I was 15 when the photo appeared, in Life magazine, I think. Barack Obama was six.
It was a black and white shot of a Mississippi sheriff named Lawrence Rainey. He was beefy, bald guy in uniform, something between a grin and smirk over his long chin. Black cowboy boots, with short socks, so you saw a patch of white hairy shin, as he sprawled with one leg crossed over the other, his right hand dipping into a pouch of Red Man tobacco, a chaw in his cheek.
He was sitting in a courtroom. Around him were grinning co-defendants, all charged in the murder of three young civil rights workers.
The picture showed the men believed they had done nothing wrong. And that they would get away with murder.
And the two sheriffs and gang of Ku Klux Klansmen who killed the three men were almost right.
The state wouldn't charge them. It took three years for the federal government to bring charges of violating the dead men's civil rights, by killing them.
Only seven of 18 men charged were convicted. No one served more than six years in jail.
The photo was one of those defining images - of hate and power and a place where the most basic rule of law was unknown. Where you could be killed by the police for talking about human rights.
That was 1967, not long ago really.
And now Americans have elected a black president.
It's remarkable. The United States has carried a stain since its birth, because the founding fathers accepted the continued slavery of blacks, many of them with shame. The country fought a bloody Civil War over the issue, but never really dealt with racism and an apartheid-like segregation. (Not that Canada does not have its own ghosts.)
The civil rights movement was one of those rare, morally pure causes. And it attracted people willing to die for the cause, like James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, the murdered civil rights workers.
And yet within Obama's lifetime, America has changed, beyond what I ever expected.
"Change" was the Obama campaign theme. That's encouraging too.
The United States has always had its dark side. American exceptionalism - the belief that the U.S. is unlike any country in the world, better in a profound way - has justified some terrible intrusions into other countries.
But in the last eight years, it has truly lost its way. A war based on lies, huge tax cuts for the already rich, indifference to survivors of a devastating hurricane. A financial free-for-all that brought riches to a handful before its collapse cost average Americans billions and plunged the world economy into recession. Prison camps with no rules, and torture.
Change seems like a good thing.
Who knows how much change Obama will be able to deliver. As I'm writing, it looks like there will be enough Republican senators to block any major initiatives that they oppose.
And his options are going to be limited. The U.S. is a financial mess and running ridiculous deficits. The government will have little money to spend on new programs.
What does it mean for Canada? Obama talked about opening the North American Free Trade Agreement, but his quarrel is with Mexico, not Canada.
He'll launch a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Canada would then face pressure to continue to fight beyond 2011.
And Alberta's tarsands might be in trouble. Obama has pledged to reject "dirty" energy sources, one that require excessive greenhouse gases.
Obama's focus is going to be largely internal. Canada's challenge will be getting any attention.
But who cares?
Obama represents, in some ways, the triumph of a vision. The civil rights movement was a dangerous, uncertain struggle. The election of an African American, despite all the prejudices and racism that are part of life in the U.S., and Canada, is remarkable.
Footnote: It's 8:01 and CNN has just declared Obama the new president. The election does raise some interesting questions about what voters today are looking for in political candidates. Obama's calm, consensus-based approach to politics, his ability to build a broad base of support, united in hope, changes politics.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Assessment freeze, tax deferral useful stopgaps
How bad is it going to get in British Columbia?
And who is going to take the brunt of the beating as the economy reels from the collapse of a global financial system that proved as sturdy as a house of cards built by a distracted five-year-old?
Premier Gordon Campbell's newest proposals suggest things could get considerably worse, although that might also be a tactic. The Liberals appear to be road testing a campaign strategy based on convincing people that times are scary, and the New Democrats are too risky to put in power.
Campbell unveiled the latest plans to deal with the economic crisis at the party's convention in Whistler. They make sense, although Campbell's speech might also have raised some false hopes about the government's intentions.
The government decided to abandon the annual property assessment reviews this year. The July 2007 assessments will be used when municipalities and the province decide how much property and school taxes individual owners should pay.
That means some wasted work. The B.C. Assessment Authority was taken by surprise by the announcement. It had been reviewing property values across the province to come up with this year's revised assessments.
But the change offers some advantages. Given the big clouds over real estate markets, many owners would likely have challenged assessments that were based on values before the market dropped.
That would have meant a lot of appeal hearings and problems for municipalities, which would have had to set mill rates while assessment roles were uncertain.
Some people have interpreted the plan as a freeze on property taxes. It's not. The assessment freeze means each homeowner's share of property taxes won't change.
But towns and cities will still set a mill rate that provides the revenue they end.
And in every municipality, that will be higher than last year's rate. Assessments won't change, but taxes will go up.
Campbell also promised legislation that would allow many owners to defer their property taxes in each of the next two years.
People with at least 15-per-cent equity in their homes - say not more than a $250,000 mortgage on a home assessed at $300,000 - can defer taxes.
They will have to sign a form saying that paying property taxes would be a hardship and agree to pay interest at prime, about four per cent this week. They can pay when they like or the province will collect the money when the property is sold. (People over 55 can already defer property taxes.)
It's a reasonable plan. The province will cover the lost revenues for municipalities. Taxpayers face some administration costs and perhaps a little interest, plus any bad debt risks.
And homeowners in a jam get a small reprieve for two years.
Forest Minister Pat Bell pitched the benefits to forest communities. People who had lost their jobs and couldn't pay their property taxes would get help in hanging on to their houses.
But then what? Are the forest jobs coming back? Or are people just going to be deeper in debt, with houses they can't sell and no prospects?
That part, especially given the current economic turmoil, is far from clear. And the government hasn't offered any specific vision for forest communities coping with weak markets and decades of limited logging to come because of the pine beetle disaster.
Campbell also tested a campaign slogan at the Whistler convention - "Keep B.C. Strong."
The idea is to portray the NDP as a reckless choice in difficult times. Campbell talked a lot about the incompetence of the NDP government in the 1990s.
And the Glen Clark government was hopeless. No plan, incompetent management, just dismal.
But that was 1999. Some 550,000 of today's voters were in high school. About 180,000 voters who were married then, aren't today.
Are they really remembering 1999, when Ricky Martin was living La Vida Loca?
Footnote: For political types, this is all fascinating. The Liberals should be in a strong position - times are mostly good - but next May's election result seems surprisingly uncertain. Voters are leery of Campbell, for vague reasons. That makes it very difficult for the Liberals to figure out how to build a successful campaign.
And who is going to take the brunt of the beating as the economy reels from the collapse of a global financial system that proved as sturdy as a house of cards built by a distracted five-year-old?
Premier Gordon Campbell's newest proposals suggest things could get considerably worse, although that might also be a tactic. The Liberals appear to be road testing a campaign strategy based on convincing people that times are scary, and the New Democrats are too risky to put in power.
Campbell unveiled the latest plans to deal with the economic crisis at the party's convention in Whistler. They make sense, although Campbell's speech might also have raised some false hopes about the government's intentions.
The government decided to abandon the annual property assessment reviews this year. The July 2007 assessments will be used when municipalities and the province decide how much property and school taxes individual owners should pay.
That means some wasted work. The B.C. Assessment Authority was taken by surprise by the announcement. It had been reviewing property values across the province to come up with this year's revised assessments.
But the change offers some advantages. Given the big clouds over real estate markets, many owners would likely have challenged assessments that were based on values before the market dropped.
That would have meant a lot of appeal hearings and problems for municipalities, which would have had to set mill rates while assessment roles were uncertain.
Some people have interpreted the plan as a freeze on property taxes. It's not. The assessment freeze means each homeowner's share of property taxes won't change.
But towns and cities will still set a mill rate that provides the revenue they end.
And in every municipality, that will be higher than last year's rate. Assessments won't change, but taxes will go up.
Campbell also promised legislation that would allow many owners to defer their property taxes in each of the next two years.
People with at least 15-per-cent equity in their homes - say not more than a $250,000 mortgage on a home assessed at $300,000 - can defer taxes.
They will have to sign a form saying that paying property taxes would be a hardship and agree to pay interest at prime, about four per cent this week. They can pay when they like or the province will collect the money when the property is sold. (People over 55 can already defer property taxes.)
It's a reasonable plan. The province will cover the lost revenues for municipalities. Taxpayers face some administration costs and perhaps a little interest, plus any bad debt risks.
And homeowners in a jam get a small reprieve for two years.
Forest Minister Pat Bell pitched the benefits to forest communities. People who had lost their jobs and couldn't pay their property taxes would get help in hanging on to their houses.
But then what? Are the forest jobs coming back? Or are people just going to be deeper in debt, with houses they can't sell and no prospects?
That part, especially given the current economic turmoil, is far from clear. And the government hasn't offered any specific vision for forest communities coping with weak markets and decades of limited logging to come because of the pine beetle disaster.
Campbell also tested a campaign slogan at the Whistler convention - "Keep B.C. Strong."
The idea is to portray the NDP as a reckless choice in difficult times. Campbell talked a lot about the incompetence of the NDP government in the 1990s.
And the Glen Clark government was hopeless. No plan, incompetent management, just dismal.
But that was 1999. Some 550,000 of today's voters were in high school. About 180,000 voters who were married then, aren't today.
Are they really remembering 1999, when Ricky Martin was living La Vida Loca?
