concerns, small but important issues have all at least made it on to the agenda.
The ability to press more thoroughly on the major issues has also made ministers look transparently foolish if they persist in non-answers.
And from time to time, there has even been exchanges that sound much like two people trying to solve a problem.
There's been some weird comments that somehow the changes have made the legislature less effective. Rudeness isn't effectiveness, and the session has shown that MLAs can press their points without acting like jerks.
Much of the credit goes to Campbell and Carole James. But the two House leaders, Mike Farnworth for the NDP and Mike de Jong for the Liberals, have played a large role. They've reined in their more excitable colleagues and co-operated to develop a schedule for debate that left both sides happy. This is the first session I can recall where the opposition wasn't complainingg about debates cut short as the government railed against opposition stalling.
OK, there was the collective madness that led to the sneaky attempt to bring in a big MLA pay raise and a costly pension plan. But maybe that will be helpful too. The MLAs who thought quietly that the whole thing was a bad idea, but didn't speak up, now know they should have.
Mostly, there was a sense of relief that after four years there is an opposition. Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan worked hard, but the government was not held to account, its plans only barely examined and legislation passed without proper review.
The Liberals may have preferred a much smaller NDP opposition, but most welcome a return to a functioning legislature. Who knows, a larger opposition in their first term may have headed off some of their larger mistakes.
Can it last? Sure, with only a little effort.
And in the meantime, thanks to all the MLAs. It's nice to be able to watch the legislature without constantly cringing.
Footnote: The session showed that Finance Minister Carole Taylor deserved her billing as a star candidate. On the opposition side Adrian Dix, Bob Simpson, Robin Austin and Charlie Wyse were all quick to show the ability to play an effective role in the legislature.
willcocks@ultranet.ca

Brandon died, and his mother deserves answers

VICTORIA - One phone conversation with Dayna Humphrey demolishes all the government's evasions on child death reviews.
Humphrey's son died more than two years ago, weeks after he was placed in a Surrey foster home. Like any mother, she wanted to know what happened, how her cheerful two-year-old could have ended up slumped in a too large wheelchair, restraint straps pressing on his neck, no longer breathing.
No one would tell her. The ministry of children and families didn't return calls. She waited seven months for a coroner's report. It was a one-page judgment, that said the cause of Brandon's death was undetermined, didn't even mention that he was in a foster home or government care and made no recommendations.
Humphrey thought placing Brandon briefly in the government's care was the best choice.
He was born three months early, weighing less than two pounds, and suffered from deafness, cerebral palsy and other problems.
Humphrey's marriage had ended. She had two other children, and needed to find work. The 24-hour care that Brandon needed, the challenge of physiotherapy and learning sign language, were too much, and she couldn't get assistance. So she placed Brandon in care for three months to get her life organized for the challenges ahead.
And then he was dead.
Humphrey tried for almost a year to get answers. "I've been slapped down at every step," she says, in a quiet voice. Finally, she gave up.
Then came the admission that files on 713 child deaths had been forgotten in a Victoria warehouse.
"I woke up at 6:30, like I do every morning, to get ready for work and turned on the news and there it was, right in front of me," says Humphrey. "I was devastated. I'm angry. I'm hurt."
She wondered whether proper reviews into those deaths would have yielded lessons that would have saved Brandon's life.
And then she wondered if other children might die, because no one was learning from Brandon's death.
Dayna Humphrey is the perfect rebuttal to the government's claims about child death reviews.
She shows that the reviews are essential, and that since the Liberals eliminated the Children's Commission meaningful reports have ceased. And she proves that there is now no way for families to get the answers they deserve.
Solicitor General John Les has claimed that the forgotten files weren't really forgotten, because the coroner did an initial report.
But the report on Brandon's death shows how inadequate those reviews are when it comes to children's deaths.
A child is in a foster home, left unattended in a wheelchair that doesn't fit him, and dies. And the result is a one-page report with no recommendations. It doesn't look at why a proper wheelchair wasn't available; why he was left alone; whether the number of children in the home was a factor; or even whether support would have allowed Brandon to stay at home.
Les maintains that a child death review team in the Coroner's Office has done detailed reviews on 526 children's deaths over the last three years, including Brandon's.
But only two have been released. Chief Coroner Terry Smith says he has neither the budget nor the legal authority needed to do the reviews.
And while Les says individual death reviews may be released, the coroner says that won't happen.
Questions about Brandon's death have been raised in the legislature every day this week. But Les said he hasn't asked for a copy of the child death review.
He has no answers for Brandon's mother.
When the Children's Commission, she would have got those answers. And British Columbians would have been confident that the death was properly reviewed, and lessons learned.
"That's exactly what it is I'm looking for - an independent third party that can look at these," Humphrey says. "I want to know that somebody out there is looking for my son's voice."
"All the children and all the parents deserve that much."
Footnote: Les continued to say in the legislature this week that the coroner would be releasing both individual reviews, and reports that looked at trends in deaths and specific issues. The coroner's office say that it has no plans to issue individual reports. Parents won't get answers there.

