Four thoughts.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Residential care for seniors should be big issue
Eight years in power, and the Liberals are still fumbling the issue of residential care for seniors. The Liberal New Era campaign pledge in 2001 was clear - an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. It was an important promise. When the time comes that you, or your parents, can't live independently, you want desperately to have residential care available, close to friends and family. That was far from certain when the Liberals took over, because there just weren't enough spaces.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Comparing the Liberal and NDP platforms
Plow through the Liberal and NDP platforms and you will find a surprising amount in common.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Test drive STV for your area
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't vote yes in the electoral reform referendum and try an alternative to the current system which has served us so dismally. Sure, the single transferable vote system isn't perfect, but look at the way we elect governments and our representatives now. It's an abomination.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A look at the Liberal platform
A useful Victoria Times Colonist editorial today on the Liberal platform.
On election day, will you be a happy sheep?
Barely back from a 2,800-mile road trip, and I was greeted by the first election signs.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Camped in a casino RV lot...
And one day from home after a great road trip to Yosemite and Death Valley and many great points along the way. Struck, as always, by the consistent kindness, openness and generosity of individual Americans despite their political inability to develop policies that deal with real problems or elect governments that reflect their own values.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Thanks, I'm fine
Better than fine, as this is a fun break. But thanks for fretting a little. It's much appreciated.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Campbell's 'province of losers' warning comes true
Should a responsible government really be trying to entice people into casinos to chase their lottery losses on slot machines?
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Especially when the "special offer" is running at the same time as the B.C. Medical Association is warning about the impact of gambling addiction on thousands of British Columbians - almost the identitcal number, in fact, addicted to drugs?
You might have seen the ads. B.C. Lotteries is encouraging people to take their losing lottery tickets into a casino or mini-casino. You can exchange to $20 worth of losing tickets a day.
It's remarkably irresponsible and destructive. Especially from a government that has acknowledged the damage done by gambling, even while breaking its promise not to ramp up betting in the province.
B.C. Lotteries has always had the objective of recruiting additional gamblers every year. The more people who buy lottery tickets or bet online with the corporation or go to casinos, the more the government takes from their pockets. (And the more people whose lives will be damaged addiction.)
But this is a new, nasty twist. Lottery tickets are a less harmful form of gambling. Even with scratch and lose tickets, it's a dull, slow experience. People are less likely to lose control.
Slot machines are designed and developed, at great expense, to be addictive, to keep people gambling for longer periods and to make them want to come back for more. The companies hire psychologists and watch people in casinos to see how different patterns of flashing and ringing bells keep them betting. They test different patterns and symbols on the spinning wheels.
And the companies are very good at their work. Today's slot machines are called the crack cocaine of gambling.
It's a dangerous idea to encourage people to switch from a few lottery tickets to the much more dangerous form of gambling.
The casinos would like the idea. The lottery corporation - and the government - would make more money. But more lives will be wrecked. That is a simple fact. People who might never have taken that first step into the local bingo hall to play a VLT - that's what slots are today - will fall into addiction or problem gambling.
But that's part of the government's plan for the lottery corporation. Its business plan, released last month along with the budget documents, has a number of objectives. The corporation wants to increase the percentage of the adult population who gamble steadily over the next several years.
And it hopes the average gambler will lose more - rising from about $725 last year to about $810 each by 2011.
It's business.
But it's a damaging business. The B.C. Medical Association report is worth a read at bcma.org. It has important, practical recommendations on ways to reduce the toll all forms of addiction are taking, starting with the need to treat addiction as a health issue, not a police problem or moral failing.
Gambling is part of the problem. The BCMA found research indicates 33,000 British Columbians have a severe gambling problem. That number more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, as the government rapidly gambling in the province, particularly the number of slot machines in large and small communities.
Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem.
By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.
None of this is surprising. Premier Gordon Campbell, in the 2001 election campaign, vowed to halt the expansion of gambling. The government made gambling money by turning its citizens into a province of losers, he said.
Kevin Krueger, now a cabinet minister, was even direct and passionate. Alllowing gambling to expand meant divorce, crime and even deaths, he said. It was immoral and destructive.
But then the Liberals were elected. The lottery corporation looked like a good way to boost government revenues. The casino companies were lobbying hard to be allowed to go bigger and move into smaller communities. They wanted people to drink while they gambled, so they would lose more.
The government decided the principle wasn't worth the price and launched a massive gambling spree. Those people whose lives fell apart because of gambling were acceptable collateral damage. They should have called the help line or decided to bar themselves from casinos.
