Give Stephen Harper credit for promising a long overdue plan to fix the way the federal government deals with native land claim issues.
This isn't about new treaties. That's a different, tough problem.
But while First Nations and the federal and B.C. governments have been struggling to sign treaties, hundreds of disputes about existing treaties and agreements have been piling up. Those are the kind of disputes that sparked protests and blockades, like the ongoing battle over land at Caledon in Ontario.
The federal government has behaved in a truly appalling fashion. The most amazing thing about the whole affair is how little protest there has been from First Nations as they waited and waited for answers. The average time to have a claim dealt with was 13 years.
The disputes mostly involve existing treaties, reached in the 19th century. The British were keen on treaties. They wanted a written record showing the natives had given up their land in exchange for compensation, even if the deals looked a little unfair.
But once the treaties were signed, things tended to slide a bit. A neighbour decided a chunk of reserve land would be a useful addition to a pasture. Settlers squatted on unoccupied land. The province wanted to put in a highway and decided it was easiest to go through a reserve. Or perhaps promised land was never actually included in the reserve.
The legislature, for example, is built on land listed in documents as being set aside for a reserve for the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations in Victoria. Somehow it just got taken. (The governments paid $31 million to settle the claim last year.)
As First Nations started relying less on the Indian Affairs Department and looked into their rights, they started trying to get back - or get compensation - for land that was wrongly taken.
The response was appalling. Claims were stalled and ignored. In 1991 the government acknowledged the problem, sort of. It set up the Indian Claims Commission, an appeal tribunal that could investigate claims and mediate or make recommendations.
It would be fair to describe the progress as hopeless.
The Saulteau First Nation near Chetwynd, for example, made a claim to the Indian Affairs Department in 1997 alleging it was shortchanged by about 5,000 acres under an 1899 treaty. The government didn't say yes or no. It ignored the claim for six years.
The Indian Claims Commission accepted the claim for review in 2003.
Only last month was it resolved, in the band's favour.
I was going to write that it was a typical case, but that wouldn't be true. It took 10 years. The average is 13.
And at least the government didn't fight the referral to the claims commission, as it did with the Blueberry and Doig bands in northeastern B.C. In that case, the government didn't respond to a claim over land taken for a road for eight years - and then argued the commission couldn't hear an appeal because the government had never turned down the claim. (The commission over-ruled the bizarre argument.)
The end result is that today there are 850 claims outstanding, about half. At the current rate of progress, some will still be unresolved in 2090.
The government's position is baffling. There are a handful of big claims. But about half are worth less than $3 million, even if the First Nations win. It doesn't cost much to compensate a band for the loss of some land in a remote area.
But the government wasn't interested.
Harper promised this week to change that, prompted by Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, a former co-chair of the claims commission.
The commission is to be replaced by a new board, with the power to decide claims, rather than just make recommendations. There will be deadlines for responses. And, probably most importantly, the government will set aside $250 million a year for 10 years to cover the costs of settlements.
The changes are useful. The delays hurt First Nations, poisoned relations and increasingly have sparked disruptive protests.
Harper is doing the right thing in getting on with the work.
Footnote: The changes, which will take a year to put in place, were seen by some as way to reduce the intensity of an aboriginal national day of protest June 29, which some feared would include blockades. If so, the move may be successful. The claims plan was quickly welcome by the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council and national native groups.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Liberal bullying handed unions their big win
Well, you brought it all on yourself.
People hate to hear that, especially because it's so often true. It certainly is for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Liberal legislation that gutted union contracts and permanently limited some employees' rights.
The Supreme Court broke new ground in the judgment, finding for the first time that the right to form unions and bargain collectively is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the court had taken the view that those weren't charter rights.
No one knows exactly what this is going to mean. But it isn't good news for employers.
And the only reason the court went so far was the Liberals' unreasonable heavy-handedness in 2002 when they brought in Bill 29.
The legislation was extraordinary. It gutted the contracts of health employees, removing all protection against layoffs and contracting out. The goal was clear. The government wanted the employees fired and replaced with people who could be hired at much lower ages.
So it changed the rules to clear the way.
And it went further. The legislation said that health employees, whether they worked for government or a private company, could never again negotiate the same kind of job protection that everyone else in the province could seek.
It was extreme legislation, but the government maintained it had no choice. The health employees were paid too much. Their rights had to be sacrificed.
The legislation sailed through on a weekend. The Liberals had 77 of 79 seats. There weren't many questions from the obedient backbench MLAs.
The unions challenged the legislation in court, losing in the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Both noted previous decisions that found bargaining rights weren't protected by the charter.
The unions pressed on to the Supreme Court of Canada. And the justices, hearing the facts of the case, decided that their earlier judgments were wrong. Canadians had accepted that people had the right to band together and negotiate contracts with their employers. The federal government had signed international agreements recognizing the principle.
The Supreme Court said they are now to be counted among the individual rights protected by the charter.
And the B.C. government had illegally violated those rights, the court found.
What's striking when you read the judgment is how easily the government could have avoided this. The justices accepted the fact that health care costs were a problem that needed to be addressed. And they were clear that government had the responsibility and authority to take the steps needed to manage tough public-policy issues.
But that isn't a licence to stomp all over citizens' rights. What got the Liberals in trouble was indifference and arrogance. The court noted that the government didn't try and sit down with the unions and find a solution. There was no consultation, just a phone call 20 minutes before the bill was introduced. There was no debate. And the government couldn't offer any evidence it had looked at less draconian solutions.
The Liberals went straight to bully tactics, using the power of the state against citizens. And it lost in court because of that.
Efforts to negotiate savings likely wouldn't have worked. The unions had won some pretty good deals under the NDP government. And Gordon Campbell had promised to respect those agreements in an interview with the Hospital Employees' Union newspaper.
But the government's failure to try has proved costly.
The Supreme Court suspended its judgment for a year, giving the government time to right the wrong.
So far, Campbell has been talking tough. That can't last long. The onus is on the government to respond to the ruling. It needs to come up with a proposal that reflects the damage done to the thousands of people who lost their jobs or took pay cuts as a result of the legislation.
And it needs to show how it will allow legal bargaining in future.
If it doesn't, the unions will be presenting their solutions to the Supreme Court a year from now.
Footnote: The ruling opens the door for more cases. The government used legislation to strip class-size limits from the B.C. Teachers Federation contract. The union can now argue that those kinds of working conditions should be subject to bargaining, even if the government can ultimately impose a solution.
People hate to hear that, especially because it's so often true. It certainly is for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Liberal legislation that gutted union contracts and permanently limited some employees' rights.
The Supreme Court broke new ground in the judgment, finding for the first time that the right to form unions and bargain collectively is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the court had taken the view that those weren't charter rights.
No one knows exactly what this is going to mean. But it isn't good news for employers.
And the only reason the court went so far was the Liberals' unreasonable heavy-handedness in 2002 when they brought in Bill 29.
The legislation was extraordinary. It gutted the contracts of health employees, removing all protection against layoffs and contracting out. The goal was clear. The government wanted the employees fired and replaced with people who could be hired at much lower ages.
So it changed the rules to clear the way.
And it went further. The legislation said that health employees, whether they worked for government or a private company, could never again negotiate the same kind of job protection that everyone else in the province could seek.
It was extreme legislation, but the government maintained it had no choice. The health employees were paid too much. Their rights had to be sacrificed.
The legislation sailed through on a weekend. The Liberals had 77 of 79 seats. There weren't many questions from the obedient backbench MLAs.
The unions challenged the legislation in court, losing in the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Both noted previous decisions that found bargaining rights weren't protected by the charter.
The unions pressed on to the Supreme Court of Canada. And the justices, hearing the facts of the case, decided that their earlier judgments were wrong. Canadians had accepted that people had the right to band together and negotiate contracts with their employers. The federal government had signed international agreements recognizing the principle.
The Supreme Court said they are now to be counted among the individual rights protected by the charter.
And the B.C. government had illegally violated those rights, the court found.
What's striking when you read the judgment is how easily the government could have avoided this. The justices accepted the fact that health care costs were a problem that needed to be addressed. And they were clear that government had the responsibility and authority to take the steps needed to manage tough public-policy issues.
But that isn't a licence to stomp all over citizens' rights. What got the Liberals in trouble was indifference and arrogance. The court noted that the government didn't try and sit down with the unions and find a solution. There was no consultation, just a phone call 20 minutes before the bill was introduced. There was no debate. And the government couldn't offer any evidence it had looked at less draconian solutions.
The Liberals went straight to bully tactics, using the power of the state against citizens. And it lost in court because of that.
Efforts to negotiate savings likely wouldn't have worked. The unions had won some pretty good deals under the NDP government. And Gordon Campbell had promised to respect those agreements in an interview with the Hospital Employees' Union newspaper.
But the government's failure to try has proved costly.
The Supreme Court suspended its judgment for a year, giving the government time to right the wrong.
So far, Campbell has been talking tough. That can't last long. The onus is on the government to respond to the ruling. It needs to come up with a proposal that reflects the damage done to the thousands of people who lost their jobs or took pay cuts as a result of the legislation.
And it needs to show how it will allow legal bargaining in future.
If it doesn't, the unions will be presenting their solutions to the Supreme Court a year from now.
Footnote: The ruling opens the door for more cases. The government used legislation to strip class-size limits from the B.C. Teachers Federation contract. The union can now argue that those kinds of working conditions should be subject to bargaining, even if the government can ultimately impose a solution.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Government failing sexually abused children
So how do you feel, as a British Columbian, knowing that your government thinks it costs too much to ensure children who have been sexually abused get quick access to counselling?
It’s hardly a frill. A little boy or girl is abused. Somehow the abuse is uncovered. Maybe the child works up the courage to tell.
You know that child needs help now, not in weeks, or months. Delays are terrible. Children wonder if the abuse is their fault. They withdraw. Sometimes, they even become abusers. The abuse looms over every hour of every day, for the child and family.
But the government has decided it’s too expensive to make sure children get quick access to counselling and therapy.
Instead, they wait while it considers whether there is a cheaper, better way to deliver the services.
This is not a Liberal thing. The first time I wrote about this problem, the NDP was in government. The situation was the same. The Mary Manning Centre in Victoria took the lead in raising the issue that time, as it has again.
Government funding for child sex-abuse prevention and counselling has not been increased in 17 years. Other programs might help children who have been abused. But the funding focused on the problem has been froze since 1990.
The Mary Manning Centre said it has had to lay off three part-time therapists this month because provincial funding wouldn’t cover their salaries. As a result children will wait longer for help in dealing with their sexual abuse.
And it’s not just the Victoria centre. Other agencies in Victoria and Nanaimo report waits of four to six months. One Nanaimo agency has just given up and quit offering support for sexually abused children. There are similar stories of waits across the province.
So why is government letting this happen to little children?
First, Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen said urgent cases would still get help quickly. Only “non-urgent cases” would wait.
But those on the front lines said that wasn’t true. And they added that until children began treatment, it’s impossible to determine how serious the abuse was. They might be reluctant to reveal everything, keen to minimize what happened.
Then Christensen said Mary Manning, which got a $25,000 funding increase this year, wanted too much money — another $150,000. (Enough for the equivalent of about two full-time counsellors.)
The government could afford the money, Christensen said. But it needed to do “due diligence” first, “to ensure that the delivery of sexual abuse and intervention services is being delivered in the most cost-effective way possible while at the same time providing the best outcomes for children.”
I haven’t heard any allegations that Mary Manning and the other centres are wasting money or performing poorly. Maybe there are savings - each child could get fewer counselling sessions or something. If the ministry has a plan, excellent.
But until it does, the obvious obligation is to fund the service adequately, so children don’t wait.
Especially because it’s unclear when the government will unveil it’s new, more cost-effective treatment model.
In a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist, Christensen wrote as if things were well under way. “An examination of the Sexual Abuse and Intervention Program has provided information that will allow us to strengthen and improve services for children, youth and their families in a diligent and thoughtful manner,” he said.
But the ministry says that examination has not resulted in a report, or memo or any paper record of recommendations.
The sensible and compassionate thing to do is clear. While the government is working to figure out if there’s some better, cheaper way to help these children, put up the money to ensure they get prompt treatment.
They shouldn’t suffer because the government is uncertain about the best way to help them.
It’s baffling. These are all decent people.
How can they think it’s acceptable that boys and girls who have been sexually abused go to bed night after night, waiting for help?
Footnote: Christensen said the ministry will work with the centre on a “case-by-case basis to ensure children requiring assistance get appropriate services in a timely manner.” Presumably, the centre is supposed to call the ministry when there are too many victims, plead for funds and then try and find counsellors. The result, of course, is delays in treatment.
It’s hardly a frill. A little boy or girl is abused. Somehow the abuse is uncovered. Maybe the child works up the courage to tell.
You know that child needs help now, not in weeks, or months. Delays are terrible. Children wonder if the abuse is their fault. They withdraw. Sometimes, they even become abusers. The abuse looms over every hour of every day, for the child and family.
But the government has decided it’s too expensive to make sure children get quick access to counselling and therapy.
Instead, they wait while it considers whether there is a cheaper, better way to deliver the services.
This is not a Liberal thing. The first time I wrote about this problem, the NDP was in government. The situation was the same. The Mary Manning Centre in Victoria took the lead in raising the issue that time, as it has again.