Footnote: For political types, this is all fascinating. The Liberals should be in a strong position - times are mostly good - but next May's election result seems surprisingly uncertain. Voters are leery of Campbell, for vague reasons. That makes it very difficult for the Liberals to figure out how to build a successful campaign.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Are too aggressive Liberals helping James?
I've got to admit, I didn't watch Carole James economic pitch on TV. I was watching David Copperfield make a '48 Lincoln appear out of nowhere at the local arena. I still have no idea how he did it.
There's an analogy there somewhere - maybe to the challenges James faces in next May's election, or the mysterious way Gordon Campbell has managed to make support disappear when his party should be riding high.
But having written about Campbell's 10-point plan, mostly approvingly, it seemed fair to look at the speech James gave, which is available on the NDP website.
It was not bad, really. Certainly better on one level than the stiff, distant and bureaucratic speech Campbell's staffers wrote for him.
James did a better job of talking to British Columbians about their concerns.
Basically, she said the measures Campbell had proposed made sense, but were inadequate. She supported the retroactive income tax cut, worth about $144 million this year as a one-time break.
But James also said she would remove the carbon tax. That means an extra $631 million in people's pockets next year. And, of course, $631 million less in government revenue.
It's a political winner, but bad policy. The carbon tax makes sense. It is offset by other tax cuts. The tax encourages people and companies to reduce their consumption of greenhouse-gas emitting fuels. It rewards innovation. It's a sensible tax shift. But, as Stephane Dion found, that can still be a tough sale.
The NDP knows some price on emissions is needed. But its position is playing well.
James, like Campbell, also supported moving ahead more quickly on some infrastructure projects to help the economy. He wouldn't say which projects would get priority; James promised faster seismic upgrading for schools, 2,400 more affordable housing units to deal with the homelessness crisis and accelerated transit spending.
And she proposed other measures the premier had rejected. Skills training and post-secondary education are important when times are tough, she said, so school budgets would be boosted, student grants restored and interest on student loans cut.
Raw log exports would be cut and more effort and money spent on economic measures aimed at helping forest communities. A
And James promised to attack waste and excess spending, pointing to the Vancouver convention centre, where cost overruns have cost provincial taxpayers $450 million. (Expect to hear much about that from New Democrats over the next six months.)
James released a costing for her tax cuts and spending. It looked sound for this year and next, but cut things too fine for 2010/11. There was the risk of a deficit then
All in all, it was a reasonable plan, but probably not likely to shift many voters.
There were grounds for concern about whether it would be affordable if times got tougher. And the Liberals could be expected to attack the details.
But then the Liberals got self-destructive, in a way that should worry supporters.
For weeks, caucus communications staff - publicly funded - have been running an attack campaign. It's been over the top, the kind of rhetoric that partisans love and uncommitted voters loathe. The team leapt into action after James' speech.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen went on Christy Clark's radio show and said, "We have seen the projections for provincial revenues collapse in the last six weeks, to the tune of billions of dollars."
Except a week earlier, Hansen had said things were difficult and volatile, but revenue projections were "still running ahead of what we were anticipating at the time of the budget."
His explanation was that revenues for this year were on budget, but not for the rest of the three-year plan period.
But if things are on track this year, yet revenues are to be down "billions" in the next two years, then the Liberals must be considering tax increases or significant cuts.
The next quarterly update, around the end of this month, will now be very closely watched.
Footnote: The revenue outlook is volatile. The budget, for example, calls for the government to take in $1.9 billion in property transfer tax on home sales in the next fiscal year. Recent projections of a big drop in sales could knock $400 million off the money available to spend.
There's an analogy there somewhere - maybe to the challenges James faces in next May's election, or the mysterious way Gordon Campbell has managed to make support disappear when his party should be riding high.
But having written about Campbell's 10-point plan, mostly approvingly, it seemed fair to look at the speech James gave, which is available on the NDP website.
It was not bad, really. Certainly better on one level than the stiff, distant and bureaucratic speech Campbell's staffers wrote for him.
James did a better job of talking to British Columbians about their concerns.
Basically, she said the measures Campbell had proposed made sense, but were inadequate. She supported the retroactive income tax cut, worth about $144 million this year as a one-time break.
But James also said she would remove the carbon tax. That means an extra $631 million in people's pockets next year. And, of course, $631 million less in government revenue.
It's a political winner, but bad policy. The carbon tax makes sense. It is offset by other tax cuts. The tax encourages people and companies to reduce their consumption of greenhouse-gas emitting fuels. It rewards innovation. It's a sensible tax shift. But, as Stephane Dion found, that can still be a tough sale.
The NDP knows some price on emissions is needed. But its position is playing well.
James, like Campbell, also supported moving ahead more quickly on some infrastructure projects to help the economy. He wouldn't say which projects would get priority; James promised faster seismic upgrading for schools, 2,400 more affordable housing units to deal with the homelessness crisis and accelerated transit spending.
And she proposed other measures the premier had rejected. Skills training and post-secondary education are important when times are tough, she said, so school budgets would be boosted, student grants restored and interest on student loans cut.
Raw log exports would be cut and more effort and money spent on economic measures aimed at helping forest communities. A
And James promised to attack waste and excess spending, pointing to the Vancouver convention centre, where cost overruns have cost provincial taxpayers $450 million. (Expect to hear much about that from New Democrats over the next six months.)
James released a costing for her tax cuts and spending. It looked sound for this year and next, but cut things too fine for 2010/11. There was the risk of a deficit then
All in all, it was a reasonable plan, but probably not likely to shift many voters.
There were grounds for concern about whether it would be affordable if times got tougher. And the Liberals could be expected to attack the details.
But then the Liberals got self-destructive, in a way that should worry supporters.
For weeks, caucus communications staff - publicly funded - have been running an attack campaign. It's been over the top, the kind of rhetoric that partisans love and uncommitted voters loathe. The team leapt into action after James' speech.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen went on Christy Clark's radio show and said, "We have seen the projections for provincial revenues collapse in the last six weeks, to the tune of billions of dollars."
Except a week earlier, Hansen had said things were difficult and volatile, but revenue projections were "still running ahead of what we were anticipating at the time of the budget."
His explanation was that revenues for this year were on budget, but not for the rest of the three-year plan period.
But if things are on track this year, yet revenues are to be down "billions" in the next two years, then the Liberals must be considering tax increases or significant cuts.
The next quarterly update, around the end of this month, will now be very closely watched.
Footnote: The revenue outlook is volatile. The budget, for example, calls for the government to take in $1.9 billion in property transfer tax on home sales in the next fiscal year. Recent projections of a big drop in sales could knock $400 million off the money available to spend.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Premier's autism centre plan drawing hard questions
Gordon Campbell seemed to catch everyone by surprise with the announcement of a $20-million contribution to a privately planned autism centre with a vague mandate.
And not everyone involved with the issues is pleased, based on this e-mail to the province's auditor general.
TO: Office of the Auditor General of BC
FROM: Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach, Moms on the Move
RE: Request for review of Premier's/Minister's role in committing $20 million in public funds for a private proposal to build an autism centre
DATE: October 29, 2008
Dear Sirs,
We are both parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and coordinators of Moms on the Move, a volunteer provincial network that has provided information, advocacy and support to BC families of individuals with autism and other special needs for over eight years. We are the largest such network in BC, linking over 1,000 families and community members.
We are writing to request that you investigate the role of the Premier's office in allocating $20 million in provincial funding and/or other public resources/property to a private proponent seeking to build an "autism centre;" and further, to review whether the Minister responsible for autism policy in BC has failed to ensure that public resources intended to serve children with autism are being allocated in a manner consistent with provincial autism policy and good governance practices with regard to procurement, accountability and public interest.
Background
We were invited, along with other autism community groups leaders, to a meeting hosted by the project proponents, Wendy and Sergio Cocchia, at their downtown hotel on July 24. At that meeting, they informed us:
a.. They are parents of a child with autism but have no expertise or experience in delivering autism services or supports
b.. They are personally acquainted with the Premier and have been asking him for several years to provide public funding and/or property to help them build a provincial autism centre
c.. The Premier gave Sergio Cocchia a "heads-up" in advance that the February 2008 budget would include funding for their centre.
d.. The Premier invited Cocchia to meet him in February following the budget, committed $20 million in Provincial funds towards constructing a new building to house their centre and asked him to develop and submit a formal proposal by the fall.
e.. The Premier said the $20 million would have to be paid out by March 31, 2009, or it would be lost to "general revenues."
f.. In response to questions, the proponent said he was unaware of any needs assessment, formal RFP, advertisement or competitive process.
g.. The proponents established a foundation and intend to fundraise to construct a $34-million building, possibly at the SFU Campus on Burnaby Mountain.
h.. The purpose of the centre was not determined. Facilities could include space to deliver therapy, research and training; a sports centre, swimming pool and baseball diamond where children with autism could enjoy recreation "safely;" a coffee shop or perhaps a training spa/salon; videoconferencing, plus accommodations for out-of town families who might visit.
i.. Government would provide no new funds for any of the proposed activities; families would have to pay from existing resources or fundraise to cover all costs.
j.. Participants were invited to help decide what to do with this new centre, as a formal proposal had to be submitted this fall.