Today, it is encouraging people to make the jump from lotteries to slots with a special offer to losers. The principles have really been tossed aside.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
B.C. Rail Kinsella memo to be revealed Thursday in court, NDP predicts
MEDIA ADVISORY
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
March 25, 2009
KEY DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. RAIL CORRUPTION TRIAL EXPECTED TOMORROW
VANCOUVER - The contents of a 2004 e-mail exchange between B.C. Rail
executives asking about payments made to Patrick Kinsella and his
company Progressive Group are expected to be revealed in open court
tomorrow as part of the ongoing B.C. Rail Corruption Trial.
Attorney General Critic Leonard Krog will be available for comment at
the Vancouver Supreme Courthouse tomorrow following proceedings.
WHEN: Thursday, March 26
WHERE: Vancouver Supreme Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver
The time and courtroom number will not be posted until 8:30 a.m.
tomorrow morning at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme%5Fcourt/hearing%5Flist/index.aspx
under Vancouver, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, Basi/Virk. Please note you
must turn off your pop-up blocker to view the site.
And for those losing track of all the angles involving Kinsella, Sean Holman - who has been far out in front in reporting on the story - offers a useful chronology here .
Friday, March 20, 2009
Running a wire on the police
The Times Colonist has been following an interesting case. Victoria police stopped a driver, in case, they said, his car was stolen.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
He was difficult. They arrested him and searched his van. He had the audio record function running on his Palm Pilot during the arrest and while they searched the vehicles as he sat, handcuffed, in the back seat of the police car.
But police didn't know that until after the arresting officer had testified at the man's trial for obstructing justice.
The recording was played by defence lawyer Doug Christie (yeh, that guy). The Crown dropped the charges.
The report is here .
Click on the link to transcript of trial on the right to see what happened.
It suggests, sadly, real grounds for concerns about court cases decided on the basis of police testimony.
Nurses find way around coming wage freeze
It looks like the B.C. Nurses Union has retired Solidarity Forever in favour of Take the Money and Run as a rallying song.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
The nurses' contract, like collective agreements for pretty much the whole public sector, was set to expire at the end of March in 2010.
That's also when the government has said it will introduce a two-year public sector wage freeze in response to the economic downturn.
The union wasn't keen on a wage freeze, naturally enough. So it approached the government last month to propose a contract extension now, more than a year before it expires, in return for salary increases.
The government liked the idea. It agreed to extend the contract for two years, until April 2012, with a three-per-cent raise in each year. The union and government call it a "labour market adjustment," but it's a wage hike.
Like all collective bargaining, the deal is a trade-off. The nurses' union gets a good guaranteed raise for members at a time of huge economic uncertainty.
The government, which is working on a similar deal with doctors, avoids the threat of disruptions to the health care system in the summer of 2010 and, perhaps, attracts some needed new nurses and doctors.
It's an interesting calculation on the part of both sides. For the union, there's a wage increase above the rate of inflation. And there's no worry about a newly elected government getting fierce about a wage freeze.
For the government, there's a fixed increase for one of the unions that tends to enter contract disputes with public sympathy. And by grabbing the chance to settle with doctors and nurses, it has isolated the other health-sector unions, especially the Hospital Employees Union.
The HEU represents some skilled technical employees and licensed practical nurses, who have similar cases for a "labour market adjustment."
But many members work in areas calling for few specialized skills. In a slow economy, it's not hard to find people to do the work. And those employees are also less likely to win public support than the heirs to Florence Nightingale.
A common front, or at least a co-ordinated bargaining strategy, might have produced larger overall gains. Even if that was unlikely - after all, the HEU signed first in 2006 - the union fears that the raises for nurses and doctors will preclude similar adjustments for its 43,000 members.
But the nurses' union has a legal responsibility to represent its members' interests, not the needs of other health-care workers.
The deal is a reminder that contracts covering almost every public sector worker, from teachers to direct government employees to hospital workers expire a little more than a year from now.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen's budget is based on a wage freeze in the new deals and there is no allowance for any extra expenses. The nurses' deal will cost $120 million in year two, I estimate, money the government doesn't have in its budget plan.
The government goes into these talks with some goodwill. The last round of settlements, which included bonuses of about $4,000 per employee, were well received.
But goodwill has a short shelf life when it comes to labour relations in this province. And the government has hinted at big staff cuts and, possibly, significant layoffs. If those happen, talks will be tougher.
The case for a wage freeze should be strong by next year. But unions - the B.C. Teachers Federation comes to mine - will still be looking for gains.
Taxpayers, though, might not be seeing raises in their workplaces - if they have workplaces. And they might be crabby if their taxes go up to pay for public sector workers' raises.
And on top of all this, add the political question of which party would best represent the public interest in negotiating the next round of contacts.
