My first budget lockup was in March 1998, when the NDP government forecast a $95-million deficit.
Why didn't you cut a little more and deliver a balanced budget, then finance minister Joy MacPhail was asked?
"Because you wouldn't believe us," she replied.
She was right. And the Liberals might be heading toward that sad state.
In 1998, few believed the NDP. The New Democrats had won the 1996 election in part because of a pre-vote budget that showed a surplus for the current year and another balanced budget in the year ahead.
Neither claim was true. Eventually, the auditor general reported revenues were inflated by hundreds of millions dollars based on political direction.
The NDP government messed up in other ways before getting booted out in 2001, but the phony election budget put a stink on it from day one.
Now, the Campbell government is smelly. More than 70 per cent of British Columbians believe the Liberals "intentionally misled" voters about the province's finances during the election campaign, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
Gordon Campbell promised right up to election day that the deficit this year would be $495 million and that the February budget was realistic.
But this week Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented a budget with a $2.8-billion deficit.
Campbell and Hansen said everything went wrong after the election. Up until May 12, the budget was a safe bet.
But within a week of the February budget, economists said it was wildly optimistic. The campaign didn't start until two months later.
Last week, Hansen said he knew nothing of any budget problems before the election. "Ministers do not seek advice from deputy ministers and ministry staff during an election period," he told the legislature.
In the lockup Tuesday, Hansen noted that the finance deputy minister did mention that revenues might be $200 million to $300 million less than forecast during the campaign. It was a "casual conversation," Hansen said.
Later that afternoon, he acknowledged more than one conversation.
He didn't ask questions about the shortfall, whether it was likely to get worse or better. Hansen said he believed a $300 million revenue shortfall was easily managed by cutting expenses.
Campbell then said he too he had been told the revenue budget looked suspect during the campaign. He couldn't remember when - May 7, maybe. His deputy minister told him spending could be cut to make up for the shortfall so he thought everything would be fine.
Boy, were they wrong. That's not surprising. When a budget is far off track just weeks into the year, big problems are coming.
Flash forward. On June 10, when cabinet was sworn in, Hansen still said the deficit would be $495 million.
But this week he revealed that he had been briefed by the ministry days after the May 12 election and told revenue was now off by more than $1 billion.
Hansen told the legislature that he still said the deficit target would be met on June 10 because by then he was confident B.C. would be getting $1.6 billion from the federal government for imposing the new harmonized sales tax.
Which raises more questions. The Liberals promised in writing during the campaign that they would not introduce the HST.
But Hansen said by "late May" - two weeks, at most, after the election, the province started negotiations with Ottawa on introducing the tax.
By June 10, after two weeks of discussions with the federal government, Hansen said he considered it a done deal. He was counting on the $1.6 billion from the federal government to cover the revenue shortfall.
So after rejecting the HST as bad for B.C. during the campaign, within four weeks the Liberals had committed to a deal with the federal government to introduce the new tax. No one outside of a handful of insiders was involved in the decision. No analysis or public or business consultation.
And a huge political interest in taking one-time cash for a budget bailout.
Even looked at in the best light, the explanations paint those involved as incurious bunglers, making policy on the fly based on short-term political interests.
Most British Columbians, the poll suggests, also believe they were dishonest.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Taking you into the budget lockup
I don't think the "mainstream media filter" is quite the evil that Sarah Palin and lots of other people make it out to be. Filters are highly useful. Someone like Vaughn Palmer can, by sorting out the irrelevant and misleading, consistently offer the information that is significant in a context that allows it to be understood. That's valuable.
But I also think it's useful to give people the option of going to the source and drawing their own conclusions. That's become easier, in terms of written information, thanks to the Internet and Google.
Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com is making quite extraordinary leaps in extending that kind of access to scrums, interviews and other non-written source materials. Instead of having to rely on press reports, you can watch the press conferences and interviews yourself and reach your own conclusions.
It's impressive stuff - check out his budget coverage, both written and video, here for examples.
But I also think it's useful to give people the option of going to the source and drawing their own conclusions. That's become easier, in terms of written information, thanks to the Internet and Google.
Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com is making quite extraordinary leaps in extending that kind of access to scrums, interviews and other non-written source materials. Instead of having to rely on press reports, you can watch the press conferences and interviews yourself and reach your own conclusions.
It's impressive stuff - check out his budget coverage, both written and video, here for examples.
The six things you need to know about this budget
From inside the budget lockup, six things you should know about the Liberals' latest effort.
First, the February budget has been revealed as bogus. The deficit is now forecast at $2.8 billion, not the $495 million Premier Gordon Campbell promised during the election campaign. (That would be a record splash of red ink.) The deficit is forecast to shrink to $1.8 billion next year and $1 billion the year after.
Second, most British Columbians are going to face tax increases.
This gets complicated. For starters, MSP premiums are going to increase by six per cent a year over the next three years. (At the same time, the MSP exemptions for people with low incomes will be increased. Generally, single people with incomes under $30,000 and families with income under $40,000 will get breaks.)
Then there is the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's presentation pitched the benefits of the new tax. He promised more investment, job creation and cheaper goods for consumers.
Hansen announced exemptions and tax breaks intended to cushion the blow. The new tax won't apply to home energy use and municipalities and charities will get breaks.
People with a low enough income to qualify for the GST tax credit will also get an HST credit - a family with less than $25,000 in income will get $230 per person.
The basic personal tax credit will also be increased to $11,000 from $9,373, saving a typical taxpayer about $70. (Though the MSP increase will claw that back by next year.)
But most British Columbians will pay more because the new tax applies to so many things that were PST-exempt.
The PST now takes in about $5 billion a year. The new HST won't apply to most business purchases, saving companies $1.9 billion a year and reducing the province's take by that amount.
But even with that loss, the government says it will still take in $5.6 billion from the new tax - $600 million more than it gets from the PST.
That means consumers will be paying a lot more to provide the increased revenue and make up for the lost revenue from business. (The government's theory is that companies will pass some of their cost savings on to consumers.)
Third, there won't be too many more surprises this year. The government's efforts to cut or control spending have mostly been revealed - slashed grants to organizations across the province, limits on health spending that will mean longer waits. The discretionary grants have been chopped by 30 per cent - $354 million that won't be going out to communities for services and programs and care.
Fourth, the government has set the stage for a couple of years of further cuts. Health expenditures are set to increase at about six per cent a year.