No government officials were present on July 24 to comment further or confirm this. There has still been no formal government announcement regarding this proposal, availability of new public funds and/or government's objectives, intentions or project parameters. The 2008 Throne Speech contains a single sentence referencing plans for a provincial residential centre for autism education and reseach. No details were provided in the provincial budget. The Service Plan of the Ministry for Children and Families, which has responsibility for out-of-school supports and treatment for children with autism, has no reference to this plan. Neither does the Ministry of Education, which has responsibility for K-12 special education, and which abandoned earlier plans from the 2007 Throne Speech to create a provincial model school for autism suggested by the same proponents following strong commnuity opposition. All we have are several comments quoted in response to media questions: 1) The MCFD Minister confirmed a "notional commitment" was made and 2) The Minister for Housing and Welfare said the funding would come from his budget.
$20 million is equivalent to half the annual MCF budget for autism, which funds early intervention therapy for some 5,000 children. The Province has no equivalent program to fund therapy for other developmental disabilities, like Down Syndrome. At the July 24 meeting, community leaders welcomed the prospect of new provincial funding, given the urgent need to enhance and expand treatment, but questioned the appropriateness of spending it all on a building, especially when other under-utilized community facilities (like public schools) could provide any needed space. The centralized delivery model is also inconsistent with provincial policy and families' preference to access services locally, and would offer little to the vast majority of families beyond the immediate vicinity. Participants also questioned the appropriateness of the Premier's personally handling this project outside normal channels and accountability systems.
Community feedback
Participants at the July 24 meeting proposed that our group, as the largest autism network in BC, be used to seek further community feedback. We created an informal Web survey and distributed the link to over 1,000 community members (parents, professionals and service providers), including the proponents. When preliminary feedback indicated overwhelming opposition, we immediately advised the Premier and proponents of concerns being expressed (all cited correspondence copied below).
We continued to run the survey over 7 weeks in August and September and a total of 531 responses were received. A summary of the full results is attached. Individual responses and detailed comments can be browsed directly at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=fh_2f2t89ODx_2fbEqPuV9zZUw5GgAIenujqDB_2boh1vPWoY_3d
Key findings:
a.. Parents overwhelmingly prefer local delivery of autism treatment - the worst gaps are in rural areas, not Greater Vancouver
b.. Addressing gaps in funded services and supports for all ages is far more important for families than a new building/ provincial centre, which ranked last in a list of priorities
c.. 95% agreed there were better ways to spend government funds to serve children with autism in BC
d.. A majority think funding for new services should be shared with other disabilities
e.. A majority also had process concerns: 80% think the Minister should handle such inititiaves through normal channels; 96% would prefer a competitive process for soliciting proposals.
Attempts to share concerns
We have tried several times to share the detailed survey results and comments and/or to further engage with the proponents. They have dismissed these concerns in media comments, declined or failed to respond to our approaches and have not shared further information or offered further engagement since the July 24 meeting.
Sources involved in this project insist that MCF Minister Tom Christensen was not party to the Premier's initial discussions or commitment, and was not even aware of the plans until this summer. They claim all decisions are still being made by the Premier, and that he remains 100% committed to funding a new provincial autism centre, despite the lack of any clear purpose, and whether or not that's what the community wants or needs. This week, we were told: "The train has left the station" - the project is going ahead, although the proponents still can't decide what the centre could offer that the community actually wants, and the Minister has no say in this.
However, since the Premier's response to our initial approach referred us to Minister Christensen, on Sept. 19, we asked the Minister to meet with us to discuss the survey feedback and the Province's plans. On Oct. 23, the Minister responded, declining to meet. He said he "understood" community discussions were underway and suggested we participate, although we had told him that we tried without success to meet with the proponents. Our provincial network has not been informed of any other public discussions underway.
Given events to date, we are not confident that further efforts to engage with the proponents or government will lead to meaningful consideration of community concerns reflected in our survey. The process to date also raises grave questions of competence in the leadership of this project to assure its success. Further, we believe it is the duty of the Ministry responsible, not a private group, to conduct any necessary discussions, set parameters and respond to concerns about the spending of public dollars.
Governance concerns
The Premier's commitment to spend $20 million in provincial funds on a privately-held building to house a provincial autism centre represents a significant investment of public funds and a significant departure from current policy and models of autism service delivery. This could instead fund services and supports for an additional 2,500 children with special needs who are being denied/waitlisted for vital early intervention services, pay for vital treatment that many families have to cover privately, or go towards urgently-needed research, training, assessment, special education or adult services. The need for the Province to invest in such a centre was further challenged by the recent announcement that a competing private group plans to open their own provincial autism centre in Burnaby in January 2009, without any public funding.
There has been no formal announcement regarding government's plans, objectives or intentions and no government effort to engage with the community to ensure that new funds for autism are spent effectively and in accordance with government policy. The Minister responsible and the proponents won't acknowledge or discuss concerns, the Minister responsible seems to be abdicating responsibility, it's unclear who's in charge, most families are still in the dark and we're being told that it doesn't matter what anybody thinks because the Premier wants this project to go ahead regardless. The latest third-party reports we have are that the former Sunny Hill hospital site is now also on offer, and that the purpose of the proposed centre still remains undetermined.
We ask that you specifically investigate/review the following questions:
1) Who is in charge? To what extent is the Premier managing this project directly, instead of allowing the Minister responsible for autism policy to manage his portfolio through normal channels, and to what extent has this muddied accountability, created concern and confusion and invited possible mis-spending of public dollars?
2) Has the Province failed to act transparently by not providing clear, timely and appropriate information to the public and affected communities regarding its intentions and objectives with an initiative that represents a significant policy shift and spending equal to half the current autism budget?
3) Does the Ministry responsible have an obligation to hold, supervise or at least participate in public consultations on major publicly-funded initiatives to ensure these are undertaken in good faith, in an open, accessible and objective manner, especially when there is evidence of significant community opposition?
4) Did the Premier act appropriately when he failed to undertake any needs assessment before committing public funds in response to a private request by an associate for support of a private initiative outside the current policy framework?
5) Was the Premier acting in accordance with provincial procurement policy and/or good governance practice when he committed $20 million without testing the offered proposal against existing provincial autism policy, without requiring credentials consistent with the proposed project, without any public discussion and without any open, competitive bidding process?
6) Minister Rich Coleman has stated in the media that this autism project will be funded from his budget for welfare and social housing - is this correct and if so, is it inappropriate? Is he therefore the Minister responsible if it's his budget?
7) Has the Province negotiated with the City of Vancouver or another party to provide lands at the former Sunny Hill hospital site to the proponents for their project and if so, on what terms?
The patterns described here are worryingly similar to those that surrounded the inception of Community Living BC, which is now widely seen as a disastrous undertaking that has consumed enormous public resources without improving the lives of those it was created to serve. MOMS repeatedly raised similar warnings during the CLBC restructuring process and urged government to reconsider, but with no success. I hope that we could avoid repeating this through proactive intervention from your office to ensure that the $20 million available is spent effectively in the public interest.
Please contact us if you have any questions (Tel 604 874-1416). We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach
Moms on the Move
And not everyone involved with the issues is pleased, based on this e-mail to the province's auditor general.
TO: Office of the Auditor General of BC
FROM: Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach, Moms on the Move
RE: Request for review of Premier's/Minister's role in committing $20 million in public funds for a private proposal to build an autism centre
DATE: October 29, 2008
Dear Sirs,
We are both parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and coordinators of Moms on the Move, a volunteer provincial network that has provided information, advocacy and support to BC families of individuals with autism and other special needs for over eight years. We are the largest such network in BC, linking over 1,000 families and community members.
We are writing to request that you investigate the role of the Premier's office in allocating $20 million in provincial funding and/or other public resources/property to a private proponent seeking to build an "autism centre;" and further, to review whether the Minister responsible for autism policy in BC has failed to ensure that public resources intended to serve children with autism are being allocated in a manner consistent with provincial autism policy and good governance practices with regard to procurement, accountability and public interest.
Background
We were invited, along with other autism community groups leaders, to a meeting hosted by the project proponents, Wendy and Sergio Cocchia, at their downtown hotel on July 24. At that meeting, they informed us:
a.. They are parents of a child with autism but have no expertise or experience in delivering autism services or supports
b.. They are personally acquainted with the Premier and have been asking him for several years to provide public funding and/or property to help them build a provincial autism centre
c.. The Premier gave Sergio Cocchia a "heads-up" in advance that the February 2008 budget would include funding for their centre.
d.. The Premier invited Cocchia to meet him in February following the budget, committed $20 million in Provincial funds towards constructing a new building to house their centre and asked him to develop and submit a formal proposal by the fall.
e.. The Premier said the $20 million would have to be paid out by March 31, 2009, or it would be lost to "general revenues."
f.. In response to questions, the proponent said he was unaware of any needs assessment, formal RFP, advertisement or competitive process.
g.. The proponents established a foundation and intend to fundraise to construct a $34-million building, possibly at the SFU Campus on Burnaby Mountain.
h.. The purpose of the centre was not determined. Facilities could include space to deliver therapy, research and training; a sports centre, swimming pool and baseball diamond where children with autism could enjoy recreation "safely;" a coffee shop or perhaps a training spa/salon; videoconferencing, plus accommodations for out-of town families who might visit.
i.. Government would provide no new funds for any of the proposed activities; families would have to pay from existing resources or fundraise to cover all costs.
j.. Participants were invited to help decide what to do with this new centre, as a formal proposal had to be submitted this fall.