Government funding for child sex-abuse prevention and counselling has not been increased in 17 years. Other programs might help children who have been abused. But the funding focused on the problem has been froze since 1990.
The Mary Manning Centre said it has had to lay off three part-time therapists this month because provincial funding wouldn’t cover their salaries. As a result children will wait longer for help in dealing with their sexual abuse.
And it’s not just the Victoria centre. Other agencies in Victoria and Nanaimo report waits of four to six months. One Nanaimo agency has just given up and quit offering support for sexually abused children. There are similar stories of waits across the province.
So why is government letting this happen to little children?
First, Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen said urgent cases would still get help quickly. Only “non-urgent cases” would wait.
But those on the front lines said that wasn’t true. And they added that until children began treatment, it’s impossible to determine how serious the abuse was. They might be reluctant to reveal everything, keen to minimize what happened.
Then Christensen said Mary Manning, which got a $25,000 funding increase this year, wanted too much money — another $150,000. (Enough for the equivalent of about two full-time counsellors.)
The government could afford the money, Christensen said. But it needed to do “due diligence” first, “to ensure that the delivery of sexual abuse and intervention services is being delivered in the most cost-effective way possible while at the same time providing the best outcomes for children.”
I haven’t heard any allegations that Mary Manning and the other centres are wasting money or performing poorly. Maybe there are savings - each child could get fewer counselling sessions or something. If the ministry has a plan, excellent.
But until it does, the obvious obligation is to fund the service adequately, so children don’t wait.
Especially because it’s unclear when the government will unveil it’s new, more cost-effective treatment model.
In a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist, Christensen wrote as if things were well under way. “An examination of the Sexual Abuse and Intervention Program has provided information that will allow us to strengthen and improve services for children, youth and their families in a diligent and thoughtful manner,” he said.
But the ministry says that examination has not resulted in a report, or memo or any paper record of recommendations.
The sensible and compassionate thing to do is clear. While the government is working to figure out if there’s some better, cheaper way to help these children, put up the money to ensure they get prompt treatment.
They shouldn’t suffer because the government is uncertain about the best way to help them.
It’s baffling. These are all decent people.
How can they think it’s acceptable that boys and girls who have been sexually abused go to bed night after night, waiting for help?
Footnote: Christensen said the ministry will work with the centre on a “case-by-case basis to ensure children requiring assistance get appropriate services in a timely manner.” Presumably, the centre is supposed to call the ministry when there are too many victims, plead for funds and then try and find counsellors. The result, of course, is delays in treatment.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Police , prosecutors look bad in raid case
So what are the Crown prosecutors and RCMP hiding in the legislature raid case?
That’s the big question that emerged this week from the corruption trial of former ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk. The two are charged with accepting benefits in return for leaking confidential information about the B.C. Rail sale to one of the bidders.
The trial really hasn’t begun. Defence lawyers have been arguing for weeks in B.C. Supreme Court that the Crown has failed in its legal obligation to share the information its investigation uncovered.
Without that information, their clients can’t defend themselves, they say.
And now B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett has agreed, delivering an extraordinary ruling granting the defence all its requests and delivering a stinging slap for both the RCMP and the special prosecutor named to handle the case.
In our system, the Crown and police are required to share all relevant evidence with the defence. The object is justice, not winning a conviction by withholding evidence that might cast doubt on guilt.
Bennett was brutally direct in finding that the RCMP and Crown had failed to do their legal duty.
That wasn’t entirely surprising, especially after evidence last month that an RCMP officer had written “Not for disclosure” on the notes he had made of his interview with then Liberal party president Kelly Reichert.
But her 37-page ruling that ordered disclosure was scathing.
It included the directive that that “every police officer or civilian who touched or spoke about this investigation” review every piece of paper in their possession to see if they have documents that should be disclosed.
“I regret that I must make the following order in such broad and sweeping terms,” she wrote. “However, given the substantial failure to respect the disclosure rights of the accused, this order is the only way I believe I can ensure that no miscarriage of justice will occur.”
And Bennett raised specific questions.
Like what happened to the investigation into the activities of Gary Collins, then finance minister and Basi’s boss.
Collins was under suspicion in December 2003, just before the raid, she notes. The RCMP even set up surveillance when he met with representatives from one bidder for B.C. Rail in a restaurant.
“There is nothing that I have seen in writing that indicates who made the decision to stop pursuing Minister Collins as a suspect and when that decision was made,” Bennett wrote.
Bennett also ordered prosecutors to reveal what kind of deal they made with lobbyist Erik Bornmann to secure his testimony. He is expected to testify that he bribed Basi in return for inside information on the B.C. Rail.
The Crown has said there is no documentation on the immunity deal, despite a policy that requires such agreement to be set out in writing.
Bennett said that’s not acceptable. “There have been too many wrongful convictions based on informant information which was obtained in dubious circumstances,” she noted.
The case is obviously of enormous public interest. The charge of corruption around the sale of B.C. Rail, RCMP claims of a link to drugs, the subsequent allegations of Liberal political dirty tricks all raise significant concerns.
That makes the failure of police and prosecutors to fulfill their obligations even more alarming.
It’s a big mess. Three-and-a-half years years after the legislature raids, the mystery is just as deep and even more questions are left unanswered.
The RCMP’s credibility has been dealt another high-profile blow and the Crown prosecutor is on the defensive. Allegations of B.C. Liberal dirty tricks, funded by taxpayers, are left unanswered.
And the real trial hasn’t even started yet. Unless the Crown and police start performing, it might never start. The defence lawyers are likely to argue that the delays and the prosecutor’s failures have made it impossible for their clients to get a fair trial.
Based on her order this week, Bennett might be inclined to accept the argument.
Footnote: Allegations at the trial — like reports of a political dirty-trick operation being run by Basi with the knowledge of the premier’s office — have already embarrassed the Liberals. The potential for further damaging revelations increased sharply with Bennett’s order.
That’s the big question that emerged this week from the corruption trial of former ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk. The two are charged with accepting benefits in return for leaking confidential information about the B.C. Rail sale to one of the bidders.
The trial really hasn’t begun. Defence lawyers have been arguing for weeks in B.C. Supreme Court that the Crown has failed in its legal obligation to share the information its investigation uncovered.
Without that information, their clients can’t defend themselves, they say.
And now B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett has agreed, delivering an extraordinary ruling granting the defence all its requests and delivering a stinging slap for both the RCMP and the special prosecutor named to handle the case.
In our system, the Crown and police are required to share all relevant evidence with the defence. The object is justice, not winning a conviction by withholding evidence that might cast doubt on guilt.
Bennett was brutally direct in finding that the RCMP and Crown had failed to do their legal duty.
That wasn’t entirely surprising, especially after evidence last month that an RCMP officer had written “Not for disclosure” on the notes he had made of his interview with then Liberal party president Kelly Reichert.
But her 37-page ruling that ordered disclosure was scathing.
It included the directive that that “every police officer or civilian who touched or spoke about this investigation” review every piece of paper in their possession to see if they have documents that should be disclosed.
“I regret that I must make the following order in such broad and sweeping terms,” she wrote. “However, given the substantial failure to respect the disclosure rights of the accused, this order is the only way I believe I can ensure that no miscarriage of justice will occur.”
And Bennett raised specific questions.
Like what happened to the investigation into the activities of Gary Collins, then finance minister and Basi’s boss.
Collins was under suspicion in December 2003, just before the raid, she notes. The RCMP even set up surveillance when he met with representatives from one bidder for B.C. Rail in a restaurant.
“There is nothing that I have seen in writing that indicates who made the decision to stop pursuing Minister Collins as a suspect and when that decision was made,” Bennett wrote.
Bennett also ordered prosecutors to reveal what kind of deal they made with lobbyist Erik Bornmann to secure his testimony. He is expected to testify that he bribed Basi in return for inside information on the B.C. Rail.
The Crown has said there is no documentation on the immunity deal, despite a policy that requires such agreement to be set out in writing.
Bennett said that’s not acceptable. “There have been too many wrongful convictions based on informant information which was obtained in dubious circumstances,” she noted.
The case is obviously of enormous public interest. The charge of corruption around the sale of B.C. Rail, RCMP claims of a link to drugs, the subsequent allegations of Liberal political dirty tricks all raise significant concerns.
That makes the failure of police and prosecutors to fulfill their obligations even more alarming.
It’s a big mess. Three-and-a-half years years after the legislature raids, the mystery is just as deep and even more questions are left unanswered.
The RCMP’s credibility has been dealt another high-profile blow and the Crown prosecutor is on the defensive. Allegations of B.C. Liberal dirty tricks, funded by taxpayers, are left unanswered.
And the real trial hasn’t even started yet. Unless the Crown and police start performing, it might never start. The defence lawyers are likely to argue that the delays and the prosecutor’s failures have made it impossible for their clients to get a fair trial.
Based on her order this week, Bennett might be inclined to accept the argument.
Footnote: Allegations at the trial — like reports of a political dirty-trick operation being run by Basi with the knowledge of the premier’s office — have already embarrassed the Liberals. The potential for further damaging revelations increased sharply with Bennett’s order.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Liberals look inept, uncaring in lottery scandal
Everything about the B.C. Lotteries scandal is just so sleazy. It's not just the incompetence and the false assurances. No one is taking responsibility.
The government corporation charged with promoting gambling left the door wide open for fraud. People who bet on Keno or lotteries - and against all odds win - risk being cheated out of their prizes. It's easy for corrupt retailers to tell people their tickets are worthless, then turn around and claim the prize.
The public guardian is supposed to be the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch in the Solicitor General's Ministry. But it was useless. Worse than useless, really. When the issue finally became too big to ignore, athe branch didn't investigate to see if people were being cheated. It offered up false reassurance.
So did Solicitor General John Les, who provided inaccurate information to the public about their safety from fraud and theft.
And none of this would have come out, if it was left to B.C. Lotteries or the ministry. It would have been hidden.
But the CBC did a story on the extraordinary number of lottery ticket sellers who won prizes in Ontario. The Vancouver Sun filed a freedom of information request, and reported the same was true in B.C.
That was last fall. The news stories offered the government and B.C. Lotteries a chance to respond with a real investigation.
They didn't. Quite the opposite. Instead of addressing the problems, they went into what the NDP calls cover-up mode. B.C. Lotteries and the enforcement branch claimed they had investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
There were only 74 cases of potential fraud and everyone had been investigated, B.C. Lotteries said. The Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch said it had done its own investigation and everything was fine. It had reviewed all 74 cases, the branch said.
Les said the public had nothing to worry about. "In the past few years, the B.C. Lottery Corp. has received only 74 complaints about lottery ticket validation concerns and those were all fully investigated and resolved," Les said "When a retailer claimed a prize, a detailed investigation was conducted."
None of that was true.
The government said that should end the matter. But the province's ombudsman was hearing from consumer complaints and decided to launch an investigation.
The ombudsman's findings, just released, are grim. There are no effective procedures to protect people from being cheated. Neither the lottery corporation nor the enforcement branch did anything to check for scams by unscrupulous dealers in kiosks, stores or bars. It was up to the public to somehow detect fraud. But when people did complain, they were usually brushed off.
That claim of 74 cases. False, the ombudsman said. There were more like 200. The claim that every case was investigated. False. The enforcement branch's statement that it had reviewed the corporation's handling of those cases. False. The claims of controls to ensure retailers weren't cheating. False.
The enforcement branch's performance was particularly dozy. In the four years since it was created, the branch did not conduct one investigation into the integrity of the lottery corporation's retail network.
The law requires every suspected case to be reported to be the branch, but it never noticed that it hadn't received a single report since 2002.
Its investigation into the allegations looked to be more about public relations for B.C. Lotteries than protecting the public. "The depth of the investigation and the fact that a number of disquieting pieces of information were toned down or left out contributes to this result," the ombudsman found.
Les has ordered another audit and says he's unhappy.
He has yet to explain why he didn't make an effort to ensure the public was protected.
An audit by a company hired by Les and working under orders set out by his ministry would be hopelessly inadequate. A proper, independent inquiry into the whole gambling expansion and its consequences is needed.
Footnote: As solicitor general, Les is responsible for promoting gambling, overseeing the enforcement branch and dealing with addiction. The conflicts are obvious. Since tougher enforcement or a focus on problem gambling hurts revenues. It's reasonable to assume that everyone involved took their cue from the Liberals, who put money ahead of principle when they abandoned their 2001 promise to halt gambling expansion as soon as they were elected.
The government corporation charged with promoting gambling left the door wide open for fraud. People who bet on Keno or lotteries - and against all odds win - risk being cheated out of their prizes. It's easy for corrupt retailers to tell people their tickets are worthless, then turn around and claim the prize.
The public guardian is supposed to be the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch in the Solicitor General's Ministry. But it was useless. Worse than useless, really. When the issue finally became too big to ignore, athe branch didn't investigate to see if people were being cheated. It offered up false reassurance.
So did Solicitor General John Les, who provided inaccurate information to the public about their safety from fraud and theft.
And none of this would have come out, if it was left to B.C. Lotteries or the ministry. It would have been hidden.