But after a small increase this year, the government plans cuts to non-health spending in each of the next two years.
On an abstract level, that can sound appealing. But the Environment Ministry budget, for example, is forecast to be cut by 20 per cent by the 2011/12 budget year. That means job losses, reduced park access and other much less popular measures. The Children and Families Ministry budget is frozen for two years, even as social problems rise. Across government, about 1,400 jobs are to be eliminated over the next two years.
Fifth, about the only major expansion of government services will be the introduction of full-day kindergarten, which will be available across the province by 2011.
Sixth, and last, the wild ride is not over. The budget is based on the assumption that the recession has bottomed out. The government is projecting a 2.9 per cent slump in the economy this year, followed by growth of 1.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent in the next two years. That's based on a conservative approach to the forecast from a panel of independent economists. But it's also, as we've seen in the last 12 months, a risk.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The budget forecasts continued tough times for the forest industry and provides little increased aid for communities dealing with the long-term impact of pine beetle devastation. It was generally praised by business groups and panned by unions and health and social service advocates.
First, the February budget has been revealed as bogus. The deficit is now forecast at $2.8 billion, not the $495 million Premier Gordon Campbell promised during the election campaign. (That would be a record splash of red ink.) The deficit is forecast to shrink to $1.8 billion next year and $1 billion the year after.
Second, most British Columbians are going to face tax increases.
This gets complicated. For starters, MSP premiums are going to increase by six per cent a year over the next three years. (At the same time, the MSP exemptions for people with low incomes will be increased. Generally, single people with incomes under $30,000 and families with income under $40,000 will get breaks.)
Then there is the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen's presentation pitched the benefits of the new tax. He promised more investment, job creation and cheaper goods for consumers.
Hansen announced exemptions and tax breaks intended to cushion the blow. The new tax won't apply to home energy use and municipalities and charities will get breaks.
People with a low enough income to qualify for the GST tax credit will also get an HST credit - a family with less than $25,000 in income will get $230 per person.
The basic personal tax credit will also be increased to $11,000 from $9,373, saving a typical taxpayer about $70. (Though the MSP increase will claw that back by next year.)
But most British Columbians will pay more because the new tax applies to so many things that were PST-exempt.
The PST now takes in about $5 billion a year. The new HST won't apply to most business purchases, saving companies $1.9 billion a year and reducing the province's take by that amount.
But even with that loss, the government says it will still take in $5.6 billion from the new tax - $600 million more than it gets from the PST.
That means consumers will be paying a lot more to provide the increased revenue and make up for the lost revenue from business. (The government's theory is that companies will pass some of their cost savings on to consumers.)
Third, there won't be too many more surprises this year. The government's efforts to cut or control spending have mostly been revealed - slashed grants to organizations across the province, limits on health spending that will mean longer waits. The discretionary grants have been chopped by 30 per cent - $354 million that won't be going out to communities for services and programs and care.
Fourth, the government has set the stage for a couple of years of further cuts. Health expenditures are set to increase at about six per cent a year.
But after a small increase this year, the government plans cuts to non-health spending in each of the next two years.
On an abstract level, that can sound appealing. But the Environment Ministry budget, for example, is forecast to be cut by 20 per cent by the 2011/12 budget year. That means job losses, reduced park access and other much less popular measures. The Children and Families Ministry budget is frozen for two years, even as social problems rise. Across government, about 1,400 jobs are to be eliminated over the next two years.
Fifth, about the only major expansion of government services will be the introduction of full-day kindergarten, which will be available across the province by 2011.
Sixth, and last, the wild ride is not over. The budget is based on the assumption that the recession has bottomed out. The government is projecting a 2.9 per cent slump in the economy this year, followed by growth of 1.9 per cent and 2.7 per cent in the next two years. That's based on a conservative approach to the forecast from a panel of independent economists. But it's also, as we've seen in the last 12 months, a risk.
Stay tuned.
Footnote: The budget forecasts continued tough times for the forest industry and provides little increased aid for communities dealing with the long-term impact of pine beetle devastation. It was generally praised by business groups and panned by unions and health and social service advocates.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Harper's Senate picks and MLAs' lost minds
After a fair stretch watching politics up close, I remain baffled at what happens to people once elected. Consider, for starters, Stephen Harper and the latest batch of brazen patronage appointments to the Senate.
Among the most recent nine were the Conservative party election campaign chair, who is also an effective fundraiser, Harper's long-time, loyal communications assistant and - for Pete's sake - the Conservative Party's president.
Harper used to rail against such abuses. The Senate shouldn't be a retirement home or rich reward for political backroom types, he said. It should represent Canadians. No more payoffs to party backers at taxpayers' expense. (Senators are paid $130,000 and get a rich pension.)
Now, Harper is another old-school politician, just fine with the same kind of cronyism he once condemned.
The official Conservative explanation is that since Senate reform is stalled and the upper house has a majority of senators appointed by past Liberal governments, Harper needs to get loyalists in place to support government legislation and Senate reform.
Anyway, the Liberals did the same thing, the apologists add.
I can understand the idea of trying to grab control of the Senate. It's not particularly noble and contradicts everything Harper stood for as an outsider determined to bring reform. But it's pragmatic.
That still doesn't mean, though, that he had to use Senate jobs to reward loyal friends. There are hundreds of competent, committed conservatives sympathetic to the government's direction and known and respected in their communities. Why not seek them out? (And, in the process, increase respect for the Senate and politicians generally.)
The second excuse - that the other guys were worse - is more destructive. It's an admission that right and wrong aren't important, and inevitably means a race to the bottom.
It's not just Harper. It's a contagion every bit as infectious as swine flu. In opposition, the B.C. Liberals seemed genuine about doing things differently, in ways large and small. You'll never see our ministers being trailed by aides when they have to walk a few steps to a cabinet meeting, one told me. But they are, and the number of support staff hired to record the ministers' every word and carry their files has multiplied.
And MLAs spoke their minds. Here's Kevin Krueger on gambling: "Women in B.C. will die because of gambling expansion ... So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it."
Now he's silent.
I was thinking about this when the 26 new MLAs sat down in the legislature for the first time Tuesday.
It's a great honour, to be selected by your fellow citizens to represent them. Generally, it's been earned in community service, working co-operatively with people of varied views and backgrounds. The chamber looks great, the Speaker is dressed up, people are sitting above, watching.