Footnote: The agreement includes provisions for a nurses' union-government-health authority committee to work on workload, management, job scope and other issues that affect nurses and the system. The government hopes the co-operative approach will result in savings and efficiencies.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Uranium a glowing problem for government
The province's handling of uranium mining brings to mind Homer Simpson's approach to operating a nuclear power plant.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
And the stumbles could get expensive for taxpayers, if a disgruntled company does well in court.
Uranium mining brings a classic clash of B.C. values - the resource sector, used to wresting wealth from the ground, versus the urbanites and retirees, who have never forgotten Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome. And who don't much like mining near them in any form.
This month the cabinet had a Homer Simpson moment.
"B.C. strengthens position against uranium mining," a news release was headlined. It said cabinet had an issued an order-in-council - a regulation - "to prevent permits from being issued for uranium and thorium exploration and development in B.C."
But 10 months ago, the government issued a news release headlined "Government confirms position on uranium development."
Uranium mining wasn't on, said junior minister Kevin Krueger. "By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry."
He sure got that wrong. It was the uncertainty about the government's position that prompted the latest cabinet regulation. Krueger's announcement last year said that future mining claims would be barred from rights to uranium.
But that suggested existing claims weren't be affected. "Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped," the 2008 news release did add.
The second try at getting it right appears to be more definitive. The new order says no uranium mining permits will be issued.
And it's retroactive, even though governments often get in trouble when they backdate laws and regulations.
A large part of the whole problem is where the uranium lies. The most promising deposit, the Blizzard claim, is about 50 kms southeast of Kelowna. People did not move to the Okanagan to be near a uranium mine.
Canada is already one of the top two uranium-producing countries, along with Australia, and the world's largest mine is in Saskatchewan. But that site is so remote it might as well be in Mars. The Okanagan deposits are close to wine country.
The efforts to deal with the issue are sparked by the activity around the Blizzard claim.
Boss Power Corp., which owns the claim, sued last year after Krueger's announcement.
We've got rights here, and potentially valuable uranium deposits, the company said. You can't just take them away because uranium mining is politically unpopular.
And, the company complained, Krueger's fiat came just days "following a series of meeting between Boss Power management and senior provincial officials up to the assistant deputy minister level in which we were assured that our permit applications would be processed in a fair and transparent manner."
The company's share price fell by 50 per cent in the days after the ban.
In October, Boss sued. The ban was imposed "without any meaningful consultation with the mineral exploration industry, First Nations or the general public and has not only harmed the interests of Boss Power Corp. but may discourage other exploration companies who value the ability to work in a consultative environment."
Then things got stranger. The province filed a statement of defence that, according to the company, said the ban didn't apply to the Blizzard claim because the mines were already registered before it was introduced.
The latest changes to the regulations, made by cabinet last week, were an apparent to target the Blizzard claim.
Which means that the company's lawsuit seeking compensation is likely to go ahead.
It's a tricky issue. Nuclear power is seen by many as a green form of energy, though it's banned in B.C. And you can't have power without fuel.
And the government doesn't want to irk the mining industry.
But residents won't stand for a mine in the Okanagan. The questions now will be whether compensation is due - and whether the ban should have been in place all along.
Footnote: Interest in the deposits goes back a long way. When development seemed likely, in 1980, then premier Bill Bennett brought in a seven-year moratorium on uranium development. The Vander Zalm government let it lapse. Neither the New Democrat or Liberal governments addressed the issue since 1987, when the ban ended.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Questions unanswered about BC Rail payments to Liberal insider
Sure, a lot was happening in the Liberals' first term. But it's hard to see why a Crown corporation had to pay $297,000 to a Liberal insider for help understanding the new government.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Surely picking up the phone and calling Premier Gordon Campbell could have worked just as well.
The New Democrats has been asking a lot of questions about why B.C. Rail paid almost $300,000 to the consulting companies of Patrick Kinsella between 2002 and 2005. They haven't been getting answers.
Kinsella is as well-connected as they come. He's been involved in politics, mostly behind the scenes, for three decades. He has run successful provincial election campaigns for the Socreds and was co-chair of the 2001 and 2005 Liberal campaigns. One of the company's executives managed Gordon Campbell's own campaign.
And his companies have done very well for - and presumably by - companies seeking to have government see things their way.
Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com used an FOI request to obtain documents from Washington state, where the Progressive Group, one of Kinsella's firms, was seeking a contract.
The company identified successes in winning government decisions worth more than $2 billion to its clients. Progressive helped Accenture "promote and educate the B.C. government of the value of outsourcing a number of the government services," the firm said. That resulted in a 10-year, $1.45-billion deal to take over most of B.C. Hydro's administrative functions.
It helped Alcan persuade the government of the value of a Kitimat smelter expansion; that deal included a new power agreement worth some $1 billion to the corporation. The deal was so rich for Alcan - and so unfair to B.C. Hydro's customers - that the B.C. Utilities Commission overturned it.