But the CBC did a story on the extraordinary number of lottery ticket sellers who won prizes in Ontario. The Vancouver Sun filed a freedom of information request, and reported the same was true in B.C.
That was last fall. The news stories offered the government and B.C. Lotteries a chance to respond with a real investigation.
They didn't. Quite the opposite. Instead of addressing the problems, they went into what the NDP calls cover-up mode. B.C. Lotteries and the enforcement branch claimed they had investigated and there was nothing to be concerned about.
There were only 74 cases of potential fraud and everyone had been investigated, B.C. Lotteries said. The Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch said it had done its own investigation and everything was fine. It had reviewed all 74 cases, the branch said.
Les said the public had nothing to worry about. "In the past few years, the B.C. Lottery Corp. has received only 74 complaints about lottery ticket validation concerns and those were all fully investigated and resolved," Les said "When a retailer claimed a prize, a detailed investigation was conducted."
None of that was true.
The government said that should end the matter. But the province's ombudsman was hearing from consumer complaints and decided to launch an investigation.
The ombudsman's findings, just released, are grim. There are no effective procedures to protect people from being cheated. Neither the lottery corporation nor the enforcement branch did anything to check for scams by unscrupulous dealers in kiosks, stores or bars. It was up to the public to somehow detect fraud. But when people did complain, they were usually brushed off.
That claim of 74 cases. False, the ombudsman said. There were more like 200. The claim that every case was investigated. False. The enforcement branch's statement that it had reviewed the corporation's handling of those cases. False. The claims of controls to ensure retailers weren't cheating. False.
The enforcement branch's performance was particularly dozy. In the four years since it was created, the branch did not conduct one investigation into the integrity of the lottery corporation's retail network.
The law requires every suspected case to be reported to be the branch, but it never noticed that it hadn't received a single report since 2002.
Its investigation into the allegations looked to be more about public relations for B.C. Lotteries than protecting the public. "The depth of the investigation and the fact that a number of disquieting pieces of information were toned down or left out contributes to this result," the ombudsman found.
Les has ordered another audit and says he's unhappy.
He has yet to explain why he didn't make an effort to ensure the public was protected.
An audit by a company hired by Les and working under orders set out by his ministry would be hopelessly inadequate. A proper, independent inquiry into the whole gambling expansion and its consequences is needed.
Footnote: As solicitor general, Les is responsible for promoting gambling, overseeing the enforcement branch and dealing with addiction. The conflicts are obvious. Since tougher enforcement or a focus on problem gambling hurts revenues. It's reasonable to assume that everyone involved took their cue from the Liberals, who put money ahead of principle when they abandoned their 2001 promise to halt gambling expansion as soon as they were elected.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Liberals ' own man blows whistle on health region underfunding
So is the Fraser Health Authority really the only one in the province without the money to provide proper care?
Or are the problems in the other four regional authorities simply being hidden from the public?
The questions are unavoidable in light of leaked documents from the Fraser Health Authority that reveal that inadequate provincial funding will lead to serious problems for patients this year.
Especially as the documents indicate that other health authorities are facing similar problems and that they have been working behind the scenes on introducing user fees for seniors to try and bring in more money.
The NDP raised the issue in the legislature, basing their questions on leaked documents from the Fraser Health Authority.
And not just any documents. The most damning criticisms came from Gordon Barefoot, chair of the authority board. They confirm earlier warnings that the heath authority doesn't have enough money to provide needed care.
Barefoot sets out the reality in his introduction to the region's three-year plan.
"Unfortunately, as the result of available financial resources, this plan, by necessity, reflects too little investment in acute care services and community programs," Barefoot warned. "The risks and likely impacts of the plan are significant."
"The lack of current capacity in acute care as well as delay in the growth of community services will continue to manifest as emergency room congestion, delays and cancellations of surgical and diagnostic procedures, medical units over capacity and delays in rehabilitation and access to community services," Barefoot noted bluntly.
Efforts to improve performance in areas like patient safety will be abandoned. The authority won't be able to deliver the care the government has demanded. User fees are planned.
Bad news for patients and the government. Worse, because Barefoot, a senior business executive, is most definitely on the Liberals' side. He took over as chair in January, after Keith Purchase resigned because he believed the province was not providing enough money to deliver needed care.
A big question now is whether the problems in Fraser Health are an exception, or whether the news just hasn't leaked from the other authorities.
The region does have some special challenges, especially population growth.
But patients across B.C. sitting in emergency rooms or waiting for surgery might suspect similar constraints in their region. And it's tough for them to have any confidence in the local health authority board, accountable only to the provincial government. The boards are generally invisible and secrecy seems the rule.
Certainly, that's true for Fraser Health. The three-year plan that includes these warnings went to the government in March. Now it's two months later - two months into the fiscal year - and it would have remained secret if not for the leak.
And apparently, all the authorities have been holding secret discussions about charging patients and seniors to make up for inadequate core funding from government.
The plan says Fraser Health has "collaborated with other health authorities and have identified a number of revenue-generation opportunities which will require ministry approval and regulatory or policy changes." The plans include introducing user charges for seniors in long-term care and charges for people who need help to stay in their homes.
Big charges. The Fraser Health Authority plans to take in $25 million in user fees, according to the plan. That's part of the effort to eliminate the $65-million shortfall created by provincial funding that doesn't meet patients' needs.
And while the health authorities are discussing user fees for seniors, not one has raised the option in an open board meeting or consulted the community.
The biggest question is why any of this is happening. There's a large provincial government surplus, this year and for at least the next several years.
If the Liberal-appointed chair of the largest health authority says patients will suffer because of underfunding, government could choose to solve the problem. It hasn't.
Patients across the province have to wonder what's happening behind the closed doors in their health authorities.
Footnote: All the health authorities received significant funding increases this year, with Fraser Health's allocation rising 7.1 per cent. But even with that, the authorities have received an average 3.5-per-cent a year increase since they were created in 2002, not enough to keep up with inflation, population growth and the needs of an aging population.
Or are the problems in the other four regional authorities simply being hidden from the public?
The questions are unavoidable in light of leaked documents from the Fraser Health Authority that reveal that inadequate provincial funding will lead to serious problems for patients this year.
Especially as the documents indicate that other health authorities are facing similar problems and that they have been working behind the scenes on introducing user fees for seniors to try and bring in more money.
The NDP raised the issue in the legislature, basing their questions on leaked documents from the Fraser Health Authority.
And not just any documents. The most damning criticisms came from Gordon Barefoot, chair of the authority board. They confirm earlier warnings that the heath authority doesn't have enough money to provide needed care.
Barefoot sets out the reality in his introduction to the region's three-year plan.
"Unfortunately, as the result of available financial resources, this plan, by necessity, reflects too little investment in acute care services and community programs," Barefoot warned. "The risks and likely impacts of the plan are significant."
"The lack of current capacity in acute care as well as delay in the growth of community services will continue to manifest as emergency room congestion, delays and cancellations of surgical and diagnostic procedures, medical units over capacity and delays in rehabilitation and access to community services," Barefoot noted bluntly.
Efforts to improve performance in areas like patient safety will be abandoned. The authority won't be able to deliver the care the government has demanded. User fees are planned.
Bad news for patients and the government. Worse, because Barefoot, a senior business executive, is most definitely on the Liberals' side. He took over as chair in January, after Keith Purchase resigned because he believed the province was not providing enough money to deliver needed care.
A big question now is whether the problems in Fraser Health are an exception, or whether the news just hasn't leaked from the other authorities.
The region does have some special challenges, especially population growth.
But patients across B.C. sitting in emergency rooms or waiting for surgery might suspect similar constraints in their region. And it's tough for them to have any confidence in the local health authority board, accountable only to the provincial government. The boards are generally invisible and secrecy seems the rule.
Certainly, that's true for Fraser Health. The three-year plan that includes these warnings went to the government in March. Now it's two months later - two months into the fiscal year - and it would have remained secret if not for the leak.
And apparently, all the authorities have been holding secret discussions about charging patients and seniors to make up for inadequate core funding from government.
The plan says Fraser Health has "collaborated with other health authorities and have identified a number of revenue-generation opportunities which will require ministry approval and regulatory or policy changes." The plans include introducing user charges for seniors in long-term care and charges for people who need help to stay in their homes.
Big charges. The Fraser Health Authority plans to take in $25 million in user fees, according to the plan. That's part of the effort to eliminate the $65-million shortfall created by provincial funding that doesn't meet patients' needs.
And while the health authorities are discussing user fees for seniors, not one has raised the option in an open board meeting or consulted the community.
The biggest question is why any of this is happening. There's a large provincial government surplus, this year and for at least the next several years.
If the Liberal-appointed chair of the largest health authority says patients will suffer because of underfunding, government could choose to solve the problem. It hasn't.
Patients across the province have to wonder what's happening behind the closed doors in their health authorities.
Footnote: All the health authorities received significant funding increases this year, with Fraser Health's allocation rising 7.1 per cent. But even with that, the authorities have received an average 3.5-per-cent a year increase since they were created in 2002, not enough to keep up with inflation, population growth and the needs of an aging population.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Fraser school ratings invaluable for parents
It's appalling to hear some of the nonsense being talked about the Fraser Institute's recent report on elementary schools across the province.
Kids are in big trouble if they can't read, write and work with numbers. Before they're even out of elementary school, some children - many children - have fallen behind. Catching up is hard.
And some schools, year after year, are doing a significantly worse job than others of ensuring children meet minimum standards for literacy and numeracy. More of the children who go to those schools are starting life behind.
That should alarm us. The public education system is supposed to be the great equalizer. Poor home, inattentive parents, too many moves - all children are supposed to get the chance to learn the basic skills that will let them make the most of their lives.
But it's not happening. The latest report from the institute looked at elementary schools. It's based on the performance of students in Grade 4 and 7 on standardized provincial tests in reading, writing and numerical skills. The report includes information on the percentages of special needs and English as a second language students in schools, factors that can affect test results.
Many schools have great results. That's not surprising; B.C. has an excellent public education system.
But the results also show some big problems. The report, among its measures, includes data on the percentage of students who aren't meeting the province's basic standards for reading, writing and math skills.
That's a critical measure of how many children are being left behind. Up in Prince George, across the public school district, 22 per cent of children were not performing up to the basic standard set by the province. That's worrying in itself.
But there were also dramatic variations. In one school, only a few students - seven per cent - did not meet the basic standard. But at five schools, more than 30 per cent of students failed to meet the standard. At one school, almost half the students weren't able to read, write and do math at the level the government considered acceptable.
Parents - anyone with an interest in children and the future - should welcome that information. If almost half the students in a school aren't meeting standards for basic skills, the school needs help. If a school district has too many schools where students aren't meeting standards, the district needs help.
None of this means the teachers are bad, or the principal, or the program, or that there is something wrong with the children. It means there is a problem. It's not the children's problem; they just need it fixed.
Instead of accepting that, the reaction from some quarters - sadly, especially from some teachers, backed up by Education Minister Shirley Bond - has been to attack the review.
The basic argument is that schools' success doesn't rest on test results. The ability to involve children in a supportive community and help them experience the arts and sport, to make school joyful, those are important too.
That's true. A school that simply churned out students who did well on tests, without gaining the experience of working with others and the joy of learning, would be a failure.
But it is extremely important that children learn the basic skills that will give them a fair chance at life. When the report suggests that that is not happening for a significant number of students in a school, we should pay attention.
That doesn't mean panic at slight differences or one-year swings in results. The number of students can be small and results skewed.
But if two schools are in a district, with similar populations, and one is doing much better at ensuring students acquire skills than the other, then perhaps lessons can be learned.
And if in one of those schools almost half the students aren't getting needed reading, writing and math skills, then we have to do something.
Footnote: Some critics dismiss the report because it comes from the Fraser Institute, which has a mission of promoting privatization. That's reason to look critically at the information, but not to dismiss it blindly. The reason the report is widely publicized is because it responds to the near-total lack of useful information on school performance.
Kids are in big trouble if they can't read, write and work with numbers. Before they're even out of elementary school, some children - many children - have fallen behind. Catching up is hard.
And some schools, year after year, are doing a significantly worse job than others of ensuring children meet minimum standards for literacy and numeracy. More of the children who go to those schools are starting life behind.
That should alarm us. The public education system is supposed to be the great equalizer. Poor home, inattentive parents, too many moves - all children are supposed to get the chance to learn the basic skills that will let them make the most of their lives.
But it's not happening. The latest report from the institute looked at elementary schools. It's based on the performance of students in Grade 4 and 7 on standardized provincial tests in reading, writing and numerical skills. The report includes information on the percentages of special needs and English as a second language students in schools, factors that can affect test results.
Many schools have great results. That's not surprising; B.C. has an excellent public education system.
But the results also show some big problems. The report, among its measures, includes data on the percentage of students who aren't meeting the province's basic standards for reading, writing and math skills.
That's a critical measure of how many children are being left behind. Up in Prince George, across the public school district, 22 per cent of children were not performing up to the basic standard set by the province. That's worrying in itself.
But there were also dramatic variations. In one school, only a few students - seven per cent - did not meet the basic standard. But at five schools, more than 30 per cent of students failed to meet the standard. At one school, almost half the students weren't able to read, write and do math at the level the government considered acceptable.