No government officials were present on July 24 to comment further or confirm this. There has still been no formal government announcement regarding this proposal, availability of new public funds and/or government's objectives, intentions or project parameters. The 2008 Throne Speech contains a single sentence referencing plans for a provincial residential centre for autism education and reseach. No details were provided in the provincial budget. The Service Plan of the Ministry for Children and Families, which has responsibility for out-of-school supports and treatment for children with autism, has no reference to this plan. Neither does the Ministry of Education, which has responsibility for K-12 special education, and which abandoned earlier plans from the 2007 Throne Speech to create a provincial model school for autism suggested by the same proponents following strong commnuity opposition. All we have are several comments quoted in response to media questions: 1) The MCFD Minister confirmed a "notional commitment" was made and 2) The Minister for Housing and Welfare said the funding would come from his budget.
$20 million is equivalent to half the annual MCF budget for autism, which funds early intervention therapy for some 5,000 children. The Province has no equivalent program to fund therapy for other developmental disabilities, like Down Syndrome. At the July 24 meeting, community leaders welcomed the prospect of new provincial funding, given the urgent need to enhance and expand treatment, but questioned the appropriateness of spending it all on a building, especially when other under-utilized community facilities (like public schools) could provide any needed space. The centralized delivery model is also inconsistent with provincial policy and families' preference to access services locally, and would offer little to the vast majority of families beyond the immediate vicinity. Participants also questioned the appropriateness of the Premier's personally handling this project outside normal channels and accountability systems.
Community feedback
Participants at the July 24 meeting proposed that our group, as the largest autism network in BC, be used to seek further community feedback. We created an informal Web survey and distributed the link to over 1,000 community members (parents, professionals and service providers), including the proponents. When preliminary feedback indicated overwhelming opposition, we immediately advised the Premier and proponents of concerns being expressed (all cited correspondence copied below).
We continued to run the survey over 7 weeks in August and September and a total of 531 responses were received. A summary of the full results is attached. Individual responses and detailed comments can be browsed directly at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=fh_2f2t89ODx_2fbEqPuV9zZUw5GgAIenujqDB_2boh1vPWoY_3d
Key findings:
a.. Parents overwhelmingly prefer local delivery of autism treatment - the worst gaps are in rural areas, not Greater Vancouver
b.. Addressing gaps in funded services and supports for all ages is far more important for families than a new building/ provincial centre, which ranked last in a list of priorities
c.. 95% agreed there were better ways to spend government funds to serve children with autism in BC
d.. A majority think funding for new services should be shared with other disabilities
e.. A majority also had process concerns: 80% think the Minister should handle such inititiaves through normal channels; 96% would prefer a competitive process for soliciting proposals.
Attempts to share concerns
We have tried several times to share the detailed survey results and comments and/or to further engage with the proponents. They have dismissed these concerns in media comments, declined or failed to respond to our approaches and have not shared further information or offered further engagement since the July 24 meeting.
Sources involved in this project insist that MCF Minister Tom Christensen was not party to the Premier's initial discussions or commitment, and was not even aware of the plans until this summer. They claim all decisions are still being made by the Premier, and that he remains 100% committed to funding a new provincial autism centre, despite the lack of any clear purpose, and whether or not that's what the community wants or needs. This week, we were told: "The train has left the station" - the project is going ahead, although the proponents still can't decide what the centre could offer that the community actually wants, and the Minister has no say in this.
However, since the Premier's response to our initial approach referred us to Minister Christensen, on Sept. 19, we asked the Minister to meet with us to discuss the survey feedback and the Province's plans. On Oct. 23, the Minister responded, declining to meet. He said he "understood" community discussions were underway and suggested we participate, although we had told him that we tried without success to meet with the proponents. Our provincial network has not been informed of any other public discussions underway.
Given events to date, we are not confident that further efforts to engage with the proponents or government will lead to meaningful consideration of community concerns reflected in our survey. The process to date also raises grave questions of competence in the leadership of this project to assure its success. Further, we believe it is the duty of the Ministry responsible, not a private group, to conduct any necessary discussions, set parameters and respond to concerns about the spending of public dollars.
Governance concerns
The Premier's commitment to spend $20 million in provincial funds on a privately-held building to house a provincial autism centre represents a significant investment of public funds and a significant departure from current policy and models of autism service delivery. This could instead fund services and supports for an additional 2,500 children with special needs who are being denied/waitlisted for vital early intervention services, pay for vital treatment that many families have to cover privately, or go towards urgently-needed research, training, assessment, special education or adult services. The need for the Province to invest in such a centre was further challenged by the recent announcement that a competing private group plans to open their own provincial autism centre in Burnaby in January 2009, without any public funding.
There has been no formal announcement regarding government's plans, objectives or intentions and no government effort to engage with the community to ensure that new funds for autism are spent effectively and in accordance with government policy. The Minister responsible and the proponents won't acknowledge or discuss concerns, the Minister responsible seems to be abdicating responsibility, it's unclear who's in charge, most families are still in the dark and we're being told that it doesn't matter what anybody thinks because the Premier wants this project to go ahead regardless. The latest third-party reports we have are that the former Sunny Hill hospital site is now also on offer, and that the purpose of the proposed centre still remains undetermined.
We ask that you specifically investigate/review the following questions:
1) Who is in charge? To what extent is the Premier managing this project directly, instead of allowing the Minister responsible for autism policy to manage his portfolio through normal channels, and to what extent has this muddied accountability, created concern and confusion and invited possible mis-spending of public dollars?
2) Has the Province failed to act transparently by not providing clear, timely and appropriate information to the public and affected communities regarding its intentions and objectives with an initiative that represents a significant policy shift and spending equal to half the current autism budget?
3) Does the Ministry responsible have an obligation to hold, supervise or at least participate in public consultations on major publicly-funded initiatives to ensure these are undertaken in good faith, in an open, accessible and objective manner, especially when there is evidence of significant community opposition?
4) Did the Premier act appropriately when he failed to undertake any needs assessment before committing public funds in response to a private request by an associate for support of a private initiative outside the current policy framework?
5) Was the Premier acting in accordance with provincial procurement policy and/or good governance practice when he committed $20 million without testing the offered proposal against existing provincial autism policy, without requiring credentials consistent with the proposed project, without any public discussion and without any open, competitive bidding process?
6) Minister Rich Coleman has stated in the media that this autism project will be funded from his budget for welfare and social housing - is this correct and if so, is it inappropriate? Is he therefore the Minister responsible if it's his budget?
7) Has the Province negotiated with the City of Vancouver or another party to provide lands at the former Sunny Hill hospital site to the proponents for their project and if so, on what terms?
The patterns described here are worryingly similar to those that surrounded the inception of Community Living BC, which is now widely seen as a disastrous undertaking that has consumed enormous public resources without improving the lives of those it was created to serve. MOMS repeatedly raised similar warnings during the CLBC restructuring process and urged government to reconsider, but with no success. I hope that we could avoid repeating this through proactive intervention from your office to ensure that the $20 million available is spent effectively in the public interest.
Please contact us if you have any questions (Tel 604 874-1416). We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach
Moms on the Move
Election tactics in Saanich-Gulf Islands should get close look
Some odd — even worrying — things happened in the Saanich-Gulf Island’s riding successfully held by Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn.
One election dirty trick involved phone fraud and seemed both unethical and illegal. The RCMP response, which suggested election fraud allegations just aren’t a priority, was disturbing.
And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.
If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.
First, some background. Lunn, natural resources minister in the last government, faced a tough fight for re-election. He won with 37 per cent of the vote in 2006, in part thanks to a three-way opposition vote split.
The Liberals nominated Briony Penn, a high-profile, respected environmentalist. She hoped to appeal to Green voters. Mid-campaign, NDP candidate Julian West withdrew from the race after a creepy past incident of public nudity resurfaced. (That’s fuelled some conspiracy talk on the political blogs, with no apparent foundation.)
West withdrew too late to have his name taken off the ballot, but Penn’s prospects were still helped by the departure. The NDP riding association wrote to all party members saying West was not a candidate and the party wasn’t endorsing anyone.
But in the days before the election, residents were flooded with taped phone messages urging them to vote for West. People who had caller ID saw the call was coming from the phone of NDP riding association president Bill Graham.
Except that was not true. Whoever made the calls used “spoofing” software to make it appear as if the calls were coming from Graham’s number.
The scam didn’t likely affect the outcome. Lunn had 2,625 more votes than Penn. West received 3,667 votes, but they certainly can’t all be attributed to the calls. Some people always vote NDP; others might have chosen to cast their ballots to ensure the party gets the $1.95 per vote in annual public financing.
But the scam certainly could have changed the outcome under slightly different circumstances.
Elections Canada refuses to confirm or deny investigations. Telus says it can’t do anything. The RCMP maintains no laws were broken.
But lawyers disagree. It’s a Criminal Code offence to knowingly provide false information over the phone or to fraudulently impersonate another.