Pay and pension plans die, and the public wins

VICTORIA - The great raise and pension debacle should shake your faith in all 79 MLAs.
The plan to sneak through a 15-per-cent raise - and a pension plan that could take the total compensation increase closer to 50 per cent - was sneaky and self-serving.
Every MLA signed on to the scam last Thursday. Both the Liberals and the NDP knew the public would be furious. But they figured if they stuck together, that wouldn't much matter. What could voters do?
The deal was explicit, and clear, and NDP leader Carole James and Gordon Campbell both agreed. So did every MLA.
And they agreed that they would lift the rules of the legislature, which usually require bills to be passed over several days to allow public comment. That kind of heat could make some MLAs waver, so it took less than two hours to pass the whole thing.
There was no warning to the public that the changes were coming, no studies or consultation. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee - four Liberals, two New Democrats - worked in secret to get the deal together. No one broke the silence.
Then the public went berserk, and James got cold feet. The Liberals pulled the plug on the whole thing.
They're angry, and so are some of the NDP backbenchers. It's disturbing that somehow James couldn't see the reaction coming. And there is no doubt she broke her word.
But she's also right. The process was an abuse of the public trust, especially because of the secrecy.
The initial reports all talked about a 15-per-cent pay raise.
But the real increase, including the value of the new pension plan, is at least twice that amount, and in some cases will be up to 50 per cent.
When the pay raise was rushed through the legislature last week politicians offered a brief summary of the impact. The raises, and increased support for constituency offices, would cost taxpayers about $4 million a year, the summary said.
But it offered no cost for the pension plan.
That was a significant omission. Liberal MLA Randy Hawes, a member of the committee that developed the pension plan in secret, revealed the tab will likely be $3 million to $4 million a year.
Pension calculations are tricky. For example ex-MLAs become eligible for the pensions at 55. If they quit at 35, then their contributions pile up interest for 20 years to help cover the cost of the pension. If they quit at 55, then the taxpayer is on the hook for much more of their pension cost. The plan would also allow former MLAs to buy in.
But the bottom line is that most MLAs who served two terms would have ended up with a pensions worth about $1 million. They would have contributed about $60,000. The rest of the money would have come from taxpayers.
The existing RRSP plan costs taxpayers about $500,000 a year. The new plan would cost up to eight times that much.
It's all dead now, say the Liberals, mostly because they're mad at James. Even elements of the deal which would likely enjoy public support - like increased support for constituency offices - won't be brought back. "This matter, as far as the government is concerned, is a dead issue," said Liberal House leader Mike de Jong.
Don't be so sure that will last. Liberal Lorne Mayencourt was the only MLA to vote against abandoning the raises and pension plan, offering a passionate - but mathematically challenged - defence,
Other MLAs on both sides of the House share his views.
And MLAs likely deserve a pay increase, and a sensible pension plan.
But this effort was an abuse of the public.
Perhaps when the issues do come back, politicians will recognize the importance of openness and appoint an independent commission to tackle the tough questions, and come up with sensible, affordable proposals.
Footnote: Campbell had to tread carefully. He was a consistent opponent of MLA pension plans in opposition. And in 1997 he agreed to improve pension benefits for some MLAs, backing a deal negotiated by then Liberal House leader Gary Collins. Campbell, like James, reneged, leaving Collins to dangle in the wind. Just as James left Mike Farnworth.

Government failed 713 forgotten children

VICTORIA - They sat in a Victoria warehouse for almost three years, partially completed reviews of the deaths of 713 children.
Almost 50 children who killed themselves. Twenty-five who were victims of homicide, and another 25 whose deaths were still mysteries. Fourteen who were in the government’s care.
Apparently no one in government had noticed that the deaths had fallen through the cracks when the Liberals eliminated the Children’s Commission.
Solicitor General John Les walked into the Press Theatre this week to announce the forgotten children, only days after he had said there might be about 80 cases. Work will start now on the forgotten reviews, he said, and his deputy minister will report on what went wrong.
I can offer some suggestions.
The Liberals eliminated the Children’s Commission in 2002 and handed the responsibility for child death reviews to the Coroner’s Office. But they cut the coroner’s budget by $600,000 at the same time, without reducing his responsibilities. The Children’s Commission, by my best guess, had been spending about $1.5 million a year on child death reviews. The coroner was doomed to fail.
And the government made the change without any real transition plan, or monitoring system.
Premier Gordon Campbell denied that this week. The legislation clearly set out a transition plan, he said.
But the premier is forgetful. The Office of Child and Youth Advocate Act simply says the Children’s Commission must transfer any remaining incomplete death investigations to the coroner’s office. The coroner “may” continue the investigations, the law says.
That’s the supposed transition plan. And it was followed. The coroner signed for the 713 incomplete death reviews, taking legal control of the files. And then they sat in the warehouse.
Why does it matter?
For the families of those children, it matters because some wanted answers. They wanted to know why their children died. They hoped that the deaths would gain meaning if something was learned that would help others.
For government, and all of us, it’s important to understand any lessons that could help prevent future deaths. That is the purpose of child death reviews.
And in 713 cases, that wasn’t done.
What is more worrying is that no one noticed. The ministers who should have been paying attention over the last few years - Rich Coleman, Gordon Hogg, Stan Hagen - all said they have no idea what happened.
But those cases represent about two years worth of deaths. How can the government, if it is paying attention, not notice that those reports have just dropped from sight?
Ted Hughes is looking at the whole system of death reviews. He was chairing a panel that included Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley and Chief Coroner Terry Smith. Hagen changed that Friday, handing sole responsibility to Hughes.
That’s reasonable. Morley designed the current system; Smith, according to the premier’s interpretation, was legally responsible for the 713 incomplete investigations. They shouldn’t have been on the review panel.
The small good news is that this failure should end the government’s claim that public accountablility and open reporting is unnecessary.
The Children’s Commission, and the Child Youth Advocate, reported frequently on how children were faring in B.C. The commission reported publicly on close to 200 deaths a year, and over its history made 800 recommendations to keep children from harm.
In the last three years the coroner has released a report on one death, and one report on keeping children safe in bed. It says it has done 546 other child death reviews, but hasn’t released them, or shared recommendations.
And all the while the government has maintained that all is well.
But the Sherry Charlie case and the 713 forgotten children show that all is not well. The secrecy has made it impossible to tell how large the problems may be, or what we must do to respond.
It’s time to admit a major mistake, and restore full, independent reporting on the lives - and deaths - of children in B.C.
Footnote: Campbell said this week that all of the 713 deaths had already received a coroner’s review, which determines cause of death and other basic information. But in fact 40 per cent had received no review before being sent to the warehouse. The coroner says he hasn’t yet begun doing any full child death reviews and needs more money and authority.