Parents - anyone with an interest in children and the future - should welcome that information. If almost half the students in a school aren't meeting standards for basic skills, the school needs help. If a school district has too many schools where students aren't meeting standards, the district needs help.
None of this means the teachers are bad, or the principal, or the program, or that there is something wrong with the children. It means there is a problem. It's not the children's problem; they just need it fixed.
Instead of accepting that, the reaction from some quarters - sadly, especially from some teachers, backed up by Education Minister Shirley Bond - has been to attack the review.
The basic argument is that schools' success doesn't rest on test results. The ability to involve children in a supportive community and help them experience the arts and sport, to make school joyful, those are important too.
That's true. A school that simply churned out students who did well on tests, without gaining the experience of working with others and the joy of learning, would be a failure.
But it is extremely important that children learn the basic skills that will give them a fair chance at life. When the report suggests that that is not happening for a significant number of students in a school, we should pay attention.
That doesn't mean panic at slight differences or one-year swings in results. The number of students can be small and results skewed.
But if two schools are in a district, with similar populations, and one is doing much better at ensuring students acquire skills than the other, then perhaps lessons can be learned.
And if in one of those schools almost half the students aren't getting needed reading, writing and math skills, then we have to do something.
Footnote: Some critics dismiss the report because it comes from the Fraser Institute, which has a mission of promoting privatization. That's reason to look critically at the information, but not to dismiss it blindly. The reason the report is widely publicized is because it responds to the near-total lack of useful information on school performance.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Salmon farming committee dodged key question
The legislative committee on salmon farming was supposed to set out a direction for the controversial industry.
But after almost 18 months of work, community meetings and more than 800 written submissions, the committee members chickened out. They failed to answer the critical question about the industry's future.
People who don't live on the coast might wonder why they should care. The industry provides about 1,500 jobs and generates about $370 million in economic activity, significant but not huge.
But a long battle involving commercial and sport salmon fishermen, environmentalists, industry, First Nations, communities and politicians could cause damage that reaches far beyond the coast.
The issue has been around for more than decade. The NDP government struggled with it, then commissioned a scientific review that said the industry could operate safely in B.C. But it still allowed only limited growth. The Liberals were more enthusiastic and the industry expanded significantly.
So did criticism, especially after research showed sea lice populations from the farms were a risk to migrating young wild salmon.
In the 2005 election, the Liberals lost every riding where the industry operated. Which lead to the committee. Premier Gordon Campbell established it and gave New Democrat MLAs a majority. Clever trap, said some. Pragmatic response to the issue, said others. It doesn't matter who was right.
The committee came up with useful recommendations. It proposed a ban on salmon farms north of the tip of Vancouver Island, a proposal that seems to be supported along the north coast, where wild salmon stocks support commercial fishing and tourism. It called for better rules to reduce the sea-lice problem and more independent enforcement of all regulations.
But when it came to the big salmon farming issue, the committee bailed.
Salmon farms keep the fish in net pens in the ocean. That's the accepted model and the cheapest approach, an important factor when salmon farms around the world are producing the same product. But excess feed and waste fall to the ocean floor, there's no barrier between the farmed Atlantic salmon and the environment and escapes and sea lice are problems.
The committee concluded the risks are too high and called for an end to salmon farming using open-net pens.
One alternative would be closed containment systems on land - big swimming pools for salmon. But that would be expensive, energy-intensive and create waste problems. And, no one on the world is doing it. The committee rejected the idea.
Another option is closed-containment pens in the ocean, not watertight but with much reduced contact between farmed salmon and the environment.
Again, though, there are problems. The industry says it would be a much more costly way to raise the salmon. Buyers would turn to other countries, most likely Chile's growing aquaculture sector.
The committee's solution was pull out a magic wand. Presto, an effective closed containment system would be developed within three years. Abracadbra, the fish farms would all be using the new system within five years.
Instead of magic dust, money would be sprinkled about. Provincial and federal governments should subsidize the research, the report said, and provincial taxpayers should help pay for the company's conversion costs.
That all seems a little casual. How much money to develop the technology? And where's the business case for spending that money, or helping out the companies' shareholders?
That's not even the big problem. The committee says open-net pens are unacceptable. But it acknowledges there is no viable alternative today. A strong research effort should see solutions in place within three years, it says.
Perhaps. But what if that doesn't work?
Ron Cantelon, the Liberal deputy chair of the committee, said the recommendations would kill the industry. A little precipitous in leaping to judgment, but it raises the question.
If the choices are open-net pens or no industry, which would the committee reluctantly accept?
That question needed to be answered.
Footnote: The government hasn't said what it plans to do with the report, but it's likely to be ignored. That would be unfortunate. Despite the failure to tackle the big issue head-on, the committee offered useful recommendations in a number of other areas. Even the proposal to move to ocean-based closed containment merits proper assessment.
But after almost 18 months of work, community meetings and more than 800 written submissions, the committee members chickened out. They failed to answer the critical question about the industry's future.
People who don't live on the coast might wonder why they should care. The industry provides about 1,500 jobs and generates about $370 million in economic activity, significant but not huge.
But a long battle involving commercial and sport salmon fishermen, environmentalists, industry, First Nations, communities and politicians could cause damage that reaches far beyond the coast.
The issue has been around for more than decade. The NDP government struggled with it, then commissioned a scientific review that said the industry could operate safely in B.C. But it still allowed only limited growth. The Liberals were more enthusiastic and the industry expanded significantly.
So did criticism, especially after research showed sea lice populations from the farms were a risk to migrating young wild salmon.
In the 2005 election, the Liberals lost every riding where the industry operated. Which lead to the committee. Premier Gordon Campbell established it and gave New Democrat MLAs a majority. Clever trap, said some. Pragmatic response to the issue, said others. It doesn't matter who was right.
The committee came up with useful recommendations. It proposed a ban on salmon farms north of the tip of Vancouver Island, a proposal that seems to be supported along the north coast, where wild salmon stocks support commercial fishing and tourism. It called for better rules to reduce the sea-lice problem and more independent enforcement of all regulations.
But when it came to the big salmon farming issue, the committee bailed.
Salmon farms keep the fish in net pens in the ocean. That's the accepted model and the cheapest approach, an important factor when salmon farms around the world are producing the same product. But excess feed and waste fall to the ocean floor, there's no barrier between the farmed Atlantic salmon and the environment and escapes and sea lice are problems.
The committee concluded the risks are too high and called for an end to salmon farming using open-net pens.
One alternative would be closed containment systems on land - big swimming pools for salmon. But that would be expensive, energy-intensive and create waste problems. And, no one on the world is doing it. The committee rejected the idea.
Another option is closed-containment pens in the ocean, not watertight but with much reduced contact between farmed salmon and the environment.
Again, though, there are problems. The industry says it would be a much more costly way to raise the salmon. Buyers would turn to other countries, most likely Chile's growing aquaculture sector.
The committee's solution was pull out a magic wand. Presto, an effective closed containment system would be developed within three years. Abracadbra, the fish farms would all be using the new system within five years.
Instead of magic dust, money would be sprinkled about. Provincial and federal governments should subsidize the research, the report said, and provincial taxpayers should help pay for the company's conversion costs.
That all seems a little casual. How much money to develop the technology? And where's the business case for spending that money, or helping out the companies' shareholders?
That's not even the big problem. The committee says open-net pens are unacceptable. But it acknowledges there is no viable alternative today. A strong research effort should see solutions in place within three years, it says.
Perhaps. But what if that doesn't work?
Ron Cantelon, the Liberal deputy chair of the committee, said the recommendations would kill the industry. A little precipitous in leaping to judgment, but it raises the question.
If the choices are open-net pens or no industry, which would the committee reluctantly accept?
That question needed to be answered.
Footnote: The government hasn't said what it plans to do with the report, but it's likely to be ignored. That would be unfortunate. Despite the failure to tackle the big issue head-on, the committee offered useful recommendations in a number of other areas. Even the proposal to move to ocean-based closed containment merits proper assessment.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Pay and pensions deal like a lottery win for MLAs
There's something terrible about the Liberals' move to hand every MLA a windfall the size of a lottery jackpot.
The compensation bill that will be passed within two weeks could mean an average one-time pension contribution payment worth about $400,000 per MLA.
That's not including the wage increase or the cost of the new pension plan going forward. It's what you will pay, as a taxpayer, if MLAs exercise their options to make the pension plan improvements retroactive as far back as 1996.
And that's the just a rough estimate of the average amount. The transfer from you to them will be much greater for the long-serving members.
Tally it up. A raise of 30 per cent for all MLAs and more than 50 per cent for the premier. The current pension plan, which costs taxpayers $6,900 per year per MLA, replaced with a plan that costs taxpayers $35,000 per year - a 500-per-cent increase.
And on top of that, an average $400,000 one-time contribution to each MLAs' retirement plan.
From you, to them.
Of course, notes Mike de Jong, the MLAs who want to buy retroactive pension benefits will also have to pay part of the cost.
Who knows, de Jong said in the legislature, maybe some won't even be able to afford to. It could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, de Jong said.
But here's the deal. For every $1 an MLA spends to improve his retroactive pension benefits, the public - that's you - will put it more than $4.
Maybe there are MLAs who wouldn't grab that chance. Most of us sure would.
But then most of us would never get that kind of chance either. We can't vote ourselves a lottery win.
I'm probably sounding a little bitter here. Partly, I suppose I just feel betrayed. I like most of the MLAs I've met. I've certainly admired most of them, especially for their basic desire to make their communities and the province a better place to live.
And I think they deserve a raise from the current base pay of $76,100. (Most MLAS get extra money for various roles.) Some benefits, like long-term disability, need improving. Cabinet ministers, at $110,000, deserve more. Their deputies now sometimes make twice as much. And the premier, at $121,000, is underpaid.
But these increases are just wrong. A corporate management team that voted itself this kind of compensation package would pilloried for reckless greed.
It's especially wrong because the Liberals' justification is so lame. The pay and pension changes were recommended by a three-person panel. But the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor - had average incomes likely well over $200,000. Unlike previous such committees, there were no people who earned the average B.C. wage of under $40,000.
And even the panel didn't really prepare a unanimous recommendation. The three reached agreement and then one member left for Europe. The other two added the rich pension plan recommendations after that.
There have been lots of political games played over the raise.
The Liberals, setting the rules, said that all MLAs had seven days after the bill is passed to accept the raise and the pension, or opt out forever.
The aim was to make the NDP look hypocritical by presenting an all-or-nothing choice. If New Democrats voted against the raise, but took it, they would look bad.
The New Democrats say they'll take the package and give the raise to charity. The public will judge whether that's an acceptable compromise.
Of course, the Liberals decision to play politics comes at a price. Letting MLAs take only part of the package would likely have saved the taxpayers money.
But it wouldn't have been so politically clever.
Going into politics shouldn't mean unreasonable sacrifice. But it shouldn't mean handing yourself a winning lottery ticket, either.
Footnote: For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.
The compensation bill that will be passed within two weeks could mean an average one-time pension contribution payment worth about $400,000 per MLA.
That's not including the wage increase or the cost of the new pension plan going forward. It's what you will pay, as a taxpayer, if MLAs exercise their options to make the pension plan improvements retroactive as far back as 1996.
And that's the just a rough estimate of the average amount. The transfer from you to them will be much greater for the long-serving members.
Tally it up. A raise of 30 per cent for all MLAs and more than 50 per cent for the premier. The current pension plan, which costs taxpayers $6,900 per year per MLA, replaced with a plan that costs taxpayers $35,000 per year - a 500-per-cent increase.
And on top of that, an average $400,000 one-time contribution to each MLAs' retirement plan.
From you, to them.
Of course, notes Mike de Jong, the MLAs who want to buy retroactive pension benefits will also have to pay part of the cost.
Who knows, de Jong said in the legislature, maybe some won't even be able to afford to. It could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, de Jong said.
But here's the deal. For every $1 an MLA spends to improve his retroactive pension benefits, the public - that's you - will put it more than $4.
Maybe there are MLAs who wouldn't grab that chance. Most of us sure would.
But then most of us would never get that kind of chance either. We can't vote ourselves a lottery win.
I'm probably sounding a little bitter here. Partly, I suppose I just feel betrayed. I like most of the MLAs I've met. I've certainly admired most of them, especially for their basic desire to make their communities and the province a better place to live.
And I think they deserve a raise from the current base pay of $76,100. (Most MLAS get extra money for various roles.) Some benefits, like long-term disability, need improving. Cabinet ministers, at $110,000, deserve more. Their deputies now sometimes make twice as much. And the premier, at $121,000, is underpaid.
But these increases are just wrong. A corporate management team that voted itself this kind of compensation package would pilloried for reckless greed.
It's especially wrong because the Liberals' justification is so lame. The pay and pension changes were recommended by a three-person panel. But the panelists - two senior lawyers and a business professor - had average incomes likely well over $200,000. Unlike previous such committees, there were no people who earned the average B.C. wage of under $40,000.
And even the panel didn't really prepare a unanimous recommendation. The three reached agreement and then one member left for Europe. The other two added the rich pension plan recommendations after that.
There have been lots of political games played over the raise.
The Liberals, setting the rules, said that all MLAs had seven days after the bill is passed to accept the raise and the pension, or opt out forever.