That’s not the only odd development in the riding.
Third-party advertisers are allowed to participate in Canadian election campaigns, subject to spending limits. The aim is to allow interested groups or individuals to join the debate, while setting limits to make sure the rich can’t buy elections. People who favour or oppose a carbon tax, for example, can make sure the issue is front and centre or support sympathetic candidates.
Andrew MacLeod, of the consistently interesting Thetyee.ca, took a close look at third-party spending in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
In the 308 ridings across Canada, 59 third-party groups registered with Elections Canada. Five registered in Saanich-Gulf Islands using the same address — a law firm that includes Bruce Hallsor, a Lunn supporter.
Hallsor says the groups recognized his expertise in electoral law. But he is vice-president of the Conservative riding association and co-chaired the Conservative B.C. campaign in 2006. (Hallsor is also a strong proponent of electoral reform and a champion of Scouting — literally, a Boy Scout in the often scrappy world of politics.)
Four of the five, MacLeod found, also had the same financial agent: The Citizens Against Higher Taxes, the Dean Park Advocacy Association, the Economic Advisory Council of Saanich and the Saanich Peninsula Citizens Council.
Each third-party participant is limited to spending $3,666 in any riding. Candidates, this time, were limited to $92,000. And it’s illegal for third-party participants to split into multiple subsets to avoid spending limits.
The spending filings for Saanich-Gulf Islands will be watched closely. If Lunn spent to the limit, and several third-party groups with a common address spent heavily to support him, expect some tough questions.
Footnote: The Lunn campaign had its own complaints. He was a high-profile target as a potentially vulnerable B.C. Conservative. The Dogwood Initiative registered as a third party participant and worked hard - but unsuccessfully - to defeat Lunn based on his support for increasing tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters. The campaign said the group misrepresented his position.
One election dirty trick involved phone fraud and seemed both unethical and illegal. The RCMP response, which suggested election fraud allegations just aren’t a priority, was disturbing.
And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.
If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.
First, some background. Lunn, natural resources minister in the last government, faced a tough fight for re-election. He won with 37 per cent of the vote in 2006, in part thanks to a three-way opposition vote split.
The Liberals nominated Briony Penn, a high-profile, respected environmentalist. She hoped to appeal to Green voters. Mid-campaign, NDP candidate Julian West withdrew from the race after a creepy past incident of public nudity resurfaced. (That’s fuelled some conspiracy talk on the political blogs, with no apparent foundation.)
West withdrew too late to have his name taken off the ballot, but Penn’s prospects were still helped by the departure. The NDP riding association wrote to all party members saying West was not a candidate and the party wasn’t endorsing anyone.
But in the days before the election, residents were flooded with taped phone messages urging them to vote for West. People who had caller ID saw the call was coming from the phone of NDP riding association president Bill Graham.
Except that was not true. Whoever made the calls used “spoofing” software to make it appear as if the calls were coming from Graham’s number.
The scam didn’t likely affect the outcome. Lunn had 2,625 more votes than Penn. West received 3,667 votes, but they certainly can’t all be attributed to the calls. Some people always vote NDP; others might have chosen to cast their ballots to ensure the party gets the $1.95 per vote in annual public financing.
But the scam certainly could have changed the outcome under slightly different circumstances.
Elections Canada refuses to confirm or deny investigations. Telus says it can’t do anything. The RCMP maintains no laws were broken.
But lawyers disagree. It’s a Criminal Code offence to knowingly provide false information over the phone or to fraudulently impersonate another.
That’s not the only odd development in the riding.
Third-party advertisers are allowed to participate in Canadian election campaigns, subject to spending limits. The aim is to allow interested groups or individuals to join the debate, while setting limits to make sure the rich can’t buy elections. People who favour or oppose a carbon tax, for example, can make sure the issue is front and centre or support sympathetic candidates.
Andrew MacLeod, of the consistently interesting Thetyee.ca, took a close look at third-party spending in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
In the 308 ridings across Canada, 59 third-party groups registered with Elections Canada. Five registered in Saanich-Gulf Islands using the same address — a law firm that includes Bruce Hallsor, a Lunn supporter.
Hallsor says the groups recognized his expertise in electoral law. But he is vice-president of the Conservative riding association and co-chaired the Conservative B.C. campaign in 2006. (Hallsor is also a strong proponent of electoral reform and a champion of Scouting — literally, a Boy Scout in the often scrappy world of politics.)
Four of the five, MacLeod found, also had the same financial agent: The Citizens Against Higher Taxes, the Dean Park Advocacy Association, the Economic Advisory Council of Saanich and the Saanich Peninsula Citizens Council.
Each third-party participant is limited to spending $3,666 in any riding. Candidates, this time, were limited to $92,000. And it’s illegal for third-party participants to split into multiple subsets to avoid spending limits.
The spending filings for Saanich-Gulf Islands will be watched closely. If Lunn spent to the limit, and several third-party groups with a common address spent heavily to support him, expect some tough questions.
Footnote: The Lunn campaign had its own complaints. He was a high-profile target as a potentially vulnerable B.C. Conservative. The Dogwood Initiative registered as a third party participant and worked hard - but unsuccessfully - to defeat Lunn based on his support for increasing tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters. The campaign said the group misrepresented his position.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
So does Campbell's pension plan make sense?
Yes, says the Times Colonist in an interesting editorial
Sunday, October 26, 2008
James gets TV time too
A few eyebrows were raised when Gordon Campbell used the provincial legislative TV channel to broadcast his speech on the economy. The channel had been used to bring the proceedings in the legislature to cable subscribers around the province. It hadn't been seen as a communications vehicle for the governing party.
And, it looks it isn't. Carole James has successfully argued she deserves the chance to talk about the economy on the legislative channel. (A good decision by Speaker Bill Barisoff, once he allowed the premier's TV speech.)
Stay tuned.
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
October 26, 2008
CAROLE JAMES TO DELIVER TELEVISED STATEMENT ON ECONOMY
VICTORIA -- NDP Leader Carole James will deliver a televised statement on the economy on Monday, October 27 at 6:15 PM.
The statement will air on Hansard television.
- 30 -
And, it looks it isn't. Carole James has successfully argued she deserves the chance to talk about the economy on the legislative channel. (A good decision by Speaker Bill Barisoff, once he allowed the premier's TV speech.)
Stay tuned.
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
October 26, 2008
CAROLE JAMES TO DELIVER TELEVISED STATEMENT ON ECONOMY
VICTORIA -- NDP Leader Carole James will deliver a televised statement on the economy on Monday, October 27 at 6:15 PM.
The statement will air on Hansard television.
- 30 -
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Less than meets the eye to Campbell's big talk
Gordon Campbell offered up some spooky pre-Halloween rhetoric about the global economic crisis night, but outlined a pretty modest response.
Businesses will get about $190 million a year in tax breaks and benefits.
Individuals will get a one-time break. The three-per-cent tax cut scheduled for Jan.1 and with the two-per-cent cut introduced July 1 will both be made retroactive to the beginning of this year. That will cost the government about $144 million in revenue this year; nothing after that. For a taxpayer making $50,000, it's worth about an extra $140 this year.
The government will advance some infrastructure projects to keep people working, but Campbell couldn't say which ones. It will increase the payment to B.C. Ferries to restore sailings cut by the corporation and provide a one-third fare cut for December and January.
And it is working on some sort of voluntary, user-pay pension plan for people who don't have access to.
It's a reasonable, modest response to the economic woes. Consumers will have a little more money this year and businesses will get little breaks to help them through tough times.
The cuts are small enough that the province won't have any trouble maintaining current services and a big surplus this year and next. The government is on track for a surplus of about $2 billion this year. The measures Campbell announced will only knock about $350 million off that total.
The lack of focus on regions facing the toughest, especially forest communities, was notable. There is about $50 million in property tax relief for industry, which will be helpful. And the infrastructure projects could include resource roads. But most measures are broad brush.
The other notable aspect is the premier's decision to ditch the practice of presenting budget measures - which this was - in the legislature.
Campbell unveiled the plan in a speech broadcast on the legislature TV channel at 6:15 p.m. He had hoped TV newscasts would broadcast it live, but they said no thanks.
The whole deal was set up for political effect. Reporters were in a mini-lockup starting at 5:15 and forbidden from filing until after Campbell finished speaking. The aim, in part, was to make it tough for any opposition or expert reaction to make it into the evening newscasts or even into the papers. Reporters were on tight deadlines.
Campbell said the legislature would be recalled on Nov. 20 "to enact these measures."
But the fall session, which had been cancelled by the Liberals, was only to last until Nov. 27. If the Liberals stick to that timeline, MLAs had better bring their rubber stamps with them.
A longer session would allow MLAs from all parties to debate the measures and propose changes or different approaches. (And would allow the government to pass some critical bills it abandoned in the spring citing lack of time.)
Politically, it's tough to judge the impact of the announcements.
The tax cuts will be welcomed by businesses and many individuals. But people waiting for surgery, hoping for improvements to their children's education or with other priorities will wonder why those are taking second place to tax cuts.
Part of Campbell's goal, with six months until the official start of the election campaign, was to demonstrate that he and the Liberals are the people to manage the economy in troubled times.