And then everybody starts yelling and catcalling across the way. Questions are barbed; responses are empty prattle. Pound the desk for your guy; jeer at their guy.
It's embarrassing. And it's inexplicable. How could good people let this happen to them?
Next door in Alberta, Conservative MLA Guy Boutilier was kicked out of the government caucus. His crime was publicly raising concerns about the cancellation of a long-term care centre in his community of Fort McMurray. The project had been approved and announced by Premier Ed Stelmach months before the 2008 election. Now the government said it would be put off four years and Boutilier spoke up to say that wasn't right.
We have a party system. Members have to share core principles and policies to allow election of a government that reflects the public will.
But there's nothing that says they have to turn into desk-thumping zombies, follow all orders or quit speaking for the people they represent.
Is there?
Footnote: I am genuinely baffled at how this happens. MLAs should be important. They represent the people. Yet they are shunted into minor roles. Government MLAs were as surprised as the rest of the public by the imposition of the HST. They weren't asked how it would affect their communities or what they thought. They were just given talking points.
Among the most recent nine were the Conservative party election campaign chair, who is also an effective fundraiser, Harper's long-time, loyal communications assistant and - for Pete's sake - the Conservative Party's president.
Harper used to rail against such abuses. The Senate shouldn't be a retirement home or rich reward for political backroom types, he said. It should represent Canadians. No more payoffs to party backers at taxpayers' expense. (Senators are paid $130,000 and get a rich pension.)
Now, Harper is another old-school politician, just fine with the same kind of cronyism he once condemned.
The official Conservative explanation is that since Senate reform is stalled and the upper house has a majority of senators appointed by past Liberal governments, Harper needs to get loyalists in place to support government legislation and Senate reform.
Anyway, the Liberals did the same thing, the apologists add.
I can understand the idea of trying to grab control of the Senate. It's not particularly noble and contradicts everything Harper stood for as an outsider determined to bring reform. But it's pragmatic.
That still doesn't mean, though, that he had to use Senate jobs to reward loyal friends. There are hundreds of competent, committed conservatives sympathetic to the government's direction and known and respected in their communities. Why not seek them out? (And, in the process, increase respect for the Senate and politicians generally.)
The second excuse - that the other guys were worse - is more destructive. It's an admission that right and wrong aren't important, and inevitably means a race to the bottom.
It's not just Harper. It's a contagion every bit as infectious as swine flu. In opposition, the B.C. Liberals seemed genuine about doing things differently, in ways large and small. You'll never see our ministers being trailed by aides when they have to walk a few steps to a cabinet meeting, one told me. But they are, and the number of support staff hired to record the ministers' every word and carry their files has multiplied.
And MLAs spoke their minds. Here's Kevin Krueger on gambling: "Women in B.C. will die because of gambling expansion ... So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it."
Now he's silent.
I was thinking about this when the 26 new MLAs sat down in the legislature for the first time Tuesday.
It's a great honour, to be selected by your fellow citizens to represent them. Generally, it's been earned in community service, working co-operatively with people of varied views and backgrounds. The chamber looks great, the Speaker is dressed up, people are sitting above, watching.
And then everybody starts yelling and catcalling across the way. Questions are barbed; responses are empty prattle. Pound the desk for your guy; jeer at their guy.
It's embarrassing. And it's inexplicable. How could good people let this happen to them?
Next door in Alberta, Conservative MLA Guy Boutilier was kicked out of the government caucus. His crime was publicly raising concerns about the cancellation of a long-term care centre in his community of Fort McMurray. The project had been approved and announced by Premier Ed Stelmach months before the 2008 election. Now the government said it would be put off four years and Boutilier spoke up to say that wasn't right.
We have a party system. Members have to share core principles and policies to allow election of a government that reflects the public will.
But there's nothing that says they have to turn into desk-thumping zombies, follow all orders or quit speaking for the people they represent.
Is there?
Footnote: I am genuinely baffled at how this happens. MLAs should be important. They represent the people. Yet they are shunted into minor roles. Government MLAs were as surprised as the rest of the public by the imposition of the HST. They weren't asked how it would affect their communities or what they thought. They were just given talking points.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A big shake-up in addiction services is coming - but is there a plan?
The Whistler Pique had an interesting open letter suggesting massive changes in addictions services. It appears the health authorities - or some of them - are cancelling contracts with community based agencies. They would then, presumably, offer the services directly, from treatment to drug education and prevention.
Will it cost more or less? Be more effective, or not?
It's worrying. When health authorities weigh a choice between cutting hip surgeries or addiction services, the grumpy people on the hip waiting list are a formidable lobby group. (That was not a criticism - I would be one of those grumpy people in a flash if my hip was crumbling.)
Will it cost more or less? Be more effective, or not?
It's worrying. When health authorities weigh a choice between cutting hip surgeries or addiction services, the grumpy people on the hip waiting list are a formidable lobby group. (That was not a criticism - I would be one of those grumpy people in a flash if my hip was crumbling.)
Behind the surprise ban on garbage exports
Why, after Vancouver had been working for at least 18 months on plans to have waste trucked to the U.S. for disposal, did the provincial government impose a ban on waste exports in the throne speech? The ban also comes out of the blue for the Cowichan Valley, Whistler and Powell River, which all have existing contracts to send waste to U.S. landfills.
Could it have anything to do with the efforts of well-connected lobbyists who are pushing their clients' plans to profit by keeping the garbage in the province - like Ken Dobell and Andrew Wilkinson, former Liberal party president.
Jeff Nagle has an interesting report here.
Could it have anything to do with the efforts of well-connected lobbyists who are pushing their clients' plans to profit by keeping the garbage in the province - like Ken Dobell and Andrew Wilkinson, former Liberal party president.
Jeff Nagle has an interesting report here.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inside the premier's secret scrums
Wonder where those quotes from Premier Gordon Campbell you see on the news or read in the paper come from?
Often, from what press gallery types call secret scrums. Reporters are summoned to the premier's office and wait for Campbell to emerge, stand in front of flags and take questions. (Past premiers took questions in the halls whenever reporters grabbed them, providing daily access when the legislature was witting. Campbell brushes past in favour of managed conferences when he chooses.)
Sean Holman, multi-media journalist, posted a video of segment of this week's post-throne speech conference here.