The aim was to make the NDP look hypocritical by presenting an all-or-nothing choice. If New Democrats voted against the raise, but took it, they would look bad.
The New Democrats say they'll take the package and give the raise to charity. The public will judge whether that's an acceptable compromise.
Of course, the Liberals decision to play politics comes at a price. Letting MLAs take only part of the package would likely have saved the taxpayers money.
But it wouldn't have been so politically clever.
Going into politics shouldn't mean unreasonable sacrifice. But it shouldn't mean handing yourself a winning lottery ticket, either.
Footnote: For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. One member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members - one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each. Other states have taken similar approaches.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Liberals stumbling on trial, pension increases
It's time for an alarming update on two issues that pose big potential problems for the Liberals, the MLAs' pay raise and the Basi-Virk corruption trial.
First, the trial, and the misadventures of Attorney General Wally Oppal.
Since the start of the trial of Bob Virk and Dave Basi on corruption charges in connection with the B.C. Rail deal, the government has had a political staffer as a full-time monitor on the courtroom. Taxpayers have been picking up the cost.
There's nothing wrong with that. The trial has seen allegations of government misconduct. It's reasonable that the government would want to have a firsthand report, even though ministers have refused to answer all questions about political dirty tricks and other issues raised in court.
This week the NDP decided to ask what the public affairs bureau staffer, Stuart Chase, was doing.
Oppal's responses were contradictory and, it turns out, wildly misleading.
"He merely reports to the government and other people regarding what's going on in courtrooms," said Oppal. "He assists the media, and he assists people."
As the NDP kept asking, the answers kept shifting. When the opposition asked Oppal to make the reports from the courtroom public, he said maybe there were no reports from Chase.
And then he said Chase was there to help reports and curious members of the public who wander into the courtroom.
"It assists if we have somebody there explaining how the system works to the public," he said.
Except that was all rubbish. Victoria Times Colonist political columnist Les Leyne called Chase to ask what he was doing in the courtroom.
And Chase flatly contradicted Oppal. He sends reports to Victoria on the trial twice a day. He never briefs reporters or talk to the public.
Maybe Oppal doesn't know what's going on. But that still doesn't explain why he provided inaccurate answers.
And it still leaves the question. If Chase - whose salary is paid by taxpayers - is preparing reports, why aren't they being made public? And if they're really just for the Liberals, why isn't the party?
The news for the government isn't much better on the bid to raise MLAs' pay by 30 per cent and introduce a much richer pension plan.
Premier Gordon Campbell - in line for a 50-per-cent pay increase - has justified the increases by pointing to the report from the three-person panel appointed to look at the compensation issue.
The pension proposals have got a rough ride from critics on the right and left. MLAs have a pension plan now. Taxpayers contribute the equivalent of nine per cent of their salaries - about $6,900 - to an RRSP. MLAs can match the contribution. A two-term MLA who does can expect to leave office with about $160,000 set aside for his eventual retirement.
The proposed new plan is far more generous. Taxpayers would be on the hook for about $35,000 per MLA per year.
The panel's report noted in one sentence that the three members could not agree on the pension plan. But journalist Sean Holman revealed in PublicEyeOnline.com that the problems with the proposal go beyond a mild disagreement.
University of British Columbia business professor Sandra Robinson revealed the panel had agreed on recommendations that included a pension plan that would have cost taxpayers about 40-per-cent less.
After she left for Europe, the other two panelists -- both senior lawyers -- rewrote the report to propose the more generous pension recommendations.
It's a serious breakdown in the process. The panel was already unrepresentative. The three members likely have an average income of more than $200,000. Their perceptions of reasonable wages and benefits will differ from someone earning the average B.C. salary of just under $40,000.
The wise course for the premier would be to send the whole issue back to a new, more representative panel.
But instead, he's going to press on.
Footnote: The NDP spent another day grilling Oppal Tuesday, after a defence lawyer in the Basi-Virk trial alleged that Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert had urged the RCMP not to lay charges against Basi in connection with political dirty tricks because it would be embarrassing for the Liberals. Oppal refused to answer the questions because the case is before the courts. For details on the allegations, see .
For more see Bill Tieleman's report.
First, the trial, and the misadventures of Attorney General Wally Oppal.
Since the start of the trial of Bob Virk and Dave Basi on corruption charges in connection with the B.C. Rail deal, the government has had a political staffer as a full-time monitor on the courtroom. Taxpayers have been picking up the cost.
There's nothing wrong with that. The trial has seen allegations of government misconduct. It's reasonable that the government would want to have a firsthand report, even though ministers have refused to answer all questions about political dirty tricks and other issues raised in court.
This week the NDP decided to ask what the public affairs bureau staffer, Stuart Chase, was doing.
Oppal's responses were contradictory and, it turns out, wildly misleading.
"He merely reports to the government and other people regarding what's going on in courtrooms," said Oppal. "He assists the media, and he assists people."
As the NDP kept asking, the answers kept shifting. When the opposition asked Oppal to make the reports from the courtroom public, he said maybe there were no reports from Chase.
And then he said Chase was there to help reports and curious members of the public who wander into the courtroom.
"It assists if we have somebody there explaining how the system works to the public," he said.
Except that was all rubbish. Victoria Times Colonist political columnist Les Leyne called Chase to ask what he was doing in the courtroom.
And Chase flatly contradicted Oppal. He sends reports to Victoria on the trial twice a day. He never briefs reporters or talk to the public.
Maybe Oppal doesn't know what's going on. But that still doesn't explain why he provided inaccurate answers.
And it still leaves the question. If Chase - whose salary is paid by taxpayers - is preparing reports, why aren't they being made public? And if they're really just for the Liberals, why isn't the party?
The news for the government isn't much better on the bid to raise MLAs' pay by 30 per cent and introduce a much richer pension plan.
Premier Gordon Campbell - in line for a 50-per-cent pay increase - has justified the increases by pointing to the report from the three-person panel appointed to look at the compensation issue.
The pension proposals have got a rough ride from critics on the right and left. MLAs have a pension plan now. Taxpayers contribute the equivalent of nine per cent of their salaries - about $6,900 - to an RRSP. MLAs can match the contribution. A two-term MLA who does can expect to leave office with about $160,000 set aside for his eventual retirement.
The proposed new plan is far more generous. Taxpayers would be on the hook for about $35,000 per MLA per year.
The panel's report noted in one sentence that the three members could not agree on the pension plan. But journalist Sean Holman revealed in PublicEyeOnline.com that the problems with the proposal go beyond a mild disagreement.
University of British Columbia business professor Sandra Robinson revealed the panel had agreed on recommendations that included a pension plan that would have cost taxpayers about 40-per-cent less.
After she left for Europe, the other two panelists -- both senior lawyers -- rewrote the report to propose the more generous pension recommendations.
It's a serious breakdown in the process. The panel was already unrepresentative. The three members likely have an average income of more than $200,000. Their perceptions of reasonable wages and benefits will differ from someone earning the average B.C. salary of just under $40,000.
The wise course for the premier would be to send the whole issue back to a new, more representative panel.
But instead, he's going to press on.
Footnote: The NDP spent another day grilling Oppal Tuesday, after a defence lawyer in the Basi-Virk trial alleged that Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert had urged the RCMP not to lay charges against Basi in connection with political dirty tricks because it would be embarrassing for the Liberals. Oppal refused to answer the questions because the case is before the courts. For details on the allegations, see .
For more see Bill Tieleman's report.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Counting the losers in the government gambling blitz
The government's hypocrisy on gambling is showing again.
It's obvious that the Liberals have smashed their 2001 campaign promise to "halt the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Instead they expanded gambling dramatically. They've done all the things they warned about as evils - adding slots, pushing them into small towns, lifting betting limits and hours, allowing alcohol and ATMS in casinos so people could make bad decisions and then get the cash to follow them up. And, on top of all that, the government launching Internet gambling.
What made it all especially offensive was that in opposition Gordon Campbell and the Liberals said they knew the consequences of gambling - debt, families in crisis, suicides, increased crime.
Even domestic violence and murder, according to Liberal Kevin Krueger.But they rushed to expand gambling anyway.
Gambling is a messy way to make money.
For one thing, those in the business don't like competition. Around the province the government has shut down people running poker tournaments in places like Legions, where people pay an entry fee and place pretend bets. All gambling is supposed to be in casinos, where gamblers can be encouraged to lose much more.
The government devotes more enforcement effort to eliminating competition than to guarding against crimes at legal gambling sites. (Which is one reason for concern over reports that people who sell lottery tickets are winning far more than their fair share of prizes. The B.C. Ombudsman's office is investigating.)
Now Liberal MLA Al Horning has admitted he took part in illegal poker games in a gambling den in his Okanagan riding.
So, what does Premier Gordon Campbell think about Horning's scorn for the gambling laws?
No problem, he told the Kelowna Courier through his spokesman. The activities were before Horning was elected in 2005 and so not relevant. If people had concerns, they should call the police.
It's not quite the moral outrage Campbell summoned up when the NDP wanted to expand gambling, but times change.
After all, the Liberals used to be big on the need for help for problem gamblers.
Now, not so much. Back in 2004, Sue Reid, a Surrey nurse with an interest in gambling issues, submitted a request for the material B.C. Lotteries used to train casino staff in dealing with distressed and problem gamblers.
It's a secret, the Crown corporation said, a pretty good warning sign that all is not right.
After a long battle, Reid, got the material. It showed that troubled gamblers usually don't get much help - at best a brochure and reference to a toll-free help line.
It confirmed casino staff often have to deal with gamblers who are angry, emotional and losing all their money. They see people making repeated trips to ATMs as they try to win back mounting losses. They even see people who wear diapers, so they won't have to give up a slot machine they think might pay off.
But 85 per cent of casino employees surveyed in 2004 - well into the gambling expansion - said it was up the gamblers to find help.
No wonder the government is finally increasing funding for gambling addicts.
Gambling is a tricky business to manage, too. You would think if the government was going to be in the business, it would be running a tight ship.
But last month Australia's biggest gambling operator and a bank based there combined to buy Gateway Casinos, which has seven casinos in B.C.
An Australian newspaper reported the bank liked the opportunity because B.C. was one of the few places in the world that offered casinos a "free ride."
"A very nice kicker to this whole transaction is a dynamic that has been set up at the government level, whereby any capital expenditure you spend on your casinos is refunded by the government," a bank spokesman said. "So there is, specific to this region of the world, a very attractive environment for a casino operator."
No wonder the Liberals used to think it was a good idea to steer clear of the gambling business.
Footnote: The financial institution, Macquarie Bank, isn't just interested in gambling in B.C. It's the owner of the Sea-to-Sky Highway project and hydro projects in the province and is interested in health-care private-public partnerships.
It's obvious that the Liberals have smashed their 2001 campaign promise to "halt the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."
Instead they expanded gambling dramatically. They've done all the things they warned about as evils - adding slots, pushing them into small towns, lifting betting limits and hours, allowing alcohol and ATMS in casinos so people could make bad decisions and then get the cash to follow them up. And, on top of all that, the government launching Internet gambling.
What made it all especially offensive was that in opposition Gordon Campbell and the Liberals said they knew the consequences of gambling - debt, families in crisis, suicides, increased crime.
Even domestic violence and murder, according to Liberal Kevin Krueger.But they rushed to expand gambling anyway.
Gambling is a messy way to make money.
For one thing, those in the business don't like competition. Around the province the government has shut down people running poker tournaments in places like Legions, where people pay an entry fee and place pretend bets. All gambling is supposed to be in casinos, where gamblers can be encouraged to lose much more.
The government devotes more enforcement effort to eliminating competition than to guarding against crimes at legal gambling sites. (Which is one reason for concern over reports that people who sell lottery tickets are winning far more than their fair share of prizes. The B.C. Ombudsman's office is investigating.)
Now Liberal MLA Al Horning has admitted he took part in illegal poker games in a gambling den in his Okanagan riding.
So, what does Premier Gordon Campbell think about Horning's scorn for the gambling laws?
No problem, he told the Kelowna Courier through his spokesman. The activities were before Horning was elected in 2005 and so not relevant. If people had concerns, they should call the police.
It's not quite the moral outrage Campbell summoned up when the NDP wanted to expand gambling, but times change.
After all, the Liberals used to be big on the need for help for problem gamblers.
Now, not so much. Back in 2004, Sue Reid, a Surrey nurse with an interest in gambling issues, submitted a request for the material B.C. Lotteries used to train casino staff in dealing with distressed and problem gamblers.
It's a secret, the Crown corporation said, a pretty good warning sign that all is not right.
After a long battle, Reid, got the material. It showed that troubled gamblers usually don't get much help - at best a brochure and reference to a toll-free help line.
It confirmed casino staff often have to deal with gamblers who are angry, emotional and losing all their money. They see people making repeated trips to ATMs as they try to win back mounting losses. They even see people who wear diapers, so they won't have to give up a slot machine they think might pay off.
But 85 per cent of casino employees surveyed in 2004 - well into the gambling expansion - said it was up the gamblers to find help.
No wonder the government is finally increasing funding for gambling addicts.
Gambling is a tricky business to manage, too. You would think if the government was going to be in the business, it would be running a tight ship.
But last month Australia's biggest gambling operator and a bank based there combined to buy Gateway Casinos, which has seven casinos in B.C.