Public reaction in the next six or seven weeks will be interesting. The measures are useful, but basically more of the same. The tax cuts were almost all planned and have just been implemented earlier than scheduled. The government says it plans no spending changes.
Carole James faces three challenges between now and the session. She has to convince voters that the NDP has the same competence. She has to demonstrate more empathy or understanding than Campbell. And she has to make a credible case for the potential for more creative, active efforts to encourage needed economic activity.
Footnote: Campbell also promised better deposit protection for people with credit union accounts. The pension plan for the 75 per cent of workers not covered by company or union plans appears to be very much work in progress, with no details. Campbell did say he hoped the user-pay plan could be in place by the end of next year.\
Businesses will get about $190 million a year in tax breaks and benefits.
Individuals will get a one-time break. The three-per-cent tax cut scheduled for Jan.1 and with the two-per-cent cut introduced July 1 will both be made retroactive to the beginning of this year. That will cost the government about $144 million in revenue this year; nothing after that. For a taxpayer making $50,000, it's worth about an extra $140 this year.
The government will advance some infrastructure projects to keep people working, but Campbell couldn't say which ones. It will increase the payment to B.C. Ferries to restore sailings cut by the corporation and provide a one-third fare cut for December and January.
And it is working on some sort of voluntary, user-pay pension plan for people who don't have access to.
It's a reasonable, modest response to the economic woes. Consumers will have a little more money this year and businesses will get little breaks to help them through tough times.
The cuts are small enough that the province won't have any trouble maintaining current services and a big surplus this year and next. The government is on track for a surplus of about $2 billion this year. The measures Campbell announced will only knock about $350 million off that total.
The lack of focus on regions facing the toughest, especially forest communities, was notable. There is about $50 million in property tax relief for industry, which will be helpful. And the infrastructure projects could include resource roads. But most measures are broad brush.
The other notable aspect is the premier's decision to ditch the practice of presenting budget measures - which this was - in the legislature.
Campbell unveiled the plan in a speech broadcast on the legislature TV channel at 6:15 p.m. He had hoped TV newscasts would broadcast it live, but they said no thanks.
The whole deal was set up for political effect. Reporters were in a mini-lockup starting at 5:15 and forbidden from filing until after Campbell finished speaking. The aim, in part, was to make it tough for any opposition or expert reaction to make it into the evening newscasts or even into the papers. Reporters were on tight deadlines.
Campbell said the legislature would be recalled on Nov. 20 "to enact these measures."
But the fall session, which had been cancelled by the Liberals, was only to last until Nov. 27. If the Liberals stick to that timeline, MLAs had better bring their rubber stamps with them.
A longer session would allow MLAs from all parties to debate the measures and propose changes or different approaches. (And would allow the government to pass some critical bills it abandoned in the spring citing lack of time.)
Politically, it's tough to judge the impact of the announcements.
The tax cuts will be welcomed by businesses and many individuals. But people waiting for surgery, hoping for improvements to their children's education or with other priorities will wonder why those are taking second place to tax cuts.
Part of Campbell's goal, with six months until the official start of the election campaign, was to demonstrate that he and the Liberals are the people to manage the economy in troubled times.
Public reaction in the next six or seven weeks will be interesting. The measures are useful, but basically more of the same. The tax cuts were almost all planned and have just been implemented earlier than scheduled. The government says it plans no spending changes.
Carole James faces three challenges between now and the session. She has to convince voters that the NDP has the same competence. She has to demonstrate more empathy or understanding than Campbell. And she has to make a credible case for the potential for more creative, active efforts to encourage needed economic activity.
Footnote: Campbell also promised better deposit protection for people with credit union accounts. The pension plan for the 75 per cent of workers not covered by company or union plans appears to be very much work in progress, with no details. Campbell did say he hoped the user-pay plan could be in place by the end of next year.\
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bringing back the legislature
Just before 5 p.m. today, the release below went out to reporters.
Premier Gordon Campbell has decided the economic outlook is bad enough that he needs to address British Columbians. He hopes the TV newscasts will carry him live in prime evening news time.
But if things are really so bad, shouldn't the legislature start its fall sitting, scheduled to run until the end of November? All MLAs - Liberal and New Democrat would have a chance to offer ideas and raise questions. There are a half a dozen bills that should be passed, including an emergency fix of the Lobbyist Act. The forest crisis, construction slowdowns, homelessness - the issues go on.
A TV show, with a script and no questions, is politically useful; the legislature is democratic.
It's also interesting that Colin Hansen is doing the heavy lifting. He has an excellent rep inside and outside government for competence and integrity.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oct. 21, 2008
Office of the Premier
ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell will make an address regarding British Columbia's economy in the face of global economic challenges.
Premier Campbell's address will be broadcast live on B.C.'s Legislative Hansard Television. To find out what channel carries Hansard in your community, go to http://www.leg.bc.ca/Hansard/8-10-1.htm.
It will also be web cast live from: www.gov.bc.ca.
Date: Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008
Time: 6:15-6:30 p.m. Address by Premier Campbell
(A technical briefing with Finance Minister Colin Hansen will be held at 6 p.m. for media only.)
Location:
Press Theatre
Parliament Buildings
Victoria
-30-
Premier Gordon Campbell has decided the economic outlook is bad enough that he needs to address British Columbians. He hopes the TV newscasts will carry him live in prime evening news time.
But if things are really so bad, shouldn't the legislature start its fall sitting, scheduled to run until the end of November? All MLAs - Liberal and New Democrat would have a chance to offer ideas and raise questions. There are a half a dozen bills that should be passed, including an emergency fix of the Lobbyist Act. The forest crisis, construction slowdowns, homelessness - the issues go on.
A TV show, with a script and no questions, is politically useful; the legislature is democratic.
It's also interesting that Colin Hansen is doing the heavy lifting. He has an excellent rep inside and outside government for competence and integrity.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Oct. 21, 2008
Office of the Premier
ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT EDITORS
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell will make an address regarding British Columbia's economy in the face of global economic challenges.
Premier Campbell's address will be broadcast live on B.C.'s Legislative Hansard Television. To find out what channel carries Hansard in your community, go to http://www.leg.bc.ca/Hansard/8-10-1.htm.
It will also be web cast live from: www.gov.bc.ca.
Date: Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008
Time: 6:15-6:30 p.m. Address by Premier Campbell
(A technical briefing with Finance Minister Colin Hansen will be held at 6 p.m. for media only.)
Location:
Press Theatre
Parliament Buildings
Victoria
-30-
Court brings action on homelessness
Coming soon to a park near you - homeless people in tents, under tarps and sheltered by cardboard boxes.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
That's the spectre that has people here in the capital in an uproar.
And the court ruling that cleared the way for park camping applies to all the communities across the province, large and small, where homelessness has become a big problem.
Housing Minister Rich Coleman called the decision "ridiculous." Some commentators frothed at the mouth.
But take the time to read the judgment - there's a link at Willcocks.blogspot.com - and it's hard to disagree with B.C. Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross.
She was hearing a case that's dragged on for three years now, due to delays by the city and the province. It challenged campers' 2005 eviction from a Victoria park.
At issue was a city bylaw that barred people from using a tarp, or tent or cardboard as a shelter if they had to sleep outside.
Ross found, based on the evidence in court, that there were some 1,400 homeless people in Victoria - including children. There are 140 permanent shelter spaces, though more are opened when temperatures plummet.
So, inevitably, people are forced to sleep outside. Some might chose to, but many don't.
Sleeping outside without any shelter creates suffering, illness and the risk of death, experts testified.
The charter of rights and freedoms prohibits laws that threaten Canadians' lives or impose suffering, without cause.
So the bylaw is unconstitutional. People, most of whom have nowhere else to sleep, have a right put up a tarp to keep the sleet off them and offer a little warmth.
It's important to note Ross didn't rule people could camp permanently in parks or displace other users. But they had a right to shelter.
I can't see any weak points in the ruling. Sure, some people are homeless by true choice. You can argue they shouldn't have the right to camp in a park when most people don't.
But it's wretched to be homeless. Sleeping outside is cold and scary; shelters are chaotic. You are almost always cold, dirty, sick, hungry and exhausted.
People rarely choose that life. They got knocked down and can't get back up again. They're addicted, or suffer with mental illnesses, or angry. They don't want to be sleeping in an alley, woken up at 7 a.m. by police, too exhausted and filthy to have any hope of sorting things out.
In the capital region, the court heard, 40 per cent of the homeless population were mentally ill; half were addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Since many were both ill and addicted, about 800 people were on the streets dealing with those kinds of problems. It makes them incredibly difficult to house.
It's not a question of them not wanting to just buck up and miraculously find a job and an apartment. They really can't do that.
And we haven't found a way to keep them sheltered, safe and out of our way. The institutions that were home to many were closed in past decades, without adequate community supports.
Coleman's basic point was that the court didn't recognize what the government was doing. He trotted out numbers about how much spending had increased since the Liberals took office.
But, as Gordon Campbell said in opposition, you don't measure government effectiveness by how much was spent. You look at results.
In Victoria and most cities around the province, homelessness and the related problems of crime and urban decay have grown worse over the last seven years.
Two days after the ruling, Coleman announced mats would be placed on floors to provide shelter for 45 more people; another 40 spaces of some kind are expected this week.