Often, from what press gallery types call secret scrums. Reporters are summoned to the premier's office and wait for Campbell to emerge, stand in front of flags and take questions. (Past premiers took questions in the halls whenever reporters grabbed them, providing daily access when the legislature was witting. Campbell brushes past in favour of managed conferences when he chooses.)
Sean Holman, multi-media journalist, posted a video of segment of this week's post-throne speech conference here.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Throne Speech a million miles from campaign promises
If the Throne Speech had been any gloomier, Lt.-Gov. Stephen Point would have had to wear sackcloth and ashes to read it.
"The worst recession in 27 years." "Seismic economic shifts that were unpredictable and brutally deceiving in their speed and force." A "maelstrom" that left "the fiscal cupboard bare."
You get the picture.
All that, the speech said, meant big changes - big cuts - are coming to government.
Throne Speeches don't lay out specifics. Those will come, at least to some extent, in Tuesday's budget.
But the speech, delivered by Point but written by the premier's office, made it clear that cuts and other changes are coming in every area of government.
The review of spending by B.C. Ferries and TransLink will be extended to Crown corporations and government agencies and health authorities and school districts. Grants to communities and agencies are to be reduced, Public sector wages will be frozen for the next four years. (The speech didn't say whether MLAs pay, which is indexed to inflation, would continue to rise automatically each year.)
The Liberals' argument is that revenues are down so much that deficits are unavoidable for the next four years.
But borrowing to meet today's needs would have to be repaid in future. The Campbell government is determined to keep that debt as small as possible. Beyond "critical health and education services," everything else is on the block.
There are three large concerns with that approach.
First, Gordon Campbell has maintained that over the last eight years government has been pared down to the essentials. Further cuts must come at the expense of those essentials.
Second, it is widely accepted that government spending in a downturn is a way of cushioning the impact. Stimulus spending isn't just about building highways - it's also about keeping people working in communities.
And third, the government has no mandate for this type of change.
Barely three months ago, during the election campaign, Campbell insisted B.C. would avoid the worst effects of the downturn. He promised a $495 million deficit this year and a smaller deficit next, before a return to balanced budgets. He pledged to deliver the spending commitments in the February budget.
Now, he says, none of those things actually turned out to be true.
Just as the Liberals' rejection of the HST during the campaign - in writing - turned out to be false. The Liberals devoted a large part of the Throne Speech to defending the new tax. None of it addressed the betrayal of pledging not to introduce the tax in May and reversing course weeks after the election.
The other striking policy shift - again not hinted at in the election campaign - is a further expansion of private power projects in B.C. with the aim of becoming a big exporter of electricity. The Liberals have always said the goal of the energy policy was self-sufficiency. Now B.C.'s rivers are to be developed to allow companies to become electricity exporters.
There were other measures announced in the speech.
Prince George will get a new Wood Innovation and Design Centre.
The controversial, $600-million plan to build a power transmission line northwest from Terrace along Highway 37 will go ahead. And the province is supporting a pipeline corridor to allow liquefied natural gas to be exported through Kitimat by tanker.
Cellphone in cars will be targeted by legislation and a few other promised bills will be introduced. The move to full-day kindergarten, in some form, will start by 2010. Private power companies will get more help.
But the main focus, the big theme, was the need to cut government spending sharply.
Campbell claimed a mandate for that approach. Voters elected the Liberals because they promised good management, he said.
It's tough to make that claim while insisting you completely bungled your economic forecast and budget - and didn't recognize the problems until after the election.
Footnote: The Throne Speech is available on the government website - gov.bc.ca - for those interested in taking a firsthand look.
"The worst recession in 27 years." "Seismic economic shifts that were unpredictable and brutally deceiving in their speed and force." A "maelstrom" that left "the fiscal cupboard bare."
You get the picture.
All that, the speech said, meant big changes - big cuts - are coming to government.
Throne Speeches don't lay out specifics. Those will come, at least to some extent, in Tuesday's budget.
But the speech, delivered by Point but written by the premier's office, made it clear that cuts and other changes are coming in every area of government.
The review of spending by B.C. Ferries and TransLink will be extended to Crown corporations and government agencies and health authorities and school districts. Grants to communities and agencies are to be reduced, Public sector wages will be frozen for the next four years. (The speech didn't say whether MLAs pay, which is indexed to inflation, would continue to rise automatically each year.)
The Liberals' argument is that revenues are down so much that deficits are unavoidable for the next four years.
But borrowing to meet today's needs would have to be repaid in future. The Campbell government is determined to keep that debt as small as possible. Beyond "critical health and education services," everything else is on the block.
There are three large concerns with that approach.
First, Gordon Campbell has maintained that over the last eight years government has been pared down to the essentials. Further cuts must come at the expense of those essentials.
Second, it is widely accepted that government spending in a downturn is a way of cushioning the impact. Stimulus spending isn't just about building highways - it's also about keeping people working in communities.
And third, the government has no mandate for this type of change.
Barely three months ago, during the election campaign, Campbell insisted B.C. would avoid the worst effects of the downturn. He promised a $495 million deficit this year and a smaller deficit next, before a return to balanced budgets. He pledged to deliver the spending commitments in the February budget.
Now, he says, none of those things actually turned out to be true.
Just as the Liberals' rejection of the HST during the campaign - in writing - turned out to be false. The Liberals devoted a large part of the Throne Speech to defending the new tax. None of it addressed the betrayal of pledging not to introduce the tax in May and reversing course weeks after the election.
The other striking policy shift - again not hinted at in the election campaign - is a further expansion of private power projects in B.C. with the aim of becoming a big exporter of electricity. The Liberals have always said the goal of the energy policy was self-sufficiency. Now B.C.'s rivers are to be developed to allow companies to become electricity exporters.
There were other measures announced in the speech.
Prince George will get a new Wood Innovation and Design Centre.
The controversial, $600-million plan to build a power transmission line northwest from Terrace along Highway 37 will go ahead. And the province is supporting a pipeline corridor to allow liquefied natural gas to be exported through Kitimat by tanker.
Cellphone in cars will be targeted by legislation and a few other promised bills will be introduced. The move to full-day kindergarten, in some form, will start by 2010. Private power companies will get more help.
But the main focus, the big theme, was the need to cut government spending sharply.
Campbell claimed a mandate for that approach. Voters elected the Liberals because they promised good management, he said.