An Australian newspaper reported the bank liked the opportunity because B.C. was one of the few places in the world that offered casinos a "free ride."
"A very nice kicker to this whole transaction is a dynamic that has been set up at the government level, whereby any capital expenditure you spend on your casinos is refunded by the government," a bank spokesman said. "So there is, specific to this region of the world, a very attractive environment for a casino operator."
No wonder the Liberals used to think it was a good idea to steer clear of the gambling business.
Footnote: The financial institution, Macquarie Bank, isn't just interested in gambling in B.C. It's the owner of the Sea-to-Sky Highway project and hydro projects in the province and is interested in health-care private-public partnerships.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Safe injection, bad research and the media
We're not great in the media at reporting on health and science issues, with, as always, a few exceptions like The Globe and Mail's Andre Picard.
And we demonstrated the weakness this week with a story that produced headlines like "Safe injection site a failure, study finds.'
The study attacking Vancouver's safe-injection site contradicted all the serious research projects that had found improvements in health outcomes, community safety and other benefits.
The study involved no new research and came from an online journal that has published two issues and is funded by the U.S. Justice Department, which opposes harm reduction.
Read more at Pacific Gazette and CathieFromCanada.
And we demonstrated the weakness this week with a story that produced headlines like "Safe injection site a failure, study finds.'
The study attacking Vancouver's safe-injection site contradicted all the serious research projects that had found improvements in health outcomes, community safety and other benefits.
The study involved no new research and came from an online journal that has published two issues and is funded by the U.S. Justice Department, which opposes harm reduction.
Read more at Pacific Gazette and CathieFromCanada.
Friday, May 04, 2007
How dirty do we want politics to be?
Premier Gordon Campbell is likely waiting to see what you think about political "dirty tricks."
I'm curious too.
The trial of Dave Basi and Bob Virk on corruption charges could be a turning point, when we either accept that the normal standards of honesty and decency don't apply to politics or start demanding_better.
The trial has pushed the issue into our faces. Defence lawyers allege that Basi's role as a senior aide to then finance minister Gary Collins included what most of us would call political dirty tricks.
They say he was in charge of lining up people to call radio call-in shows under fake names. If the premier or a Liberal was on, they asked easy questions. If it was a New Democrat - or even Bill Vander Zalm - they tried their best to make the enemy look bad.
When then North Vancouver mayor Barb Sharp, an opponent of the B.C. Rail deal, was to be on a radio call-in show, the defence alleges, Basi asked Collins if it was OK to line up a caller to "rip her a new (deleted, but you know)." According to the wiretap evidence cited by the lawyers, Collins said sure.
The lawyers also say Basi did some of the work as part of his government job and also had "media monitoring" contracts with the B.C. Liberal Party to fund the efforts.
Senior people in the premier's office - including Gordon Campbell - knew and approved, the lawyers allege. _
And it went beyond call-ins. They say Basi paid a man $100 to heckle a Victoria demonstration against salmon farms, while pretending he was just a concerned citizen.
All these are just allegations. Campbell is refusing to answer questions because the case is before the courts.
But it's hard to see how long he can avoid the basic issues - does he approve of such activities, are they taking place now and if so, are government staff involved?
They're important questions for everyone in politics, from all parties, and not just in terms of this case.
The trial has given us a chance to set some clear ethical or moral limits for political activity.
Take a basic issue like call-in shows. Former Socred Rafe Mair says in a column for The Tyee that as far back as 1975 his campaign workers were pressed into service to jam the lines when he appeared on a show, lying and asking soft questions - and blocking callers with real questions. Many people in politics have similar anecdotes.
But is it right to run that kind of operation? Is it acceptable to lie in the interests of getting elected? (And if it is, what else that would normally be considered wrong is allowed in politics?)
And does it matter who tells the lie? Is it more serious when a government staffer, on taxpayers' money, phones in and lies than when a volunteer does?
It's kind of awful even to reread the last few paragraphs. The fact that we're debating whether dishonesty and deviousness are OK in politics shows a sickness.
Campbell is on record, sort of, as being opposed to lying in the cause of politics. In 2005, a newly hired senior adviser in the premier's office called Campbell on a TV call-in show, used a false name and lobbed a softball question. People recognized his voice and he resigned.
Campbell said that was appropriate, but offered only a weak condemnation. "It's always good to say who you are," he said. "Clearly it was a mistake. He's done the right thing."
That answer, tepid as it was, creates some potential problems for the government. The defence is alleging - and remember, nothing is proven - that Campbell and his senior staff knew about Basi's phone games.
Politics has too often become a game. Laws are obeyed, but rules don't matter and ethics are for the squeamish.
And that attitude too is on trial in Vancouver.
Footnote: The trial is raising other ethical questions. Defence lawyers revealed that former Quesnel mayor Steve Wallace, an opponent of CN's bid to buy BC Rail, accepted $1,000 from the lobbyist for OmniTRAX, a rival bidder. Wallace says the money covered his travel costs for fact-finding community visits.
I'm curious too.
The trial of Dave Basi and Bob Virk on corruption charges could be a turning point, when we either accept that the normal standards of honesty and decency don't apply to politics or start demanding_better.
The trial has pushed the issue into our faces. Defence lawyers allege that Basi's role as a senior aide to then finance minister Gary Collins included what most of us would call political dirty tricks.
They say he was in charge of lining up people to call radio call-in shows under fake names. If the premier or a Liberal was on, they asked easy questions. If it was a New Democrat - or even Bill Vander Zalm - they tried their best to make the enemy look bad.
When then North Vancouver mayor Barb Sharp, an opponent of the B.C. Rail deal, was to be on a radio call-in show, the defence alleges, Basi asked Collins if it was OK to line up a caller to "rip her a new (deleted, but you know)." According to the wiretap evidence cited by the lawyers, Collins said sure.
The lawyers also say Basi did some of the work as part of his government job and also had "media monitoring" contracts with the B.C. Liberal Party to fund the efforts.
Senior people in the premier's office - including Gordon Campbell - knew and approved, the lawyers allege. _
And it went beyond call-ins. They say Basi paid a man $100 to heckle a Victoria demonstration against salmon farms, while pretending he was just a concerned citizen.
All these are just allegations. Campbell is refusing to answer questions because the case is before the courts.
But it's hard to see how long he can avoid the basic issues - does he approve of such activities, are they taking place now and if so, are government staff involved?
They're important questions for everyone in politics, from all parties, and not just in terms of this case.
The trial has given us a chance to set some clear ethical or moral limits for political activity.
Take a basic issue like call-in shows. Former Socred Rafe Mair says in a column for The Tyee that as far back as 1975 his campaign workers were pressed into service to jam the lines when he appeared on a show, lying and asking soft questions - and blocking callers with real questions. Many people in politics have similar anecdotes.
But is it right to run that kind of operation? Is it acceptable to lie in the interests of getting elected? (And if it is, what else that would normally be considered wrong is allowed in politics?)
And does it matter who tells the lie? Is it more serious when a government staffer, on taxpayers' money, phones in and lies than when a volunteer does?
It's kind of awful even to reread the last few paragraphs. The fact that we're debating whether dishonesty and deviousness are OK in politics shows a sickness.
Campbell is on record, sort of, as being opposed to lying in the cause of politics. In 2005, a newly hired senior adviser in the premier's office called Campbell on a TV call-in show, used a false name and lobbed a softball question. People recognized his voice and he resigned.
Campbell said that was appropriate, but offered only a weak condemnation. "It's always good to say who you are," he said. "Clearly it was a mistake. He's done the right thing."
That answer, tepid as it was, creates some potential problems for the government. The defence is alleging - and remember, nothing is proven - that Campbell and his senior staff knew about Basi's phone games.
Politics has too often become a game. Laws are obeyed, but rules don't matter and ethics are for the squeamish.
And that attitude too is on trial in Vancouver.
Footnote: The trial is raising other ethical questions. Defence lawyers revealed that former Quesnel mayor Steve Wallace, an opponent of CN's bid to buy BC Rail, accepted $1,000 from the lobbyist for OmniTRAX, a rival bidder. Wallace says the money covered his travel costs for fact-finding community visits.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The outrageous MLA pay plan and class in B.C.
The MLA pay issue is a reminder that we still have a class system in British Columbia.
Not like England, or course, where your accent and school define your place in the world.
But your reaction to a recommendation that MLAs get a 30-per-cent raise and the premier a 50-per-cent raise - retroactive, no less - is not a bad class litmus test.
If you think the idea makes sense, you are likely in the comfortable class.
If you are amazed that some people who sought a job two years ago now figure it's reasonable to boost their base pay from $76,100 to $98,000 and the premier's pay from $121,100 to $186,000, then you're in the struggling class.
Not struggling to survive, in most cases. But nervous about being able to pay all the bills at the end of the month if something big goes wrong with the family car.
Those people are going to find it hard to imagine that the current base income of $76,100 isn't enough for a good life. (Especially since 75 per cent of MLAs get extra pay for heading up a committee, a cabinet post or other roles.)
Remember, the average full-time wage in B.C. is about $38,500. A typical MLA already makes twice that much. The raise would mean they would be paid more than 90 per cent of the people they represent.
But a lot of other people - the comfortable - can see how $76,100 isn't enough for all the sacrifices involved in a politician's life. That includes a fair portion of the journalists reporting on the issue, who are paid in the same range. If it's worth that much to have someone write about MLAs, surely they deserve a little more for actually doing the work.
The politicians thought so. In 2005, they secretly hatched a plan to sneak through a 15-per-cent raise. The public went wild, NDP Leader Carole James reneged on the deal and the plan was abandoned.
This time, Premier Gordon Campbell tried a different approach, appointing an independent panel to look at the whole issue of politicians' compensation.
Class is an issue here as well. There's nothing wrong with the panel, which included a senior lawyer who specializes in _helping employers with labour issues, a former B.C. _Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British _Columbia business professor
But I'd be surprised if any of the three had income under $150,000. For them, $76,100 - even the $121,100 paid the premier - is going to look inadequate as they consider the cuts they would have to make to live on that income.
The premier would have been wise to include some typical British Columbians on the panel.
The pay is only a part of the boost in compensation the panel recommended. MLAs already have a pension plan, with taxpayers contributing about $6,900 year going into into their RRSPs. Not great, but not bad.
The panel proposes a generous plan that would cost taxpayers at least $35,000 per year for each MLA. Since most British Columbians don't have any pension plan, they will be cranky about paying taxes to fund a lavish MLA plan.
Politicians do deserve a raise, from my admitted perspective in the comfortable class.
Many of them take a pay cut to serve. Most sacrifice years when they could be laying the groundwork for their futures, choosing instead a job with no security. The hours are long and there's a lot of slogging. And, based on all I've seen, they're in it to make their communities better places for people to live.
But the proposed raises and pension increases are outrageous. Someone working at minimum wage - unchanged for six years, unlike MLAs' pay, which increases each year - makes $15,600 in a year.
The proposal would see MLAs paid as much for seven or eight weeks' on the job as a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
The NDP has already rejected the recommendations. It's hard to see the Liberals pressing ahead.
Footnote: The best course now would be for Campbell to scrap the report, except for a recommendation for a long-term disability plan for MLAs who become sick or injured on the job. (That's needed, but politicians will be asked why they aren't content with the provincial disability benefit - $11,000 a year - that they consider adequate for the rest of us.)
A new, representative panel could be set up and report next year, with any changes to take effect after the 2009 election.
Not like England, or course, where your accent and school define your place in the world.
But your reaction to a recommendation that MLAs get a 30-per-cent raise and the premier a 50-per-cent raise - retroactive, no less - is not a bad class litmus test.
If you think the idea makes sense, you are likely in the comfortable class.
If you are amazed that some people who sought a job two years ago now figure it's reasonable to boost their base pay from $76,100 to $98,000 and the premier's pay from $121,100 to $186,000, then you're in the struggling class.
Not struggling to survive, in most cases. But nervous about being able to pay all the bills at the end of the month if something big goes wrong with the family car.
Those people are going to find it hard to imagine that the current base income of $76,100 isn't enough for a good life. (Especially since 75 per cent of MLAs get extra pay for heading up a committee, a cabinet post or other roles.)
Remember, the average full-time wage in B.C. is about $38,500. A typical MLA already makes twice that much. The raise would mean they would be paid more than 90 per cent of the people they represent.
But a lot of other people - the comfortable - can see how $76,100 isn't enough for all the sacrifices involved in a politician's life. That includes a fair portion of the journalists reporting on the issue, who are paid in the same range. If it's worth that much to have someone write about MLAs, surely they deserve a little more for actually doing the work.
The politicians thought so. In 2005, they secretly hatched a plan to sneak through a 15-per-cent raise. The public went wild, NDP Leader Carole James reneged on the deal and the plan was abandoned.
This time, Premier Gordon Campbell tried a different approach, appointing an independent panel to look at the whole issue of politicians' compensation.
Class is an issue here as well. There's nothing wrong with the panel, which included a senior lawyer who specializes in _helping employers with labour issues, a former B.C. _Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of British _Columbia business professor
But I'd be surprised if any of the three had income under $150,000. For them, $76,100 - even the $121,100 paid the premier - is going to look inadequate as they consider the cuts they would have to make to live on that income.