Until the court ruling, the government was content to have this people sleep outside - and to have them barred from putting up basic shelter.
Footnote: The problems' roots go back well before the Liberals were elected. But the Campbell government has failed to come to grips with the mounting homelessness and addiction issues in communities across the province until things had reached a crisis point not in communities, making the challenge much greater now.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
More on the homeless camping judgment
A very good column from the Times Colonist on the homeless camping judgment. The comparison to refugees seems painfully apt.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Democratic dry rot
So when do we panic about the state of democracy in Canada?
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Voter turnout was the lowest in 141 years, continuing a slow decline in participation.
Fewer than six in 10 registered voters - 59.1 per cent, to be exact - cast votes.
It takes about the same amount of time to vote as it does to buy a litre of milk on the way home from work, but 40 per cent of Canadian voters decided voting was less important than having something to put on their bowls of cereal in the morning.
Actually, way more than 40 per cent. When Elections Canada assesses turnout, it only counts registered voters. If you include those who are eligible to vote, but haven't registered, only about half of potential voters bother to participate.
That should alarm us all.
It should humiliate the political parties and their leaders. Fifty per cent of Canadians don't think it matters who is in power, or don't believe their votes make a difference. They think it's a scam.
That's stunning. Stop 100 people on the street and ask them which party they would like to see form the government, and 50 don't really care.
They've probably got preferences if you ask them about brands of toothpaste or fast food chains. But not about the political parties that want to become the government.
When does it become a real crisis? When four out of 10 people vote? Two out of 10?
I'd say we should panic now.
You can have great theoretical discussions about voting. Maybe the less committed should stay home and leave the decision to the passionate voters who, presumably, have put effort into developing their preferences.
But there's no guarantee they aren't guided by stupid partisanship, narrow self-interest or prejudice.
And surely we should not be content to be a nation of sheep-people who believe either it that it doesn't matter who governs us, or that we aren't competent to choose those who will?
The Chinese government is not a big fan of democracy. Its official news agency sent out a story headlined, "Worst turnout registered in Canada election." The report cited - accurately - the dismal and declining participation rate.
So if we care about democracy, what should we do?
The most obvious - and difficult - step would bring in some sort of proportional representation, so everyone's vote matters.
Look at the results from this election. Stephen Harper claims a strong mandate. But just 38 per cent of those who voted wanted him to govern. Just 22 per cent of registered voters.
That's something out of a developing country pseudo-democracy. Massive power bestowed on the basis of the preference of one-fifth of the potential voters.
The Bloc Quebecois had the support of 10 per cent of the voters and won 50 seats. The New Democrats captured 18 per cent of the votes. They ended up with 37 seats. How does that reflect the public's will?
The Greens were supported by almost one million people - seven per cent of the people who voted. But no one will speak for those voters in Parliament.
If you proposed this approach to a country just developing its electoral system, the people would reject it overwhelmingly. Why give absolute power to a leader supported by a small minority, and deprive millions of anyone to speak for them in Parliament?
The odds are against reforming the federal system. Talk about opening the constitution and the special interest and regional groups get nervous about losing clout.
But we have a chance in B.C. Next May, there will be another referendum on switching to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.
It's not perfect, but it's miles better than what we have now.
Footnote: The next test of our democracy comes Nov. 15, with municipal and school board elections. Here in Victoria, voter turnout was about 25 per cent in the last election. It's lower in some communities. That's pathetic. After all the struggles to reach some sort of democratic system, over centuries, we have come to consider it a trifle of no value.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
More on the homeless court decision
The Sun's usually insightful Ian Mulgrew has a cranky column on the B.C. Supreme Court decision that found homeless people have a right to cover themselves with a tarp or a cardboard box if they have to sleep outside.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
The Times Colonist has a more reasoned and rational editorial analysis here .
See the post below for more details and links to the judgment so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions is well-founded. I certainly think so.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Homeless have a right to set up shelter in parks, court rules
Homeless people who sleep outdoors won a big victory in B.C. Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that a Victoria bylaw that made illegal to use a tent or tarp or cardboard for a shelter was unconstitutional.
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
A lack of services, shelters and housing meant people had to sleep outside, the court found, and saying they couldn't create temporary shelters to avoid freezing ad getting soaked in winter rains violated their Charter right to security and safety. (The basic info is here . The judgment, worth reading, is here.)
Tents and carboard boxes are no real solution for the 1,200 homeless in the capital. But, you would think, the prospect of encampments in parks every night might bring real action. That's what the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and city's mayor called for.
But the province responded with a press release setting out how much how much it spends in housing. It's the kind of thing Gordon Campbell railed against in opposition. The point, he said then, was not how many programs were launched or how money promised - it was whether the problems worsening, or improving.
In the capital, they have been steadily getting worse for 15 years and reached a crisis point. (Note the 15 years; this is not a problem to be laid solely on the Liberals. The NDP started us on the road to this mess.)
Here's the release, as well.
FOR THE RECORD
Oct. 15, 2008
Ministry of Housing and Social Development
PROVINCE DELIVERS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN VICTORIA
VICTORIA - More than 20 communities across British Columbia, including Victoria, have joined with the provincial government to recognize Homelessness Action Week.
* Providing supportive housing to low-income British Columbians is a priority for the provincial government.
* Housing Matters BC, the provincial housing strategy, is backed by an annual budget of more than $400 million this year - the highest in the history of British Columbia - more than triple what it was in 2001.
* The Province and the City of Victoria are working together to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in January 2008 to create 170 new and upgraded housing units to reduce homelessness.
* In Victoria, there are approximately 4,600 subsidized housing units with a total annual subsidy of over $18.3 million. Nearly 190 units of housing with support services have been created in Victoria to help break the cycle of homelessness, including 45 units of supportive housing for Our Place Society, and a six-bed addiction recovery facility known as Beacon of Hope.
* In addition, the Province provides $500,000 in funding for the Our Place drop-in centre and $138,000 for the Pacifica drop-in centre.
* The Homeless Outreach Program provides assistance to more than 225 people in the Victoria area, and many more individuals are now receiving assistance from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre through the Aboriginal Homeless Outreach Program.
* The Province invests an additional $25 million per year in the Emergency Shelter Program to allow shelters to be open 24/7, a four-fold budget increase since 2001.
* In Victoria, the Province funds over 140 year-round emergency shelter beds and 30 seasonal winter beds for approximately $4.5 million a year.
* The Mayor's Task Force on Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness report in October 2007 outlined an aggressive target for new units over the next five years.
* Since October 2007, the Province has provided 130 rental supplements to give people the flexibility they need to find a rental unit.
* To protect existing affordable housing, the Province has purchased 30 buildings across B.C. - 1,400 units for $96 million since 2007. Another $90 million will be spent renovating those units so people have safe and secure places to live and create new opportunities for themselves. Five of these buildings are located in Victoria - the Pandora Hotel, Queens Court, Magdelaine Court, Gorge Waterway Apartments and a 13-bed rooming-house.
* Through the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Province has also committed $7.6 million to better integrate existing health services to housing and other social agencies in Victoria.
-30-
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Dion and Harper both in trouble after election
Sure, it was a bad night for Stephane Dion.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
And collapsing financial markets and a bad showing in Quebec hurt Stephen Harper's hopes for a majority government.
But Harper and his party face some tough questions as they assess the election results today.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Canadians who share his brand of conservatism to deliver a majority.
Not to be contrarian, but Harper's future as leader - despite winning 19 more seats than in the 2006 election - should still be in doubt.
He has failed three times to deliver the kind of majority victory Conservatives supporters want. And the setbacks have come despite conditions in the last two campaigns that offered the Harper great opportunities.
In 2006, the Liberals were discredited and tainted with corruption.
In this campaign, the Liberals were divided, disorganized and had a leader in Dion who struggled to communicate. The Conservatives were organized, rich and focused. Conditions were highly favourable for a majority victory.
What went wrong?
There were stumbles by both main parties. Even before the market meltdown, the Conservatives were struggling to find a way to a majority. But the financial crisis highlighted a core belief of Harper's brand of conservatism - that government has a very limited role to play in any aspect of society, economic, cultural or social.
When Harper suggested that people should consider plummeting stock prices - and RRSPs and home values - as a chance to pick up some bargains, he wasn't just being insensitive. He believes that markets and people should be left to sort out their own problems and create their own opportunities. Government's role should be sharply limited. Not non-existent, but as small as possible.
It's a legitimate position. In the U.S., neoconservative policies that stress market freedom and individual responsibility, opportunity and accountability have found fairly wide support.
But the U.S. is different than Canada. Its founders started with a deep suspicion of government; their goal was to escape the control of a remote and interfering British regime; their constitution an exercise in limiting government power. In Canada, the same anti-government sentiment wasn't at the centre of nation-building.
In the campaign's early days, Harper said that he believed Canada had undergone "a tremendous change" in the last two decades and become more politically conservative. They wanted lower taxes, free trade and balanced budgets, he said.
The party's campaign reflected that, from the initial hands-off approach to the financial crisis to arts cuts to tougher penalties for youth criminals.
But the results yesterday suggest Harper got it wrong, at least in terms of a majority.