MLAs' secretive pay grab an abuse of public

VICTORIA - You have to wonder if the Liberals and NDP lost their collective mind in their rush to raise their salaries.
In the morning the government admitted that 713 children's deaths weren't properly investigated, their files forgotten in a Victoria warehouse.
And in the afternoon both parties rammed through a 16-per-cent pay raise for all MLAS, taking their base to $86,580.
Most will get extra money for heading up committees, or filling party posts, with a half-dozen MLAs getting pay jumps of at least 30 per cent.
Premier Gordon Campbell will see his pay jump 22 per cent to $146,000 on April 1; NDP leader Carole James and cabinet ministers are up 15 per cent to $131,000.
MLAs also restored their pension plan, even though the Liberals led the crusade to get rid of the former plan.
I have no problem with a raise. Most MLAs sacrifice much to do the job, personally and financially. Their pay should reflect that. And a sensible pension plan also makes sense.
But this was a bushwhacking. Every one of these people ran for office six months ago knowing what the compensation was. None of them suggested that one of their first priorities would be to get down to the business of increasing their pay.
And the entire deal was reached in secret meetings of a legislative committee, with not one word of public discussion or debate. No outsiders were involved; no independent review was done.
MLAs even voted unanimously to suspend the normal rules of the legislature to get the increase approved in 51 minutes. The rules require bills to be debated over several days, to allow public debate and sober second thought.
The change sets the stage for continued big increases.
The MLAs voted to set their pay from now on at 60 per cent of the salary of federal MPs. But federal MPs salary increases are already controversial. They've linked their pay rates to federal judge's salaries, which are set by a commission and have been soaring.
It's remarkably brazen, and unfair to the public. Why not a discussion of linking MLAs' pay to the average weekly wage in the province, so they gained as all British Columbians gained?
Or why not appoint a commissioner - the route taken in the past - to look at MLAs' pay and come up with public recommendations?
The secret deal stinks.
And it is going to create massive headaches. Don't forget that every public sector contract is up for renegotiation over the next seven months. Teachers, for example, fresh from their legislated contract with no pay increases, will soon start their next round of talks.
And predictably enough BCTF head Jinny Sims says the union will now be looking for 15 per cent. Doctors, nurses, government workers can now say that all they want is the same increases that MLAs voted for themselves.
Since MLAs felt no need to justify their proposed increase to their employers - that's you - the unions can make the same demand.
There's no easy way for politicians to increase their pay, and some people will object to any raise, no matter how well-deserved.
But this secret surprise deal violate the principle of openness, transparency and fairness to taxpayers. There is no clear justification offered for the big increases, beyond the fact that MLAs thought they deserved more money.
The pension plan was re-introduced in the same rushed, secretive way. MLAs voted to bring back a pension plan without even knowing what it would cost taxpayers.
The Liberals and New Democrats stood together, with MLAs voting unanimously for the increase, so no party comes out ahead or behind.
But politicians all lose. This is the kind of behaviour that rightly fuels cynicism. This is an obvious case for third party review, an informed public discussion and some common sense.
Instead British Columbians were kept in the dark as MLAs failed to recognize their duty to the public.
Footnote: MLAs also approved a 40-per-cent increase in funding for constituency offices - badly needed for many large rural ridings - and big increases for political support staff. No justification was provided.