It's tough to make that claim while insisting you completely bungled your economic forecast and budget - and didn't recognize the problems until after the election.
Footnote: The Throne Speech is available on the government website - gov.bc.ca - for those interested in taking a firsthand look.
Time to take the big money out of politics
Even as the last naive man in political journalism, I can't shed the idea that big donors get special treatment from parties.
Politics run on money. Advertising, charter aircraft, polling, strategists, staff - winning takes big bucks.
So when Teck Cominco sends six-figure cheques to the Liberals, or CUPE BC chips in $165,000 for the NDP campaign, I figure they have a better chance of getting access than I do. The parties know that irritating big donors threatens their chance of being elected.
The politicians insist it doesn't work that way. You could write a $5 million cheque to fund a campaign - which is legal in B.C. - but not get any extra attention from the politicians.
Even if that's true, the current system is still corrosive. A 2000 survey found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
And donors believe the same thing.
The official line is that contributors are supporting the party that, if elected, would create an environment serving their broad interests. It's cast as legitimate participation in the democratic process, not an attempt to buy special attention.
I don't buy it. Neither do the donors.
Consider Paul Martin's Liberal leadership campaign. He had an absolute lock on the job; companies didn't have to contribute shareholders' money to ensure a Martin win.
But the leadership campaign pulled in $12 million, largely from corporate donors. The only reason to contribute was to be seen and remembered as a supporter once Martin was prime minister.
Consider also the B.C. Liberals' 2001 haul of $4.3 million from corporations. The party would have had a huge majority without that money; the companies, required to act in shareholders' interests, must have expected a return for those contributions.
Which leads to the new Elections B.C. report on political contributions heading into the last election.
The Liberals were given $9.5 million for the campaign. About 70 per cent was from businesses, the rest from individuals. Less than one-third of their funds came from actual voters.
The NDP received about $5.4 million, with about 40 per cent from unions. The Green party took in $106,000. For every $50 the NDP could spend, the Greens could spend $1.
If money affects the outcome, and people and organizations donate out of self-interest, then our elections are for sale. If businesses or unions see the chance to spend money to help elect a sympathetic - or indebted - government, they will.
And the rest of us will be on the outside.
There is a way to end this.
Manitoba and Quebec have banned union and corporate donations. Ontario allows them, but limits all donations - business, union or individual - to $15,500 per year (and an extra $15,500 for an election campaign).
The federal government - with legislation passed by the Liberals and strengthened by the Conservatives - has banned corporate and union donations and limited individual donations to $1,000. "This act will put an end to the influence of big money on federal political parties,'' Harper said in introducing his bill.
Parties still need money to run campaigns. When corporate and business donations were banned federally, public funding for parties, based on the number of votes received in the last election, was introduced to supplement individual donations.
Getting that formula right is tricky. Forcing parties to make do with less cash would be useful, as volunteers and grassroots efforts would be more important.
The Greens and NDP in B.C. both pledge to ban corporate and union donations and limit individual donations.
Gordon Campbell wants to stick with unlimited donations. People can judge if a party is favouring donors and vote them out in four years, he argues.
But that's not true. Voters can't really examine hundreds of pages of donations, recognize names or monitor all government decisions.
In B.C., parties - and democracy - are effectively for sale.
Footnote: Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld called for a review of political finance rules in his report on the 2005 election. B.C. was a leader when the current regulations were introduced in 1995, but is now lagging other provinces.
Politics run on money. Advertising, charter aircraft, polling, strategists, staff - winning takes big bucks.
So when Teck Cominco sends six-figure cheques to the Liberals, or CUPE BC chips in $165,000 for the NDP campaign, I figure they have a better chance of getting access than I do. The parties know that irritating big donors threatens their chance of being elected.
The politicians insist it doesn't work that way. You could write a $5 million cheque to fund a campaign - which is legal in B.C. - but not get any extra attention from the politicians.
Even if that's true, the current system is still corrosive. A 2000 survey found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe "people with money have a lot of influence over the government."
And donors believe the same thing.
The official line is that contributors are supporting the party that, if elected, would create an environment serving their broad interests. It's cast as legitimate participation in the democratic process, not an attempt to buy special attention.
I don't buy it. Neither do the donors.
Consider Paul Martin's Liberal leadership campaign. He had an absolute lock on the job; companies didn't have to contribute shareholders' money to ensure a Martin win.
But the leadership campaign pulled in $12 million, largely from corporate donors. The only reason to contribute was to be seen and remembered as a supporter once Martin was prime minister.
Consider also the B.C. Liberals' 2001 haul of $4.3 million from corporations. The party would have had a huge majority without that money; the companies, required to act in shareholders' interests, must have expected a return for those contributions.
Which leads to the new Elections B.C. report on political contributions heading into the last election.
The Liberals were given $9.5 million for the campaign. About 70 per cent was from businesses, the rest from individuals. Less than one-third of their funds came from actual voters.
The NDP received about $5.4 million, with about 40 per cent from unions. The Green party took in $106,000. For every $50 the NDP could spend, the Greens could spend $1.
If money affects the outcome, and people and organizations donate out of self-interest, then our elections are for sale. If businesses or unions see the chance to spend money to help elect a sympathetic - or indebted - government, they will.
And the rest of us will be on the outside.
There is a way to end this.
Manitoba and Quebec have banned union and corporate donations. Ontario allows them, but limits all donations - business, union or individual - to $15,500 per year (and an extra $15,500 for an election campaign).
The federal government - with legislation passed by the Liberals and strengthened by the Conservatives - has banned corporate and union donations and limited individual donations to $1,000. "This act will put an end to the influence of big money on federal political parties,'' Harper said in introducing his bill.
Parties still need money to run campaigns. When corporate and business donations were banned federally, public funding for parties, based on the number of votes received in the last election, was introduced to supplement individual donations.
Getting that formula right is tricky. Forcing parties to make do with less cash would be useful, as volunteers and grassroots efforts would be more important.
The Greens and NDP in B.C. both pledge to ban corporate and union donations and limit individual donations.
Gordon Campbell wants to stick with unlimited donations. People can judge if a party is favouring donors and vote them out in four years, he argues.
But that's not true. Voters can't really examine hundreds of pages of donations, recognize names or monitor all government decisions.
In B.C., parties - and democracy - are effectively for sale.