The premier would have been wise to include some typical British Columbians on the panel.
The pay is only a part of the boost in compensation the panel recommended. MLAs already have a pension plan, with taxpayers contributing about $6,900 year going into into their RRSPs. Not great, but not bad.
The panel proposes a generous plan that would cost taxpayers at least $35,000 per year for each MLA. Since most British Columbians don't have any pension plan, they will be cranky about paying taxes to fund a lavish MLA plan.
Politicians do deserve a raise, from my admitted perspective in the comfortable class.
Many of them take a pay cut to serve. Most sacrifice years when they could be laying the groundwork for their futures, choosing instead a job with no security. The hours are long and there's a lot of slogging. And, based on all I've seen, they're in it to make their communities better places for people to live.
But the proposed raises and pension increases are outrageous. Someone working at minimum wage - unchanged for six years, unlike MLAs' pay, which increases each year - makes $15,600 in a year.
The proposal would see MLAs paid as much for seven or eight weeks' on the job as a minimum wage worker earns in a year.
The NDP has already rejected the recommendations. It's hard to see the Liberals pressing ahead.
Footnote: The best course now would be for Campbell to scrap the report, except for a recommendation for a long-term disability plan for MLAs who become sick or injured on the job. (That's needed, but politicians will be asked why they aren't content with the provincial disability benefit - $11,000 a year - that they consider adequate for the rest of us.)
A new, representative panel could be set up and report next year, with any changes to take effect after the 2009 election.
Dobell hits back, but questions continue
Ken Dobell came to Victoria this week in a bid to end questions about possible real or perceived conflicts of interest in his two roles - as a special adviser to Premier Gordon Campbell and a consultant and registered lobbyist for the City of Vancouver.
The NDP has been all over the issue since the legislature resumed sitting after the Easter break. Some of their questions have been fair; some have over-reached. The government has done a consistently poor job of answering.
Dobell, who retired as the province's top bureaucrat in 2005, held what he billed as his first press conference in 37 years in the public sector to take on the critics. By the end, a fair-minded observer might still be left with questions.
Dobell has a good reputation. And part of his argument can be boiled down to the claim that he's a person of integrity who has taken steps to avoid any conflicts. He sees no conflicts, so they don't exist.
As Dobell prepared to meet the press, the premier's office handed out a memo from Campbell's deputy minister, Jessica McDonald, offering a similar argument.
McDonald said Dobell told her and the Vancouver city manager about the risk of a perceived conflict of interest as he was being paid both to advise the premier and help Vancouver get provincial support for a major arts project and social housing initiative.
She decided there was no conflict.
In the case of the effort to develop a multi-million-dollar cultural precinct, because of "the significant alignment of interests between the province and the city on this important joint project."
And in the case of the social housing initiative, because "his disclosure enabled me to be aware that his views on this file emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such."
McDonald's memo, written last Friday, would be helpful to anyone conducting an impartial review of the issues.
But it's not likely to satisfy people who are concerned about potential conflicts.
It's good that McDonald was aware that Dobell's comments on housing "emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such." But what about others in government who read or heard Dobell's thoughts, directly or indirectly, on the housing in initiative? Were they all aware that he was speaking as a consultant to the city on the issue and not as an adviser to the premier?
McDonald's note also says she dealt with the issue last October, six months after Dobell started work for the city.
There are also questions worth asking about the cultural precinct project. Dobell said when Vancouver hired him, at $250 an hour, the city manager told him that Campbell and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan had talked and both wanted him to work on it.
But should the premier really be in discussions that reach the conclusion that the best way to move the project forward was for the city to hire a consultant who has been his close associate for more than two decades?
Dobell also tried to deal with concerns that there was a risk of conflict in his simultaneous roles as paid advisor to the premier - with a desk in the government's Vancouver offices - and lobbyist for the city.
Simple, Dobell said. He's not a lobbyist, he's a "content consultant."
But Dobell did officially sign up as a lobbyist on the government's registry, saying he intended to try and win support from Campbell, Housing Minister Rich Coleman and Tourism Minister Stan Hagen on behalf of Vancouver. (Dobell didn't register until months after he reported started lobbying work, an apparent violation of the act now being investigated.)
He was simply following advice from the city's lawyers, Dobell said this week.
The government has created this problem. It should be doing a better job both of answering legitimate questions and considering how to avoid such issue in future.
Footnote: Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong has been handling all the questions for the Liberals, for the most part relying on indignation and bluster. But hopes the issue would just go away appeared less likely Tuesday as the NDP asked questions about other people who had moved from senior public sector posts to related work.
The NDP has been all over the issue since the legislature resumed sitting after the Easter break. Some of their questions have been fair; some have over-reached. The government has done a consistently poor job of answering.
Dobell, who retired as the province's top bureaucrat in 2005, held what he billed as his first press conference in 37 years in the public sector to take on the critics. By the end, a fair-minded observer might still be left with questions.
Dobell has a good reputation. And part of his argument can be boiled down to the claim that he's a person of integrity who has taken steps to avoid any conflicts. He sees no conflicts, so they don't exist.
As Dobell prepared to meet the press, the premier's office handed out a memo from Campbell's deputy minister, Jessica McDonald, offering a similar argument.
McDonald said Dobell told her and the Vancouver city manager about the risk of a perceived conflict of interest as he was being paid both to advise the premier and help Vancouver get provincial support for a major arts project and social housing initiative.
She decided there was no conflict.
In the case of the effort to develop a multi-million-dollar cultural precinct, because of "the significant alignment of interests between the province and the city on this important joint project."
And in the case of the social housing initiative, because "his disclosure enabled me to be aware that his views on this file emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such."
McDonald's memo, written last Friday, would be helpful to anyone conducting an impartial review of the issues.
But it's not likely to satisfy people who are concerned about potential conflicts.
It's good that McDonald was aware that Dobell's comments on housing "emanated from his work advising the city and could be respected as such." But what about others in government who read or heard Dobell's thoughts, directly or indirectly, on the housing in initiative? Were they all aware that he was speaking as a consultant to the city on the issue and not as an adviser to the premier?
McDonald's note also says she dealt with the issue last October, six months after Dobell started work for the city.
There are also questions worth asking about the cultural precinct project. Dobell said when Vancouver hired him, at $250 an hour, the city manager told him that Campbell and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan had talked and both wanted him to work on it.
But should the premier really be in discussions that reach the conclusion that the best way to move the project forward was for the city to hire a consultant who has been his close associate for more than two decades?
Dobell also tried to deal with concerns that there was a risk of conflict in his simultaneous roles as paid advisor to the premier - with a desk in the government's Vancouver offices - and lobbyist for the city.
Simple, Dobell said. He's not a lobbyist, he's a "content consultant."
But Dobell did officially sign up as a lobbyist on the government's registry, saying he intended to try and win support from Campbell, Housing Minister Rich Coleman and Tourism Minister Stan Hagen on behalf of Vancouver. (Dobell didn't register until months after he reported started lobbying work, an apparent violation of the act now being investigated.)
He was simply following advice from the city's lawyers, Dobell said this week.
The government has created this problem. It should be doing a better job both of answering legitimate questions and considering how to avoid such issue in future.
Footnote: Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mike de Jong has been handling all the questions for the Liberals, for the most part relying on indignation and bluster. But hopes the issue would just go away appeared less likely Tuesday as the NDP asked questions about other people who had moved from senior public sector posts to related work.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Early days of Basi-Virk trial bring tough questions for Liberals
The corruption trial of ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is only days old, and the bombshells are already shaking B.C. politics.
Basi and Virk are charged with taking bribes in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail. The evidence is expected to include testimony from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist, who will say he paid the bribes. Bornman hasn't been charged, one of the issues the defence lawyers are questioning. All this flows from the legislature raids more than three years ago.
Three years is a long time to wait for answers. Not just on the question of guilt or innocence, important as that is. But about what sparked the investigation, why policed raided a who's who of federal Liberal party wheels, how the government responded to the concerns, how the B.C. Rail deal was affected and just what happened.
So far, none of those questions have been answered. But defence lawyers, using wiretap material and other documents, have already raised a raft of damaging charges against the Campbell Liberals and the RCMP.
They're trying to make the case that the wiretap evidence was wrongly obtained and shouldn't be allowed. They're also suggesting that the RCMP failed to investigate the politicians properly and that Basi and Virk were simply doing their bosses' bidding. To establish that, the lawyers argue, they need access to a lot more government records.
Along the way the lawyers have been offering examples from the evidence to support their arguments. The examples seem chosen to make life difficult for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
The lawyers said the evidence showed that Basi performed political dirty tricks for the government, with the knowledge and support of the premier's office.
Basi paid a man $100 to heckle fish farm protesters at a Victoria supermarket. He lined up callers when politicians were on radio talk shows, people who would use fake names and lob softball questions at the premier and other Liberals. He recruited callers to attack opponents - even long retired former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
All with knowledge of the senior people in the premier's office - including, according to one e-mail, Campbell.
It's no secret parties sometimes try and stack call-ins. But the notion of this being government strategy, managed at taxpayers' expense, is offensive.
And the idea that the Liberals might be paying people to disrupt legitimate demonstrations is just ugly. Secret agents of a political party shouldn't harass citizens trying to make a point.
The lawyers dropped more bombs. They said politicians had been wrongly excluded from the investigation. One of the lead RCMP officers on the case was the brother-in- law of the B.C. Liberal party president and didn't immediately disclose the conflict, the lawyers claimed.
These are all just allegations. But they raised some serious concerns about the way the Liberal party and the government operate.
And the New Democrats were quick to jump on the issue in question period. The questions have varied. But basically, the NDP has been asking about the allegations of dirty tricks. So have reporters.
Campbell isn't talking. He says he won't answer any questions about allegations or evidence at the trial until the case is resolved. He's taking the position out of respect for the courts, he says.
You can make the argument. There's no worry about influencing a jury; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. But the premier could say he doesn't want to risk even the appearance that he's trying to influence the court.
But there's a stronger case for some answers, too.
The New Democrats have managed to narrow the questions to remove references to the trial, asking Campbell simply to confirm that no one in his office is currently involved in such political tricks.
The questions are serious, raising the issue of the ethical standards - the sense of decency and respect - we expect from those in public life.
Footnote: The New Democrats also continued to raise questions about potential conflicts in the roles occupied by former top bureaucrat Ken Dobell, who is being paid both as an advisor to the premier and a lobbyist for the City of Vancouver attempting to get money from the province. Attorney General Wally Oppal has struggled in dealing with what look legitimate concerns.
Basi and Virk are charged with taking bribes in connection with the sale of B.C. Rail. The evidence is expected to include testimony from Erik Bornman, a lobbyist, who will say he paid the bribes. Bornman hasn't been charged, one of the issues the defence lawyers are questioning. All this flows from the legislature raids more than three years ago.
Three years is a long time to wait for answers. Not just on the question of guilt or innocence, important as that is. But about what sparked the investigation, why policed raided a who's who of federal Liberal party wheels, how the government responded to the concerns, how the B.C. Rail deal was affected and just what happened.
So far, none of those questions have been answered. But defence lawyers, using wiretap material and other documents, have already raised a raft of damaging charges against the Campbell Liberals and the RCMP.
They're trying to make the case that the wiretap evidence was wrongly obtained and shouldn't be allowed. They're also suggesting that the RCMP failed to investigate the politicians properly and that Basi and Virk were simply doing their bosses' bidding. To establish that, the lawyers argue, they need access to a lot more government records.
Along the way the lawyers have been offering examples from the evidence to support their arguments. The examples seem chosen to make life difficult for Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.
The lawyers said the evidence showed that Basi performed political dirty tricks for the government, with the knowledge and support of the premier's office.
Basi paid a man $100 to heckle fish farm protesters at a Victoria supermarket. He lined up callers when politicians were on radio talk shows, people who would use fake names and lob softball questions at the premier and other Liberals. He recruited callers to attack opponents - even long retired former premier Bill Vander Zalm.
All with knowledge of the senior people in the premier's office - including, according to one e-mail, Campbell.
It's no secret parties sometimes try and stack call-ins. But the notion of this being government strategy, managed at taxpayers' expense, is offensive.
And the idea that the Liberals might be paying people to disrupt legitimate demonstrations is just ugly. Secret agents of a political party shouldn't harass citizens trying to make a point.
The lawyers dropped more bombs. They said politicians had been wrongly excluded from the investigation. One of the lead RCMP officers on the case was the brother-in- law of the B.C. Liberal party president and didn't immediately disclose the conflict, the lawyers claimed.
These are all just allegations. But they raised some serious concerns about the way the Liberal party and the government operate.
And the New Democrats were quick to jump on the issue in question period. The questions have varied. But basically, the NDP has been asking about the allegations of dirty tricks. So have reporters.
Campbell isn't talking. He says he won't answer any questions about allegations or evidence at the trial until the case is resolved. He's taking the position out of respect for the courts, he says.
You can make the argument. There's no worry about influencing a jury; B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. But the premier could say he doesn't want to risk even the appearance that he's trying to influence the court.
But there's a stronger case for some answers, too.
The New Democrats have managed to narrow the questions to remove references to the trial, asking Campbell simply to confirm that no one in his office is currently involved in such political tricks.