Opposition scores win for firefighters, despite Liberal qualms

VICTORIA - It's a brave or foolhardy politician who gets into a fight with volunteer firefighters.
So even though rushing to extend special WCB status to volunteer firefighters isn't particularly sound public policy, the Liberal government jumped aboard the bright red bandwagon this week,
On one level, it's democracy in action. The NDP saw what they considered a weakness in a government bill making it easier for firefighters to get WCB compensation if they get cancer. Only full-time firefighters were to get the break. Part-timers, and more importantly volunteers, were left out.
Labour Minister Mike de Jong defended the decision earlier this month. There just isn't evidence that volunteer firefighters face the same exposure to harmful substances. Like other workers, they would continue to have to prove to the WCB that their cancer had been caused by fighting fires.
Liberal backbenchers supported the exclusion. Volunteers are important, said Kevin Krueger, and should get protection. But not now.
But New Democrats, led by labour critic Chuck Pulchmayr, weren't so hesitant, and introduced an amendment extending the special status to volunteers and part-timers.
And the squeeze was on. Worries about a lack of scientific evidence vanished, swept away by the tides of political pressure.
De Jong changed his mind, the NDP withdrew its amendment - governments hate accepting opposition ideas - and the Liberals introduced their own version to extend the special status to all firefighters.
Cheers all round and a speedy passage for the new law. What was unsound three weeks ago will now be law.
The Liberals opened the door to all this with a pre-election promise to give full-time firefighters special status with the Workers' Compensation Board.
If you're employed and get sick, you are only compensated if you can prove that your work caused the illness. That can be long, costly and difficult; firefighters lost two out of every three appeals over the years.
The Liberals' legislation gives them special status. For firefighters suffering from seven kinds of cancer, the WCB will be ordered to assume that their illness was work-related. The board will have to prove that the disease was caused by some other factor, or pay up.
The WCB legislation already attempts to streamline the process for some common illnesses, with a schedule of ailments and causes. If you work in a mine and are exposed to silica dust, the WCB has to prove silicosis wasn't caused by your work.
Firefighters get a different, better deal. They continue to benefit from the status even if they have left the job or retired.
The notion of extending special privileges to one occupational group is troubling. If the WCB system isn't working, or is unfair, it should be fixed for all employees.
But full-time firefighters waged an effective lobby, producing scientific studies to show that they did suffer from much higher rates of cancer.
And it helped hugely that firefighters are seen as good guys, making the move a political winner for the Campbell government. The promise was enough to win a rare union endorsement for the Liberals, and the government launched its legislation with a big reception for about 50 firefighters from around the province.
Those same political factors led to the quick reversal on volunteers and part-timers, who make up about two-thirds of the 15,000 firefighters in the province.
The part-timers and volunteers have a case. In many rural communities volunteers - while still invaluable - face limited exposure to toxins. But in small cities they work side by side with full-time firefighters, and face the same exposure. It's complex to sort out - only two provinces have so far extended special status to part-time firefighters. De Jong was likely right to delay a decision.
But politics won out, with the biggest factor the strength of the opposition. In the last legislature, the bill would have sailed through unchanged.
This time the political pressure was enough to outweigh the government's view that there just wasn't enough evidence to extend special status to 11,000 firefighters.
Footnote: The provisions covering full-time firefighters carry some serious restrictions. Kidney cancer is only automatically considered work-related, for example, if the firefighter has been on the job for 20 years. The bill will allow the government to come up with different standards for volunteers and part-timers.

Liberals stumble again in child death reviews

VICTORIA - John Les tied himself in knots Monday in a hopeless effort to minimize the government's bungling of child death reviews.
The latest revelation was that the government shut down at least 80 significant investigations into children's deaths when it eliminated the Children's Commission in 2002. The reviews weren't finished. The families didn't have answers, and the lessons that could be learned remained hidden.
But the government wanted the Children's Commission gone, and the simple way was to close the files. Sorry, Martel family of Kitimat. You'll never get a full report about how your little boy died during a superbug outbreak in a Vancouver hospital. It's not important enough to finish the review.
The NDP raised the issue in Question Period, and Les, as the solicitor general, gamely tried to answer questions in a scrum. (He's responsible for the coroner's service, which was supposed to be taking on all these child death reviews.)
So did 80 child deaths go unreviewed, falling through the cracks?
No, Les maintained. "The appropriate reviews were done on each of these unfortunate cases," he claimed.
And then, barely taking a breath, Les contradicted himself.
"There were some issues about whether the reviews were completed," he said.
In the real world, it's hard to claim that everything was properly completed, except for the fact that things were not actually properly completed.
In any case, actions tell the real story. And Les said that after he learned about the incomplete investigations about a month ago, he told the coroner to review them. And now he's come up with emergency money - several hundred thousand dollars - to get the job done properly. At least half a dozen deaths raise issues that demand a thorough review.
Les won't say how he learned about the abandoned investigations, or why no one in government did anything about the issue for three years. It was a hardly a secret - parents complained back in 2002 that the reviews of their children's deaths were being abandoned.
None of this is terribly complex. The Children's Commission, among its activities, reviewed the deaths of children in the province. It had a $4-million budget, with some $1.5 million going towards the death reviews. They established facts, and looked for ways we could avoid future tragedies.
The Liberals decided the commission was unnecessary (although they were very big fans in opposition).
So the commission, along with the Child and Youth Advocate, were gone, replaced by the Child and Youth Officer. Child death reviews were supposed to be taken over by the coroner.
Except at the same time the Coroner's Office budget was cut by $800,000, and only $200,000 was provided for child death reviews. It was obviously hopelessly inadequate.
Since then, the government has been playing word games to cover up what has been lost.
The coroner is still reviewing child fatalities, the government has said over the last several months, as questions over the death of Sherry Charlie have mounted.
That's at best an evasion. The coroner is still looking at all deaths. But child death reviews are not the same. They take a broader look, at what could have changed to save a life, or a family.
Chief Coroner Terry Smith has acknowledged as much. More than three years after his office took over responsibility, only one child death review has been done and released.
Smith hopes to start the work next year, and has asked for an extra $1 million to cover the cost. "We're now at a point where we need to start doing the fuller reviews, and I have asked for additional resources along with some legislative changes to accommodate that," he said. Now being three years after the government began maintaining nothing was lost with the elimination of the Children's Commission.
No wonder Les is struggling to come up with answers.
Footnote: In opposition, Gordon Campbell - like Judge Thomas Gove - rejected the idea that standard coroner's investigation was adequate. An independent commissioner was needed, he said then, and must look at every child death. Campbell was at a convention centre construction photo op in Vancouver when the new questions were raised in the legislature.