Progressive helped the film industry get additional tax breaks worth $65 million a year and persuaded the provincial government - through the Forest Ministry - to contribute $15 million toward a new public-private arena in Langley.
Corporations or individuals are free to hire consultants to help them figure out how best to align their goals with the aims of government. And it could be argued that the best advice might come from those with the closest ties to the politicians and party in power.
Certainly Kinsella's companies have advised an impressive roster of corporations and industries in the province. Plutonic Power, which has a controversial megaproject planned for Bute Inlet rivers, has used him as an adviser. A major payday loan company, gambling companies, ING Canada - it's an impressive list. (Credit to Holman for the diligent research.)
And, of course, B.C. Rail.
The difference in this case is that the Crown corporation was paying Kinsella's company with taxpayers' money.
The NDP raised the issue repeatedly in the legislature last week. There was the usual partisan posturing, but the fundamental questions were legitimate.
What did the companies do for the money? Was there an open tender process? Were the Kinsella companies' ties to the Liberals a factor in the decision?
Premier Gordon Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal refused to answer. Oppal said the contract might be relevant to the B.C. Rail corruption trial inching its way through the courts and he wouldn't comment.
That seemed implausible; the consulting payments weren't released as part of evidence in the case. They were in public B.C. Rail documents.
But on Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the revelations during a pre-trial hearing. Defence lawyer Kevin McCulloch, representing Bob Virk, one of three government aides charged in the case, reminded her of an e-mail that appears to refer to the payments. "It's the backroom Liberal e-mail," he said.
And Kinsella's company than responded with a news release saying it had been hired to help B.C. Rail understand the Liberals "core review" of government activities.
But the questions remain, including the basic one - why would a Crown corporation need to pay a consultant to help it understand the government of the day?
Footnote: Kinsella embarrassed the government last fall when Information Commissioner David Loukidelis launched an investigation into allegations he had acted as a lobbyist without registering, as required by the lobbying laws. Kinsella's lawyers told Loukidelis the law didn't give him authority to investigate and their client wouldn't co-operate voluntarily.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Finance ministry records included faked B.C. Rail sale e-mails
A few days ago, I posted e-mails from finance ministry files that indicated former New Democrat MLAs Paul Ramsey, Gordon Wilson, Helmut Geisbrecht and others plotting to attack Gordon Campbell's B.C. Rail sale.
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
They were fake, as Paul Ramsey has already said.
Wilson has added his notice that the e-mails were bogus.
"I can assure you that I did not author any email to Ramsey on the sale of BC Rail. During my time in politics I was a vocal critic of Campbell's desire to sell off the Railway, and predicted that he would do so despite his constant denials to the contrary.
I am not sure who wrote those emails or why anyone would go to such lengths to try to engage those named. It is quite bizarre, but then so is the whole episode even to the extent to which it has been kept out of the public spotlight.
Gordon Wilson"
So, who was behind the e-mails?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Binder 5: E-mails fake says, ex-Liberal MLA
Paul Nettleton also says the finance ministry e-mail files allegedly showing a campaign against the BC Rail are fakes.
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
"Your recent blog on BCR was brought to my attention with specific reference to my "letter to former Transportation Minister Reid" on the BCR sale. At no time did I correspond with Minister Reid at the direction of Lois Boone (former NDP Transportation Minister) and/or anyone else in the NDP. Furthermore at no time did anyone in the NDP request that I do so!
Paul Nettleton"
BC Rail paid firms of Liberal campaign co-chair for services
The New Democrats asked about questions yersterday about $297,000 in payments from B.C. Rail to the consulting firms of Patrick Kinsella, the Liberals' campaign co-chair in 2001 and 2005. Sean Holman sets out the details here. It's worth searching on Kinsella on publiceyeonline.com for background.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
An alert reader posted an interesting Hansard exchange from May 28, 2003, on my site. The exchange came during debate on the budget for the premier's office.
J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.
J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Binder 5: Paul Ramsey says he's never seen the e-mails referred to in the post below
Former NDP cabinet minister Paul Ramsey says he's never seen, and certainly didn't write, any of the e-mails in Finance Ministry files that supposedly include comments from him on the B.C. Rail deal.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
"Very strange, Mr. Willcocks, very strange," he said in an e-mail today.
"I did not write the July 10, 2003 e-mail that appears in Binder 5 with my name on it. I never saw any secret "documents" that discussed the BC Rail sale. I was not part of any co-ordinated NDP attack on the sale--though I certainly thought it was a dumb idea (for both policy and political reasons) and said so in print and on the air. I never discussed the sale of BC Rail with Joy (MacPhail, I assume). And I don't know who Ron Cannan is."
I have no doubt that's Ramsey being candid and straightforward.
And I have no idea what's going on here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