The questions are serious, raising the issue of the ethical standards - the sense of decency and respect - we expect from those in public life.
Footnote: The New Democrats also continued to raise questions about potential conflicts in the roles occupied by former top bureaucrat Ken Dobell, who is being paid both as an advisor to the premier and a lobbyist for the City of Vancouver attempting to get money from the province. Attorney General Wally Oppal has struggled in dealing with what look legitimate concerns.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Dobell conflict issue could hurt Liberals
The Liberals' problem in dealing with the great Ken Dobell controversy is that their explanations just won't strike most people as reasonable.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Dobell has been one of Premier Gordon Campbell's closest associates since the mid-80s, when he was the Vancouver city manager and Campbell was mayor.
Dobell was hired to do the same job, on a bigger scale, when the Liberals were elected in 2001. As deputy minister to the premier, Dobell ran the show for Campbell. He was one of the two key architects of the first term.
When Dobell stepped down in 2005, things got complicated. And sloppy. Campbell wanted to continue to rely on Dobell for advice. So the premier's office signed a contract that would see the government pay Dobell $250 an hour to a maximum of $230,000 a year. He was available for general advice or to work on special projects. Over the past two years he's chaired the Vancouver convention centre project - that hasn't worked out so well - and represented the province on the Olympic organizing committee. Campbell tapped him to work on the softwood lumber dispute, coastal forest problems, the Gateway transportation project, conflicts with teachers and as a lobbyist to push B.C.'s interests in Ottawa.
He even kept an office in he government's Vancouver headquarters.
No worries there, beyond the usual concerns when a manager is so dependent on one consultant.
But Dobell, in retirement, was still available for other work.
And the City of Vancouver thought he was just the man to take on a couple of projects. Vancouver hired him as a consultant to develop an affordable housing strategy and set up a "cultural precinct." The work included lobbying the provincial government.
Both projects were entirely dependent on getting big money from the province. And who better to do that than Dobell.
And who better to lobby Campbell than someone whose opinion he already valued so highly that the premier is paying $250 an hour for his advice.
I can't imagine how the government didn't see this as a problem. One meeting, Dobell is offering his guidance to the premier on some of the most important issues facing the province.
And then an hour later, Dobell is sitting in the same chair in the bright Vancouver premier's office, lobbying for a multi-million-dollar contribution to Vancouver's plan for an arts district.
Perhaps Campbell and Dobell could keep the roles straight.
But if you were a representative from another community trying to get money for a cultural precinct, would you think the playing field was level? Would you have the same chance to talk to the premier about the issue?
It's hard to know how much interest there would have been in the conflict issue alone.
But the whole affair took a new turn this week.
The NDP has established that while Dobell started work as a lobbyist for Vancouver in April 2006, he didn't sign up with the province's lobbyist registry until November. The act requires registration within 10 days.
The government has asked Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis to investigate. But the NDP looked at the act and concluded that there was a problem. Charges have to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. The deadline is this week.
The New Democrats said that if prosecutors won't lay charges, MLA Maurine Karagianis will. The deadline is Thursday.
It's a problem for the Liberals, one they could have easily avoided by being alert to the appearance of a conflict. Now they're looking defensive on an issue that plays into peoples' fears about how government works.
And at a bad time. While this is unfolding, the trial of former Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk is hearing allegations of political dirty tricks by the Liberals, including paying a heckler $100 to disrupt an aquaculture protest in Victoria.
The Dobell issue isn't likely to go away.
Footnote: Dobell raised the risk of a perceived conflict of interest last fall in a letter to the Vancouver city manager and his replacement as Campbell's deputy minister, while rejecting the idea of an actual conflict. He had already discussed the issue with both managers, but he also wanted to agree in writing that he had raised the conflict issue and they had said it was not a problem.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Liberals sitting pretty, and not much the NDP can do
Heading toward the halfway point in the Liberal government’s second term and a new poll has some New Democrats in a lather.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
The Ipsos-Reid survey is remarkably encouraging for Gordon Campbell and company. Both the premier and party have the highest approval ratings since 2001.
And the poll suggests the Liberals would win re-election with a bigger majority if the election were held today. They have the support of 49 per cent of decided voters, up three points from their actual support in the 2005 election; the NDP, at 32 per cent, is down from 42 per cent in the actual vote. (The Greens are at 15 per cent despite being invisible these days.)
The predictable result is that some New Democrats are grumbling about leader Carole James and the party’s direction.
Partly, some New Democrats just like to fight, even if it’s with each other. Others think that a tougher opposition, maybe a more traditional left-wing approach, would pay off.
The reality is that the Liberals are just doing a good job of staying popular. The conventional wisdom - that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them - is true, even in grumpy B.C.
It took the Liberals a while to learn that lesson. They spent most of their first term driving voters away.
That’s changed.
Just look at the difference in labour relations. The first-term Liberals made no secret of their contempt for public sector workers.They were so low it was even OK to break their contracts, clearing the way for mass firings so they could be replaced with cheaper labour.
The kinder, gentler Liberals came up with $1 billion in signing bonuses and a conciliatory approach to get labour peace. And it worked.
The first-term Liberals could never admit a mistake. The new Liberals can walk away from unpopular legislation with a shrug and a smile.
The old Liberals didn’t really believe in treaties with First Nations. The new Liberals are keen on a new relationship and champions of a national effort to improve life for natives.
And, in a blink, Campbell has discovered climate change — long after the public did — and gone from doubter to champion faster than you can say Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It hardly seems like a revolutionary political strategy - listen to the public and try to do things they think make sense.
The strategy is working particularly well because for most British Columbians things are looking good. The economy is strong and - except for people in traditional resource communities - jobs are secure.
Frustrating for the New Democrats, for sure. Oppositions thrive when governments ignore public concerns that they can then champion.
So the concern about the growing gap between rich and poor in B.C. and the number of people left behind is a good issue for the New Democrats, even if the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10 in one jump is too radical.
But if the NDP gains much ground, then the new Liberals are likely to introduce their own minimum wage hike. Issue defused.
It make for trying times for an opposition. But lurching toward the party’s traditional base - left or right - makes no sense. Two-party elections are won in the middle.
There is value in patience, waiting to see if the government can actually deliver on its promises. For all the enthusiastic talk, the government hasn’t actually done anything meaningful on climate change, for example. It’s risky to argue that an issue is critically important and then be found wanting.
And there is the reality that things can go bad for government at any time — a health care crisis, a few scandals, another series of stumbles in children and families. It’s hard governing.
But if people do it competently, there isn’t much enthusiasm for booting them out, no matter who is in opposition or what they promise.
And the polls suggest Campbell and the Liberals have learned a lot about keeping the public onside since 2005.
Footnote: The grumbling about James isn’t likely to amount too much. Voters are still, overall, slightly more positive about her performance than they are about Campbell’s. (Both are at slightly over 50-per-cent approval; James has fewer detractors.) There are no apparent heirs in sight. And thoughtful New Democrats recognize that James approach worked very well in the 2005 election.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Liberals defend their own fast ferries
The out-of-control Vancouver convention centre project is looking a lot like the Liberals' own version of the fast ferries.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
The convention centre expansion was supposed to cost $495 million, a number that probably should have aroused suspicion from the start.
It sounds like those price points the late-night TV infomercials use to make things sound cheaper - now only three easy payments of $49.95.
The rock-solid budget was apparently written in pencil, to make it easier to rewrite the numbers as costs kept rising.
The $495-million cost was the number back in 2003, when the government was enthusiastic about the importance of the expanded convention centre for the Vancouver Olympics.
That commitment didn't even last until the official start of construction, when Premier Gordon Campbell hyped up the usual sod-turning ceremony by substituting a backhoe for the traditional gold-plated shovel.
By then the budget had already been revised. The project was now to cost $550 million.
But that was it, said Campbell. No more taxpayers' money was going to be needed.
"This will be on time and on budget," he said. "Count on it." (Evoking former premier Glen Clark's promise that the total cost of the fast ferries would be $210 million, "right down to the toilet paper." The actual cost was more than $450 million.)
By 2005, the centre costs had jumped again, to $615 million. But that, the government promised, was absolutely, positively it. The minister then responsible, Olga Ilich, noted she had a development background and had nailed down the numbers.
Wrong again. After more than a year of silence, the government revealed in the February budget that the centre costs were now through the $800-million barrier.
Worse, no one could say how high the project overruns would go. Tourism Minister Stan Hagen said then that he was still trying to get a handle on the latest version of the final cost.
And this week in the legislature he said he's still trying to figure out how much the bill will be.
The NDP jumped on the issue in the first two question periods this week, focusing on the apparent lack of accountability for the soaring overruns.
Last Friday the government announced a shuffling of the board overseeing the project, which has been chaired by top Campbell advisor Ken Dobell. But no one was dumped or called on to explain the financial crisis.
The New Democrats were quick to trot out Campbell's comments from the fast ferry days.
"There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue," he said then. "They should be fired."
The whole deal is damaging for the Liberals on several levels. Provincial taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra costs. The centre was supposed to be paid for with $223 million each from the federal and provincial governments plus $90 million from a Lower Mainland hotel room tax.
Ottawa's contribution was fixed and the feds have rebuffed requests for more money. The tourism industry won't pony up more.
Which leaves you as the big spender. The provincial share will now be at least $460 million, more than twice as much as promised by Campbell.
Every time the government says no to some request from a community, the NDP can muse that the money isn't available because it was dumped into Vancouver's mismanaged convention centre project.
And the convention centre mismanagement, like the fast ferries, raises the question of competence.
There, the Liberals have an advantage. The fast ferries came after the NDP had established a reputation for bungling. The Liberals, although they have mismanaged major files like long-term care and children and families, don't yet carry the same baggage.
But the convention centre - a year late and twice as expensive for taxpayers as promised - is looking like mighty clunky suitcase for the Liberals to drag along for the next few years.
Footnote: Tourism Minister Stan Hagen got stuck with defending the overruns. His basic point was that it's a great project even with the runaway spending and the NDP should be more cheerful. That too echoes the NDP's early attempts to defend the fast ferry project.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Private ER worrying, but no big threat
It's not good that a private emergency room in Vancouver will offer a promise of better care for people with the cash to pay for preferential treatment.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
But it's also not a catastrophe for public health care, or near the threat to the basic principles of Canadian society posed by other private care initiatives.
The private "urgent care clinic" is the latest business launched by the people behind the False Creek Surgical Centre. The clinic's first attempt to open in December was an obvious violation of the B.C. law and the Canada Health Act. The operators proposed to claim payments from the public system and charge patients an extra fee for the service.
That's clearly prohibited. The basic principle of the Canada Health Act and B.C.'s medicare protection legislation is that people with money can't pay a little extra for preferential treatment.
Health Minister George Abbott has so far followed the lead of his predecessors - both Liberal and NDP - in ignoring the spread of two-tier care.
But this case was so obvious that he warned the clinic the government would take action if it stayed open.
The centre shut its doors to rethink its business plan. Now it's back, with a new business model that Abbott says is within the B.C. rules.
The clinic now says it won't double dip. Doctors won't collect money from the Medical Services Plan; they'll bill patients directly for the entire cost of their services. The clinic has recruited doctors from outside B.C. who aren't enrolled in the public plan.
That's legal under the Canada Health Act, which doesn't bar provinces from allowing private health-care providers - doctors or institutions - from operating entirely outside the public system and being paid directly by patients.
But so far, only a few doctors have made that choice. Practically, it's a lot easier and more secure to operate within the public plan. The patient shows up, the doctor does the work and the plan pays. No worries about billing or deadbeat.
And until now there hasn't been a market. Not enough people will choose to pay directly for a service that now comes with no incremental cost.
While hospital emergency rooms are often overcrowded and chaotic, it's hard to see many people opting for a private urgent care clinic and the extra costs. The False Creek clinic plans to charge a basic $200 fee to examine patients, with extra charges for any treatment.
For minor ailments, most people would opt for a free visit to a drop-in clinic. People with problems that are more serious will likely still head to a hospital emergency room rather than face a steep bill.
It will be interesting, and perhaps useful, to see how the business model and price structure evolves.
For one thing, the clinic might offer an interesting test of the efficiency of the public system. The Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, charges people from outside Canada who need emergency room services. They're hit with a $400 tab for using the ER and another $200 if they see a doctor, plus treatment charges.
If those rates reflect real costs in the public system, it would be cheaper to send some patients to the private clinic and have the public system pick up the bill.
The urgent care clinic doesn't pose the serious threat to medicare created by private surgical centres and extra-billing based doctors' groups like the Copeman Clinic. They sell faster, better treatment to people who can pay. A sick child's care becomes based on how much money her parents have, not on the treatment she needs to get better
But there are still worries about the clinic. The business needs to make a profit and the owners will be pressed to find ways to tap the public system. Its opening means fewer doctors and nurses are available.
And while proponents of two-tier care argue it can relieve pressure on the public system, that can be a bad thing. If those with money decide to opt out, then they no longer have an interest in maintaining the quality of the public system. Those are the people who are most effective in shaping government's priorities.
There's no need to panic over the opening of this private, sort-of emergency room.
But there's good reason to be concerned about the steady erosion of universal care, and governments' reluctance to do anything more than talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