Pine beetle tab heading towards $5 billion

VICTORIA - The pine beetle damage numbers are leaping towards incomprehensibility.
The B.C. government has been pitching a $1.5-billion program to cope with the disaster over the next 15 years, hoping for $1 billion from Ottawa.
But new leaked documents reveal an increasing crisis and mounting costs.
"Our latest projections indicate the mountain pine beetle to be a $3-billion to $5-billion issue over 35 years," says the draft notes on a new aid pitch being rushed to the feds.
That's just the money to replant the trees, clean up the mess, encourage quick harvesting and - the toughest part - help communities prepare for a coming economic and social crisis.
On top of that figure a $2-billion annual hit to the provincial government's bottom line for years, suggests the Business Council of BC's Jock Finlayson.Forest revenues will be down and expenses up because of the beetle.
All this woe is about a decade away. The beetle is on track to kill about 80 per cent of the lodgepole pine in the province within the next few years.
The dead trees will hold their value for a while. Figure five years of frantic logging to try and grab whatever value can be had.
And then things get grim. Those trees are gone, and the next generation is decades from maturity. Towns that were built on forestry will see the available timber supply slashed. Fewer trees means fewer mills, fewer jobs mean less business for stories, a population exodus means falling property values. In a community like Quesnel industry employment could fall by 50 per cent from the beetle-harvest peak, according to the Canadian Forest Service. The impact will be much the same as if Victoria lost 35,000 jobs within a couple of years.
The leaked documents were released by the NDP, who complained that the proposal to Ottawa was being rushed together.
It was. The documents reveal work started four weeks ago, and the proposal was due in Ottawa any day now.
But if there's a chance to get a financial commitment from the Martin government as it tries desperately to solidify support for the coming election, then the province is right to grab it.
The New Democrats were on sounder ground when they charged that the document reveals a lack of planning and preparation. The work of coming up with plans would have to start quickly if the money came through, the paper says.
The province has a Pine Beetle Action Plan document, but it's stretching things to call it a plan. There are very general goals, but no details on how to achieve them.
Partly, that's understandable. The problem is vast, and much of preliminary research is only being done now.
But the coming crisis has been clear for five years or more, and the response has not come nearly quickly enough. The efforts to reduce the coming economic damage, to keep communities alive, need to start as soon as possible. The process needs to get beyond planning and into doing.
The leaked document is also encouraging. The federal and provincial focus has been short term - looking at ways to increase logging now so the resource value is maintained.The two levels of government have so far come up with about $220 million to deal with the crisis, with the emphasis on land and forest management. Less than $50 million has been committed for community economic diversification.
But the paper reveals federal Industry Minister David Emerson wants a different approach. The focus should be on socio-economic development, the planning paper says, reflecting "Minister Emerson's desire for any new mountain pine beetle ask to be placed in the context of an economic plan for B.C. Interior communities."
It's an enormously challenge, with great risks. But an economic disaster is coming towards B.C. in slow motion. The impact goes far beyond forest communities, and will damage the entire provincial economy.
And the time for an effective response is growing short.
Footnote: Thank politics for the opportunity for a new pitch.The federal government has committed $100 million so far. But with a close election on its way, seats in B.C. will be critical the Martin Liberals. A decisive response to the pine beetle crisis - in the form of money - will improve the party's chances.

Everyone lost when child death reviews were just shut down

VICTORIA - Part way through the call from Chief Coroner Terry Smith, I got the feeling I'd been scammed for the last several years.
All along the government has claimed that nothing has really been lost with the elimination of the Children's Commission, and its reviews of child deaths. The coroner has stepped in to do those investigations, said everyone from Gordon Campbell on down.
It always seemed rubbish. The Children's Commission was reviewing more than 150 deaths a year, producing regular public reports on what had happened, and what broader lessons could be learned. (That was only a small part of its work.)
In the three years since the Liberals eliminated the commission, the coroner has produced a report on just one death, and one other general report. The child officer is now starting her first report on a death. Public reporting effectively stopped in 2003.
But through it all the government kept saying the coroner was on the job, even if there were no reports. Child death reviews were being done.
Then came the phone interview with Smith, who announced an inquest into the death of Sherry Charlie. Sherry, 19 months old, was beaten to death after being placed in the care of relatives by a First Nations agency acting on behalf of the ministry.
Smith says he is confident that every child death has been adequately reviewed by ther coroner's office. Children haven't fallen through the cracks, he says.
But he also confirmed that full child death reviews were halted at the beginning of 2003, and have not been done since then.
For starters, the coroner's office doesn't have the legal power to do the reviews. It can't demand documents, or hold in-camera hearings. Smith says he is hoping for legislative changes next spring - more than three years after the Children's Commission was axed - to allow the reviews.
And the coroner doesn't have the money. The Children's Commission had a $4.2-million budget, with something like $1.5 million allocated for child death reviews. The coroner's office was coping with big budget cuts when it took on child death reviews. It got $200,000 to fund the new responsibility, a small fraction of the former commitment.
No one could argue that was enough.
Smith agrees. He's asked for an extra $1 million a year to fund proper child death reviews
"We're now at a point where we need to start doing the fuller reviews, and I have asked for additional resources along with some legislative changes to accommodate that," he said.
But for the last three years, the government has been maintaining that those "fuller reviews" were being done.
The truth is that the Children's Commission was eliminated with no real plan to ensure that work continued, or that there was any effective independent oversight on behalf of the public. The commission doors were closed Jan. 1, 2003. Reviews in progress were quickly shut down. The commission's database on child deaths was abandoned. Everything started from scratch.
As a reporter, and a parent, and a fretful citizen worried about the kids who end up in government care, I found the Children's Commission extremely valuable. When a commission audit found half the children in government care didn't have up-to-date plans for their care, I thought that was valuable. The death reviews, while sad reading, offered useful lessons.
But I accept that there's an argument that the commission went too far in reviewing every death, or that there were too many overlapping investigations. The government could have come up with a thoughtful alternative.
Instead, it killed the Children's Commission and Child and Family Advocate without ensuring any effective replacement. The advocacy work being done, the reviews to identify the ministry's problems - and successes - were all halted.
Children in care, families dependent on the ministry and people who think that accountability is important have all lost as a result.
Footnote: Smith's announcement means there are now eight inquiries linked to Sherry's death. New Democrat Adrian Dix, who has been extremely effective, wants one public inquiry. But at this point, the best option is to let the reviews produce results rather than stepping into the legal complexities and potential delays of a public inquiry.