Footnote: Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld called for a review of political finance rules in his report on the 2005 election. B.C. was a leader when the current regulations were introduced in 1995, but is now lagging other provinces.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Big pharma's long reach
So, when a legitimate science/slash medical journal publishes an article written by an expert researcher touting, indirectly, the benefits of a drug, can you trust it? Can you assume the scientist wrote it, or should you suspect a PR firm paid by a pharmaceutical company actually did the research, wrote the article and got the researcher to claim authorship?
And what happens if your doctor, being diligent, reads and relies on the PR firm's work?
Some of the answers here.
And what happens if your doctor, being diligent, reads and relies on the PR firm's work?
Some of the answers here.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Liberals shed principles in online betting binge
The news that the government will expand online gambling so people can lose $10,000 a week will hardly help the Liberals fight charges of duplicity.
Their handling of the gambling file has been inept, unprincipled and frequently dishonest.
Gordon Campbell and the party fiercely opposed expanded gambling in opposition. They pledged to halt gambling expansion in the 2001 campaign, citing damage to families and communities.
Then they did the opposite, launching a push to get slot machines into large and small communities - all while pretending they weren't expanding gambling.
The latest move to encourage people to bet and lose more online is sleazy and dangerous.
When the Liberals introduced online gambling in 2004, they started small. Then solicitor general John Les said the B.C. Lotteries' offering would be limited to sports betting and playing the lotteries.
And, Les pledged, people would be protected because they would be limited to losing $70 in any one-week period. "I think we're taking measures to ensure that people can't go overboard," he said. "I think we're being entirely responsible."
When the gambling was expanded to include "interactive games" - kind of an online VLT - the weekly limit was raised to $120.
Now B.C. Lotteries is chasing the big bucks. Gamblers can transfer $10,000 per week into their accounts - half-a-million dollars a year in potential losses
I understand that the province is desperate for money. And certainly, policies can change over time.
But the Liberals' opposition to gambling was, supposedly, based on principle. Those are supposed to endure.
Kevin Krueger said gambling expansion was immoral and would lead directly to family break-ups, domestic violence and even murder. Campbell took a similar position. "I want to build an economy based on winners, not losers, and gambling is always based on losers," he said. "The only way government makes money on gambling is because you lose it."
But since the Liberals were elected, they have been working to create more gamblers in B.C. and to lift even more money from each one of them.
Campbell's promise to halt gambling expansion turned out to a joke. There were 10 casinos with 2,400 slot machines when the Liberals were elected. Today, there are more than 10,000 VLTs in 31 gambling halls.
The Liberals have introduced Internet gambling, alcohol and ATMs in casinos and bigger bets and longer hours.
And created a lot more losers. The province's gambling take has more than doubled to a forecast $1.2 billion - more than the revenue from forestry or natural gas royalties.
The gambling binge meant more people were damaged. The B.C. Medical Association reported on addictions in the province earlier this year. It 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 expanded gambling. Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem. (By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.)
B.C. Lotteries' plans each year include targets for recruiting new gamblers, increasing the proportion of the population who bet and increasing the amount the average amount each person loses. The corporation's goal for this year is more than $560 in losses per adult British Columbian.
Many people don't gamble at all. To make that target, the government needs some serious losers.
Which leads back to online gambling and the new opportunity to lose $10,000 a week.
Online gambling creates a greater risk of addiction and destructive behaviour. The opportunity is always there. The "games" are designed to keep the gambler going, creating the illusion that he has some control over the outcome.
"Internet gambling is as addictive, if not more addictive, than other forms of gambling," Liberal MLA Ida Chong said in opposition.
Now, she, like her peers, is silent on the wild growth of government online gambling in B.C. You can argue that people should be free to gamble as they like and suffer whatever disasters result.
But Campbell, Krueger, Chong and the Liberals promised something better.
Their handling of the gambling file has been inept, unprincipled and frequently dishonest.
Gordon Campbell and the party fiercely opposed expanded gambling in opposition. They pledged to halt gambling expansion in the 2001 campaign, citing damage to families and communities.
Then they did the opposite, launching a push to get slot machines into large and small communities - all while pretending they weren't expanding gambling.
The latest move to encourage people to bet and lose more online is sleazy and dangerous.
When the Liberals introduced online gambling in 2004, they started small. Then solicitor general John Les said the B.C. Lotteries' offering would be limited to sports betting and playing the lotteries.
And, Les pledged, people would be protected because they would be limited to losing $70 in any one-week period. "I think we're taking measures to ensure that people can't go overboard," he said. "I think we're being entirely responsible."
When the gambling was expanded to include "interactive games" - kind of an online VLT - the weekly limit was raised to $120.
Now B.C. Lotteries is chasing the big bucks. Gamblers can transfer $10,000 per week into their accounts - half-a-million dollars a year in potential losses
I understand that the province is desperate for money. And certainly, policies can change over time.
But the Liberals' opposition to gambling was, supposedly, based on principle. Those are supposed to endure.
Kevin Krueger said gambling expansion was immoral and would lead directly to family break-ups, domestic violence and even murder. Campbell took a similar position. "I want to build an economy based on winners, not losers, and gambling is always based on losers," he said. "The only way government makes money on gambling is because you lose it."
But since the Liberals were elected, they have been working to create more gamblers in B.C. and to lift even more money from each one of them.
Campbell's promise to halt gambling expansion turned out to a joke. There were 10 casinos with 2,400 slot machines when the Liberals were elected. Today, there are more than 10,000 VLTs in 31 gambling halls.
The Liberals have introduced Internet gambling, alcohol and ATMs in casinos and bigger bets and longer hours.
And created a lot more losers. The province's gambling take has more than doubled to a forecast $1.2 billion - more than the revenue from forestry or natural gas royalties.
The gambling binge meant more people were damaged. The B.C. Medical Association reported on addictions in the province earlier this year. It 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 expanded gambling. Another 128,000 people have a moderate gambling problem. (By comparison, 33,000 people have problems with illicit drugs.)
B.C. Lotteries' plans each year include targets for recruiting new gamblers, increasing the proportion of the population who bet and increasing the amount the average amount each person loses. The corporation's goal for this year is more than $560 in losses per adult British Columbian.
Many people don't gamble at all. To make that target, the government needs some serious losers.
Which leads back to online gambling and the new opportunity to lose $10,000 a week.
Online gambling creates a greater risk of addiction and destructive behaviour. The opportunity is always there. The "games" are designed to keep the gambler going, creating the illusion that he has some control over the outcome.