Canadians don't want waste or irresponsibility, but they do think government has a role in helping make peoples' lives better.
The numbers are still being tallied, but the Conservatives managed to only nudge their support from 2006 - 36.3 per cent - slightly higher. That's enough, given vote-splitting on the centre and left, to allow a minority government.
But not a majority, which is the real goal for Conservative party members.
The campaign started with much speculation that Dion would be dumped. He will be.
But expect questions about Harper's future as well. After three unsuccessful campaigns, he has still not won Canadians' support, even with dismal Liberal competition.
Given the perception that this is very much Harper's party, it's hard to see where the Conservatives can go with him as leader.
Or exactly where Harper can go as prime minister. In the campaign, he talked about treating a second minority government as a stronger mandate for the party's policies.
Harper should have more room to govern given the Liberals' weakness, but faces a financial crisis and slowing economy.
Harper's achievement in bringing together the Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition will be remembered.
But this might have been his last chance to win a majority government.
Footnote: The election results should worry Gordon Campbell. The Conservatives did much better in B.C. than in the rest of the country. Nationally, their share of the popular vote barely changed; in B.C. it jumped from 36 per cent to about 48 per cent. The attacks on Dion's carbon tax - and on Campbell's nearly identical tax - likely were a significant factor, building on existing public opposition to the B.C. tax.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Insider lobbying scandal and arrogance
The B.C Liberals reputation for arrogance isn't being helped by the latest lobbying scandal.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
And the people supposedly on Gordon Campbell's side are doing the biggest damage.
The new lobbying scandal was dug up by the intrepid Sean Holman of the 24 Hours free newspaper and his own website, publiceyeonline.com.
The allegation - unproven, but based on evidence that raises reasonable concerns - is that Patrick Kinsella and his company violated the provincial Lobbyist's Act by pushing their clients' interests without registering as lobbyists.
Kinsella is not just another person selling advice on how to get government to do what you want. He's been a powerful political player for decades.
Kinsella guided Gordon Campbell's entry into provincial politics and co-managed the 2001 and 2005 Liberal election campaigns. Mark Jiles, also with the Progressive Group, Kinsella's company, managed Campbell's 2005 campaign in his riding. These are ultimate insiders.
And Holman uncovered information that suggested they had been lobbying the government without registering, as required by laws the Liberals introduced to shed light on the murky world of lobbying.
The Liberals introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act within months of the 2001 election. The government said people had right to know who was trying to influence government policy, their clients and the purpose. That would reduce the risk that party insiders would offer special access to people with money and a desire to steer government policy.
It was a good first step. The NDP had taken no action to bring order to lobbying.
But it hasn't worked. The loopholes were enormous; among the most critical was the lack of any real enforcement effort to ensure people played by the rules.
Theoretically, the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner was supposed to enforce the regulations. But the law was badly drafted and the office no real legal power.
That wasn't a problem in the first scandal, when Campbell associate Ken Dobell admitted violating the act. Dobell, while being paid as an advisor to Campbell, was also being paid to get money for a Vancouver city project. He never declared his lobbyist role.
But Dobell did co-operate with the privacy commissioner when the case went public.
Not Kinsella. His lawyers told commissioner David Loukidelis, who had launched an inquiry, to take a hike. The law gave him no authority, Kinsella's lawyers said.
Legally correct, perhaps. But not so good for Campbell.
The B.C Liberal campaign manager - unlike Dobell - has thumbed his nose at the rules, effectively saying the lobbyist registry is a sham.
If lobbyists decide whether they need to register, with no oversight, there is no real registry - just posturing.
It's an odd decision on Kinsella's part. Why not let Loukidelis look at the concerns, if there is no problem? Why subject the premier to so much negative action.
Especially because of the potential effect on the next election. Kinsella advised Alcan, which received such a generous deal from the government that the B.C. Utilities Commission had to intervene in behalf of consumers. He helped Accenture win a $1.5-billion contract to take over B.C. Hydro office functions, helped get millions in tax breaks for the movie industry and guided a payday loan company in its efforts to shape rules governing that industry.
Lobbying and government relations consulting are legitimate activities. People pay for help in convincing government to bring policies and programs that help them.
If the help is based on guiding the clients in aligning their goals with the public interest, as seen by government, no worries. But if it's based on who you know, that's a problem. People without the money for access are left in the cold.
In the end, Kinsella torpedoed any semblance of effective lobbyist registration. Loukidelis threw up his hands and said he wouldn't try to enforce the rule any more.
Arrogance? You decide.
Footnote: Campbell has nothing to say on the scandal or why the government has stalled needed changes to the Lobbyist Act for two years (while canceling the fall sitting of the legislature). The RCMP now has the option of picking up the investigation, along with any future complaints that come up about possible violation of the act.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
More tools for strategic voting
Many people — of all political stripes — are interested in strategic voting to achieve or block an election outcome. One of the challenges is figuring out how to shift your vote to produce the desired result in your riding. Or, for that matter, whether the race is close enough that you need to bother. If it's not, then voting for the party you like best gets it $1.75 a year in federal funding.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
An environmental group has created one tool that looks at the effects of strategic voting in individual ridings. It's purpose is to help defeat the Conservatives, but of course the information is equally useful for people voring strategically with other outcomes in mind.
Another great resource is the election predition project that offers reader-driven assessments of the races in every riding. The project has seven seats in B.C. still close to call; the choices a few voters in those ridings make could determine the next government.
Of course, all this would be much less necessary if we had a system of proportional representation to ensure voters' preferences were more closely reflected in Parliament.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
More warning signs from children and families ministry
It's looking like things are spinning out of control in the Ministry of Children and Families, based on a meltdown at a recent meeting of a legislature committee.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
The ministry has a difficult, important job. In 2006, a review by Ted Hughes found it had serious problems and recommended changes. Those included the restoration of an independent officer of the legislature - the representative for children and youth - to report on successes and problems and make recommendations.
Hughes said the representative should report to a committee of MLAs charged with monitoring progress.
The government accepted the report, with Premier Gordon Campbell promising action on all the recommendations.
The committee - six Liberal MLAs and four New Democrats - was established.
But the ministry doesn't seem to have accepted the idea of real oversight and accountability. Last month, I wrote about the ministry's failure to respond fully when representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond raised questions about the measures taken to ensure the safety of children placed in the care of relatives.
At the committee meeting, the ministry appeared to be trying to do an end-run around the representative's office to avoid accountability.
The subject is serious. Turpel-Lafond reported in April on the deaths of four children in care in northern B.C. The report - "From Loss to Learning" - found significant systemic problems and made recommendations to address them.
The recommendations called for real change. "The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena," the representative reported. "Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died." The legislative committee adopted the recommendations. Its agenda called for a progress report some six months after the report was presented.
Things went off the rails. The ministry wanted to have a manager talk about the report.
But Turpel-Lafond spoke first. She noted that she had been trying for six months, without success, to get the ministry representatives to sit down and respond to the recommendations.
"I and my staff are deeply disappointed about this fact," she said.
The Hughes report didn't propose the legislative committee be some sort of ministry management committee, she noted. Her office was to provide expert oversight and report to the MLAs.
Instead it looked like ministry managers were trying to cut out the oversight.
And not even in a subtle way. The MLAs on the committee had been sent a lot of information by the ministry five days earlier. But the ministry didn't send the same package to the representative's office until the day before the meeting.
The delay looked much like an attempt to subvert the office's role. Especially given the representative's effort, over months, to get a response from the ministry.
Turpel-Lafond told the MLAs that this wasn't the way things should be working, based on the Hughes report and the legislation. The representative's office should be reviewing the ministry's response and providing its analysis to the legislative committee.
Liberal MLA absences gave the New Democrats a majority in the committee room. They voted to adjourn to give Turpel-Lafond time to review the material from the ministry and report to the committee. A new date will be scheduled.
Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen has a good rep. He shouldn't be happy that the ministry is withholding information and failing to co-operate with an independent officer of the legislature.
But that's what has happened, even though Turpel-Lafond told the committee she had raised the problems with Christensen this summer.
That creates questions about Christensen's grasp of the tough portfolio.
And about where the ministry is going. Why would the children and families management team have such difficulties with the idea of oversight?
Footnote: There was good news at the committee meeting. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to arrange a Children's Forum, bringing together representatives from the ministry, coroner's office, ombudsman, health officer and all the other agencies involved have paid off. The members reported progress in a number of areas.
Strategic voting - part one
It seems likely that strategic voting is going to be a big part of the election, especially in B.C. where up to 10 seats could be in play next week.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Under our current, deeply flawed system, it's inevitable, if unpleasant, that people have to vote for a candidate that isn't their first choice in order to block a party they don't want to see in powe ror support one they do.
The problem is making the most effective choice given the lack of available information on what other voters are going to do.
The Tyee has poll results that could help in making a strategic choice. I'll point to other resources over the next few days.
Monday, October 06, 2008
More insider troubles for BC Liberals
If you haven't, check out Sean Holman's exemplary work on B.C. Liberal co-campaign manager Patrick Kinsella's role in helping companies, from Alcan to payday loan clients, influence government policies. Given the government's various ethical and accountability stumbles, this looks like a major problem, especially if Kinsella continues to refuse to co-operate with an investigation. It's all here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