Charlie case piles up doubts about children's ministry

VICTORIA - Jamie Charlie was three.
His sister, not yet two, had just been beaten to death in the home that was supposed to be a refuge. The man who did it, the father in the home, claimed that Jamie had pushed his sister down some stairs. The boy was set to grow up thinking he had killed her.
Except days later an autopsy found that the severe injuries couldn't have been produced by a fall. The RCMP was called, and the ministry of children and families. Both children had been placed in the home by a First Nations' agency working under the ministry's authority.
Then a criminal record check arrived, too late for Sherry. The man who killed her had a long record, including violent offences. When Jamie and Sherry were sent there, he was still on probation for assaulting his wife.
The ministry launched its first investigation. At the least there was a dark cloud over that Port Alberni household.
But two months later the next steps in Jamie's tough life were being decided in provincial court. Usma Family and Child Services, acting for the director of child protection, needed approval to apprehend him, and decide on where he should go.
And despite all the warning signs, the plan was to leave Jamie in the home where Sherry died - despite the suspicions, the history of violent crime and other concerns.
Worse, the judge didn't get the real story. The court was told only that Sherry had "passed away" in a "tragic accident." That was by then known to be untrue.
Victoria Times-Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines uncovered the information, the latest revelation in the discouraging saga of Sherry's death.
The ministry's first response was to suggest that this really wasn't a ministry problem; it was something for the First Nations' agency to deal with. Its social worker made the court appearance.
Children and Families Minister Stan Hagen quickly moved beyond that position. The agency acted on behalf of the director of child protection. The government remained responsible.
But four days after the news broke, the ministry said it had searched the files and didn't know about the court hearing, or Jamie's placement. "There are no records in any of the ministry files that anybody realized that this had happened," Hagen said.
That's a bad thing. A critical decision was made, and the ministry had no process for staying informed.
It's even more worrying that despite supposedly thorough investigations into Sherry's death - at the very time the court hearing took place, and over the last three years - the government never found out about the hearing. The court records existed; a call to the agency should have produced the information. Questions about why Jamie was left in the home have been raised publicly by his family, and the opposition.
Yet no one in the ministry had investigated effectively enough to find out about the court appearance, or the misleading information presented on behalf of the director. A reporter had to get at the facts.
It was significant information. Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley immediately asked for permission to launch an investigation into Jamie's placement. Attorney General Wally Oppal is expected to grant her request.
That, along with the coroner's inquest announced Tuesday, means eight investigations are under way into this death.
Less than two months ago Hagen was maintaining that a flawed internal review had provided the needed answers. "The director's review is a complete story from start to finish," he told the legislature.
Since then there have been more and more questions that the government can't answer, and more and more reviews into Sherry's death, and the ministry's work.
Things will go wrong in the ministry, and the results will sometimes be terrible. That's the nature of the work.
But the succession of revelations - each of which seems a surprise to the ministry - raises basic questions of competence, and undermines public confidence.
Footnote: The question now is how widespread these problems are. The decision to eliminate the Children's Commission, without having any effective replacement process for reviewing child deaths, has created the risk that children are falling through the cracks, and that lessons aren't being learned.

Government should stay out of Terasen sale

VICTORIA - I can see why people are worked up about the takeover of Terasen Inc. by U.S.-based Kinder Morgan.
There are reasons to worry , and to feel betrayed. It was only two years ago, as Terasen successfully lobbied the government to lift Canadian ownership requirements, that CEO John Reid downplayed worries about a takeover. "Our head office is firmly planted here in Vancouver, British Columbia, and we have every intention of keeping it that way," he said then.
But still the government is right to keep its hands off the deal, and resist the call to use it as a weapon in the softwood battle.
First some history.
Terasen, known as BC Gas until two years ago, was a publicly owned natural gas distributor for 50 years.
In 1988 the Socreds decided to privatize the utility. But the Vander Zalm government was worried that foreign ownership, or control by any small group of owners, would hurt B.C.'s interests. So it passed a law limiting foreign ownership to 20 per cent of shares, and barring anyone from owning enough stock to exercise control.
The law lasted for 15 years, until the Liberal government repealed it in 2003. There was no real debate or discussion. The two-person NDP opposition was focused on bigger BC Hydro issues in the same piece of legislation; Liberal MLAs asked no questions.
The Liberals said the change was needed because government shouldn't be setting ownership rules for a private company. The new freedom would make it easier for Terasen to raise money through stock issues, it said.
They are not bad arguments, but it might have been a tough sell if people were paying attention. More than 6,000 British Columbians have written letters opposing the Kinder deal.
Terasen is big in the pipeline business, moving oil from Alberta into B.C. and to five U.S. states. (It does not actually produce any oil or gas.)
But the corporation's core business is delivering natural gas to about 880,000 B.C. households and businesses. It's a monopoly, regulated by the BC Utilities Commission, and the company's performance and rates are important to more than half of British Columbians.
They have some right to be concerned. Gas distribution in B.C. was hugely important to Terasen. To Kinder Morgan, it is just another profit centre. Terasen, as one of B.C.'s largest corporations, was conscious of its image and reputation. Kinder Morgan will be much less interested.
But the time for such concerns is past.
The law was changed. Kinder Morgan made an offer to buy the company, obeying all the rules, and the shareholders have accepted. The deal is worth about $700 million in gains to Terasen shareholders. (About half the shares are held by pension and mutual funds and other institutions.) It would be wrong to leap in now.
The sale still has to be approved by the BC Utilities Commission, which will look at whether it is in the public interest. A federal review is also under way. British Columbians will have to count on those reviews establish that their interests can be protected.
The New Democrats, with Corky Evans in the lead, have been calling on the government to stall the sale as a pressure tactic in the softwood dispute. Richard Kinder, the acquisitive CEO, is a friend and supporter of George Bush. Holding up the sale for 90 days could encourage Kinder to tell Bush that energy matters more than softwood, they argue.
It's appealing, but not the right action. The delay would penalize Terasen shareholders for something they nothing to do with, and send a message that B.C. is a risky place to do business.
Especially because a 90-day freeze is unlikely to have any impact, leading to pressure for a longer and longer delay.
Basically, this is just another corporate takeover, changing one group of self-interested shareholders for another.
And that's really not the government's business.
Footnote: The sale means Vancouver loses another corporate head office. On a per capita basis, B.C. already trails four provinces - including Manitoba - in the number of head offices located here. It's a significant problem. Corporate head offices provide increased business and career opportunities, and tend to offer more support for community projects of all kinds.