"Internet gambling is as addictive, if not more addictive, than other forms of gambling," Liberal MLA Ida Chong said in opposition.
Now, she, like her peers, is silent on the wild growth of government online gambling in B.C. You can argue that people should be free to gamble as they like and suffer whatever disasters result.
But Campbell, Krueger, Chong and the Liberals promised something better.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
No, Gordon Campbell has not lost his mind
The government's binge of self-destructive, autocratic acts - health care cuts, the HST, killing Tourism B.C., axing gaming grants - might seem an indication that Gordon Campbell is losing touch.
But the always interesting Gazetteer suggested that Campbell "actually sees the current fiscal situation as a game-changing opportunity to shrink the 'ordinary business of government.'"
I'd agree. (Although how do you assess a premier who defines climate change as an enormous threat to mankind, then loses interest within 24 months?)
Creating a crisis - this time through a wildly inaccurate budget - justifies all sorts of radical change.
And there are, as I noted in the Vancouver Sun column below from just after the 2001 election, tactical advantages to sweeping, fast, radical changes.
Taking their cue from a Kiwi, the Liberals have embarked on a tidal wave of change so mighty that opponents won't be able to keep their heads above water
Wed Jun 20 2001
VICTORIA - Anyone who thinks the Liberals' legislated end to the health labour disruptions is dramatic has no idea what's ahead from this government. The Liberals plan to go very far, very fast, at a pace that overwhelms opponents and keeps reform moving at a crisis-drive pace.
Premier Gordon Campbell hasn't developed some new strategy. The Liberals are borrowing heavily from the approach of Ralph Klein. Like the Alberta Conservatives, they are turning to lessons from Sir Roger Douglas, the hard-line finance minister who drove the transformation of New Zealand in the mid-1980s.
If you want a preview of the few years, turn to Mr. Douglas' book Unfinished Business, popular in Liberal circles.
The real insight into the Liberals' tactics comes in Chapter 10, which offers a battle plan for small-government reformers. Douglas outlines 10 principles for successfully pushing through radical change in a way that overwhelms opponents.
Campbell and company have proved to be quick learners. Mr. Douglas's first principle is that for quality policies, you need quality people
It's the second and third principles that reveal just how wild the ride will be over the next year.
``Implement reform in quantum leaps, using large packages,'' advises Douglas in his second commandment. His third is just as dramatic: ``Speed is essential,'' he writes. ``It is almost impossible to go too fast.''
The month since the election shows the Liberals have embraced both pieces of advice. The tax cuts came earlier and went much farther than expected, especially after a campaign in which Campbell emphasized both the poor state of the province's finances and a commitment only to middle and low-income tax cuts. .
Campbell took the same approach in remaking government, moving to an immediate, radical restructuring that left few ministries untouched.
Douglas argues massive changes are needed. Incremental reforms, especially unpopular ones, leave groups within society feeling unfairly treated. If everyone is being affected at once, at least they can't complain of being singled out.
Rapid changes also allow governments to link both the positive and negative aspects of reform. Dramatic tax cuts depend on dramatic action to control costs, the government can argue, like ordering health care staff back to work.
Pragmatically, rapid change overwhelms opponents. Protesters can rally against individual government actions or policies, building a broad base of support and pooling their opposition. But confront them with a tidal wave of change and they can't respond, each group fixed on defending its own area of interest.
``Do not try to advance a step at a time,'' Mr. Douglas writes. ``Define your objectives clearly and move towards them in quantum leaps. Otherwise the interest groups will have time to mobilize and drag you down.''
The restructuring of government proved how well the approach can work. Specific changes -- the loss of a women's ministry, little status for arts and culture, a reduced role for environment -- might have sparked protests. As part of a massive restructuring, each individual change received less attention.
And it relies on a continuous rapid movement toward the government's goals. ``One you build the momentum, don't let it stop rolling,'' Douglas counsels. Governments should pile on the change, so opponents are still struggling to mobilize against the last reform while the newest one rolls out.
It's a prescription for government surgery conducted with a chainsaw or axe, not a scalpel.
But the always interesting Gazetteer suggested that Campbell "actually sees the current fiscal situation as a game-changing opportunity to shrink the 'ordinary business of government.'"
I'd agree. (Although how do you assess a premier who defines climate change as an enormous threat to mankind, then loses interest within 24 months?)
Creating a crisis - this time through a wildly inaccurate budget - justifies all sorts of radical change.
And there are, as I noted in the Vancouver Sun column below from just after the 2001 election, tactical advantages to sweeping, fast, radical changes.
Taking their cue from a Kiwi, the Liberals have embarked on a tidal wave of change so mighty that opponents won't be able to keep their heads above water
Wed Jun 20 2001
VICTORIA - Anyone who thinks the Liberals' legislated end to the health labour disruptions is dramatic has no idea what's ahead from this government. The Liberals plan to go very far, very fast, at a pace that overwhelms opponents and keeps reform moving at a crisis-drive pace.
Premier Gordon Campbell hasn't developed some new strategy. The Liberals are borrowing heavily from the approach of Ralph Klein. Like the Alberta Conservatives, they are turning to lessons from Sir Roger Douglas, the hard-line finance minister who drove the transformation of New Zealand in the mid-1980s.
If you want a preview of the few years, turn to Mr. Douglas' book Unfinished Business, popular in Liberal circles.
The real insight into the Liberals' tactics comes in Chapter 10, which offers a battle plan for small-government reformers. Douglas outlines 10 principles for successfully pushing through radical change in a way that overwhelms opponents.
Campbell and company have proved to be quick learners. Mr. Douglas's first principle is that for quality policies, you need quality people
It's the second and third principles that reveal just how wild the ride will be over the next year.
``Implement reform in quantum leaps, using large packages,'' advises Douglas in his second commandment. His third is just as dramatic: ``Speed is essential,'' he writes. ``It is almost impossible to go too fast.''
The month since the election shows the Liberals have embraced both pieces of advice. The tax cuts came earlier and went much farther than expected, especially after a campaign in which Campbell emphasized both the poor state of the province's finances and a commitment only to middle and low-income tax cuts. .
Campbell took the same approach in remaking government, moving to an immediate, radical restructuring that left few ministries untouched.
Douglas argues massive changes are needed. Incremental reforms, especially unpopular ones, leave groups within society feeling unfairly treated. If everyone is being affected at once, at least they can't complain of being singled out.