New U.S. passport rule could clobber B.C. tourism

VICTORIA - Tourism Minister Olga Illich is right to be fighting new U.S. border security measures that threaten the tourist industry.
B.C. has run into a nasty alignment of three big tourism problems, all certain to keep American visitors away. Two of the three - painful gas prices and a strong Canadian dollar - are beyond the province's control.
But there is at least hope that B.C., working with the other provinces and U.S. border states, can stall an American plan to make passports mandatory for all travelers. "We've been taking every opportunity to get into their faces and say we're unhappy about this," says Illich.
The new law will mean that a family heading up from Bellingham for a weekend in Vancouver won't be admitted back into the U.S. without passports. Since two out of three Americans don't have a passport, that's a big problem. A family of four is not going to spend $400 on passports just to come to B.C. for a week’s holiday.
And since the U.S. is by far the most important external market for B.C. tourism, providing three out of four foreign visitors.
B.C. has allies. All the provinces and Ottawa are opposing the passport requirement. And because the rule would also apply to Canadians visiting the U.S., most border states have joined the fight, fearing a loss of Canadian visitors.
But time is running out. The rule is set to apply to travelers coming by air and sea - a significant group for Victoria - by the end of next year, and to all travelers by Dec. 31, 2007.
The Canadian Tourism Commission reports that the new rules are already scaring away visitors who are confused about the passport requirement, keeping more than 50,000 potential tourists away from B.C. this year.
The threat comes at a bad time.
American visits to Canada fell to their lowest level in 25 years in August. Visits to B.C. are down 2.9 per cent so far this year.
Soaring gas prices are already taking a toll on tourism. BC Stats estimates that each one-cent increase in gas prices results in the loss of 3,600 same-day and 2,400 overnight visitors a year. American gas prices, pushed up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, are up 60 cents from a year ago, costing the province some 360,000 visits. The impact is greatest in smaller centres, dependent on car travelers.
A hotel room that cost $90 Canadian would have translated into the bargain rate of $60 U.S. at the beginning of 2003. This month, the same room would have cost an American traveler more than $75 in his own currency. Across the board - meals, attractions - the cost of a break in the Okanagan, or on the Island, is up 25 per cent just because of the exchange rate.
B.C. has just released its submission to the U.S. Homeland Security Department on the passport issue, which reinforces the threat.
The brief warns that convention organizers are already looking at striking B.C. from their list of potential sites because not all delegates will want to get passports.
And the province’s chances of building on the 2010 Olympics to increase tourism and trade would be hurt, B.C.argues in the brief.
It’s hard to judge the chances of success in this campaign. The U.S. last month ignored complains and began requiring many visitors from France and Italy to have a visa because those countries’ passports aren’t considered secure.
But pressure for easing the passport requirement is building within the U.S., and there appears to be some softening in the homeland security position. Security secretary Michael Chertoff says the government is looking at cheaper, easier-to-get - but still secure - ID cards as an alternative. Some states are considering adding more security information to drivers’ licences to make them an acceptable substitute.
It’s a battle worth hundreds of millions of dollars - and thousands of jobs - for British Columbia.
Footnote: The province’s brief warns that damage from the passport regulation will go beydnd tourism. The requirement will clog borders and hurt trade between the two countries, B.C, warns, and make it more difficult for businesses to seize opportunities on the other side of the border. A coalition of U.S. Chambers of Commerce is fighting the change on the same ground.

Everything you need to know about Gomery in three minutes

VICTORIA - OK, you’re busy and easily depressed in these darkening fall days, and so have skipped much of the Gomery coverage.
Here, in 650 words, is what you need to know, starting with the basic findings.
First, you were ripped off. Tax dollars you paid in good faith were wasted, stolen and directed to the Liberal Party and its friends. The Martin government has acknowledged $57 million was siphoned off through fraud, but much of the $330 million spent in the sponsorship scandal was squandered on dubious projects of little value.
Second, Gomery clears Paul Martin and the current cabinet. The program was secretive and run from Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s office. Martin, despite his cabinet posts and political network in Quebec and across the country, was out of the loop.
Third, Gomery blames Chretien and his circle. Chretien’s office ran the program without proper oversight, and his friend Jacques Corriveau siphoned $8 million from various contracts, kicking back some of the money to the Liberal Party. “The prime minister and his chief of staff arrogated to themselves the direction of a virtually secret program of discretionary spending to selected beneficiaries,” Gomery found.
Fourth, the whole program was based on the notion that the interests of the government and the Liberal Party were one and the same. Fighting separatist sentiment in Quebec - using tax dollars - meant strengthening the Liberal party, not the Canadian government.
Those are the important findings. The details are sordid and discouraging, the cast large and disreputable, and the lack of honesty before the inquiry appalling. But you knew most of that.
The question left is what happens now.
Martin and company want you to forget about it. That was the old gang, and they are the new, improved Liberal Party.
That seems a tough sell. Martin have moved quickly to set up the Gomery Inquiry and end the sponsorship program once he was in power. But newspaper stories about the scandal, which should have sparked his interest, started appearing in 2000. He didn’t act for three years.
Despite the leadership change, Canadians have reason to be skeptical about what the Liberals have learned. One underlying theme in the evidence was the divine right of Liberals. The people involved were convinced that the party had the right and responsibility to govern, and a duty to win elections even if it meant fund-raising fraud.
And they were convinced that they had a right to rewards for their good work, at the taxpayer’s expense - an inflated contract here, a gift from a supplier there. Being a Liberal party brought an entitlement.
It’s hard to see that those fundamental beliefs have been altered. Martin appoints Francis Fox to the Senate; Pierre Pettigrew flies his chauffeur off to Europe; friendly law firms get government work across the country. David Dingwall is rewarded with a patronage appointment to the Mint, and snappishly reminds MPs that he is “entitled to his entitlements.”
Voters are left with a tough choice in the coming election.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper will try and argue that re-electing a Liberal government is condoning corruption. If there are no consequences for what Gomery called a depressing story of waste, greed and misconduct, then voters would be saying they accept that level of behaviour.
It should be a strong argument. But the Conservatives’ remarkable failure to connect with the priorities of Canadians means that it may well be ignored.
Except in Quebec. It is not much of a stretch for Bloc Quebecois supporters to argue that the Liberals cheated and attempted to steal two federal elections in Quebec. The sponsorship program used tax dollars to support the party, and funneled cash directly to the campaign effort. It has the feel of the kind of fraud seen in psuedo-democracies in the Third World.
Liberals seemed cheerful at the Gomery findings this week. Canadians should just be depressed.
Footnote: Chretien’s decision to demand a review of the findings in federal court is a body blow to Martin. Chretien not only will keep the issue alive as the election nears, but argue that the sponsorship waste was just business as usual in Ottawa, a damaging message for the Martin campaign.

Government stirs the teachers’ pot with pay ploy

VICTORIA - It seems destructive for either side to come off a bitter illegal strike and immediately start poking at the other.
But that’s what Education Minister Shirley Bond has done in the days since the teachers’ strike ended.
Bond was quick to offer the news that she was considering keeping schools open through spring break, or into the summer, to make up time lost to the strike.
It could be a reasonable option, if there the time lost couldn’t be made up in less disruptive ways. But so far, school districts across the province have said they can manage without major disruptions to the existing schedule. Grade 12 students may needs some extra class time, and provincial exams could usefully be delayed, but extra school days aren’t needed.
Bond’s speculation just alarmed parents and angered teachers, who saw it as having more to do with punishing them than helping students.
Then things got worse. School districts were told not to ease the impact of 10 days of lost pay on teachers and opt for a punitive approach.
Many school districts were looking at ways of making sure the pay deductions didn’t inflict unnecessary hardship on teachers. Deducting the money in one month would mean a teacher would lose 50 per cent of her salary for that period, a big hit; spreading it over two months would mean a 25-per-cent cut in each month.
But a letter from education deputy minister Emery Dosdall to school superintendents seemed to rule out that flexibility.
“It is the expectation that all payroll adjustments will be made on the October payroll statements," he wrote. And as insurance, districts would have to send in monthly salary reports so the ministry could check up on them.
Bond bailed on the requirement quickly, in part because some districts - like Victoria - reminded her that they were the employers, and the ones who decide how to pay people.
All a misunderstanding, said Bond. "Let's be clear, we didn't insist. We simply laid out the process we expected school districts to consider.” (It is a rule of thumb that anytime anyone starts a sentence with ‘let’s be clear,’ things are about to get murkier.)
Except that when the ministry learned North Vancouver trustees planned to ignore the memo and spread the deductions out over two months, the district got a call from the ministry saying it expected to be obeyed.
Even if you accept the dubious claim that this was just some sort of idea the ministry was throwing out for school districts to think about, the principle remains the same.
Bond’s ministry had a chance to allow a solution that helped teachers and carried no real hardship for the government or school districts beyond some lost interest.
Instead it opted to try and force a punitive response. Successfully, in some cases. Vancouver school trustees deducted the pay in one chunk, based on what they saw as the ministry’s directive.
It’s difficult for both sides to let anger go after something like a strike.
But poking at the old wounds, or imposing unnecessary hardship on the other side is destructive.
And in this case, there is no time for that kind of pettiness.
The Education Round Table is supposed to setting a new co-operative tone; that’s not going to work unless both sides quit picking at it each other.
The BC Teachers’ Federation and the government will be back in some form of bargaining within months, since the imposed contract expires next June.
And the ministry is planning a substantial expansion of its role, taking on responsibility for areas like early learning and community libraries.
Managing all these changes is going to take co-operation, not more of the same old squabbles.
Footnote: The expanded ministry role is likely to be set out in legislation this spring. Dosdall told trustees last week that adding responsibilities like literacy to the ministry and expanding the role of schools as community centres demand a new look at the role of school boards, according to Penny Tees of the BC School Trustees’ Association.