Rapid changes also allow governments to link both the positive and negative aspects of reform. Dramatic tax cuts depend on dramatic action to control costs, the government can argue, like ordering health care staff back to work.
Pragmatically, rapid change overwhelms opponents. Protesters can rally against individual government actions or policies, building a broad base of support and pooling their opposition. But confront them with a tidal wave of change and they can't respond, each group fixed on defending its own area of interest.
``Do not try to advance a step at a time,'' Mr. Douglas writes. ``Define your objectives clearly and move towards them in quantum leaps. Otherwise the interest groups will have time to mobilize and drag you down.''
The restructuring of government proved how well the approach can work. Specific changes -- the loss of a women's ministry, little status for arts and culture, a reduced role for environment -- might have sparked protests. As part of a massive restructuring, each individual change received less attention.
And it relies on a continuous rapid movement toward the government's goals. ``One you build the momentum, don't let it stop rolling,'' Douglas counsels. Governments should pile on the change, so opponents are still struggling to mobilize against the last reform while the newest one rolls out.
It's a prescription for government surgery conducted with a chainsaw or axe, not a scalpel.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Fish farms, First Nations and the bungling DFO
This release from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, is significant for salmon farms, I think. Some First Nations support the industry and accompanying economic opportunity, but opposition from the union would be significant. Note also that Alexandra Morton's name is on the release. Her work on aquaculture and wild salmon has been both brave and important and this alliance will help.
Conservation of Wild Salmon is Paramount
For Immediate Release
August 18, 2009
Chief Bob Chamberlin of Kwicksutaineuk/Ak-Kwa-Mish Tribes and Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) stated “The UBCIC is appalled that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is not seeking to fully understand all of the potential contributors, specifically fish farms, to the unprecedented collapse of not only Fraser River Sockeye but the many runs of wild salmon in southern British Columbia. What is immediately required is a coordinated and educated management of the fisheries from the spawning beds to international waters to the return of the salmon. We need to make the conservation of wild salmon the top priority of DFO. Instead of providing leadership during this crisis, DFO Minister Gail Shea is currently promoting Canadian fish farms in Norway."
Within two days of reporting that 11 million Fraser sockeye had vanished without a trace, the DFO Area Director for Fraser Region, Bary Rosenburger and the Pacific Region Director, Paul Sprout stated publicly that fish farms are not a factor. Fish farms are associated with wild salmon collapse worldwide (Ford and Myers 2008) and in BC (Krkosek et al 2007). When the Broughton pink salmon collapsed in 2002 their migration route was cleared of farm fish for one season (http://www.fish.bc.ca/node/135) and their survival was the highest ever recorded (Beamish et al 2006). Scientists report DFO politics interfered with the science that might have prevented Canada’s Atlantic cod collapse. (Hutchings et al 1997).
This collapse precisely hit salmon smolts that migrated north from the Fraser River and Alexandra Morton examined them as they passed the Campbell River fish farms. “I cannot tell you that fish farms killed all 11 million missing Fraser sockeye, but the ones I examined were infected with sea lice, in poor condition and unlikely to survive. We will continue to lose salmon run after salmon run unless we exhaustively explore all potential contributors for answers,” states Morton.
The Pacific Salmon Commission has revised and lowered their projections for sockeye salmon returns of the Fraser River. The Commission had originally forecasted a return of 10.6 million sockeye but is now reporting that many of the runs are far less than anticipated.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC, concluded “The UBCIC has consistently opposed fish farms and will continue to do so until such time as the destructive and deadly impacts to wild salmon are fully addressed. We continue to call on DFO to act decisively to protect wild salmon. If not, it is time for a new Minister who genuinely cares and is completely committed to the future of wild salmon."
For further comment contact:
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Alexandra Morton
Conservation of Wild Salmon is Paramount
For Immediate Release
August 18, 2009
Chief Bob Chamberlin of Kwicksutaineuk/Ak-Kwa-Mish Tribes and Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) stated “The UBCIC is appalled that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is not seeking to fully understand all of the potential contributors, specifically fish farms, to the unprecedented collapse of not only Fraser River Sockeye but the many runs of wild salmon in southern British Columbia. What is immediately required is a coordinated and educated management of the fisheries from the spawning beds to international waters to the return of the salmon. We need to make the conservation of wild salmon the top priority of DFO. Instead of providing leadership during this crisis, DFO Minister Gail Shea is currently promoting Canadian fish farms in Norway."
Within two days of reporting that 11 million Fraser sockeye had vanished without a trace, the DFO Area Director for Fraser Region, Bary Rosenburger and the Pacific Region Director, Paul Sprout stated publicly that fish farms are not a factor. Fish farms are associated with wild salmon collapse worldwide (Ford and Myers 2008) and in BC (Krkosek et al 2007). When the Broughton pink salmon collapsed in 2002 their migration route was cleared of farm fish for one season (http://www.fish.bc.ca/node/135) and their survival was the highest ever recorded (Beamish et al 2006). Scientists report DFO politics interfered with the science that might have prevented Canada’s Atlantic cod collapse. (Hutchings et al 1997).
This collapse precisely hit salmon smolts that migrated north from the Fraser River and Alexandra Morton examined them as they passed the Campbell River fish farms. “I cannot tell you that fish farms killed all 11 million missing Fraser sockeye, but the ones I examined were infected with sea lice, in poor condition and unlikely to survive. We will continue to lose salmon run after salmon run unless we exhaustively explore all potential contributors for answers,” states Morton.
The Pacific Salmon Commission has revised and lowered their projections for sockeye salmon returns of the Fraser River. The Commission had originally forecasted a return of 10.6 million sockeye but is now reporting that many of the runs are far less than anticipated.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC, concluded “The UBCIC has consistently opposed fish farms and will continue to do so until such time as the destructive and deadly impacts to wild salmon are fully addressed. We continue to call on DFO to act decisively to protect wild salmon. If not, it is time for a new Minister who genuinely cares and is completely committed to the future of wild salmon."
For further comment contact:
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Alexandra Morton
Campbell's broken recall promise saves him a headache
Gordon Campbell should be celebrating one broken promise. If he had delivered on his New Era pledge to bring effective recall legislation to B.C., his government would be on the ropes today.
And it might have been gone by next spring.
The Liberals’ integrity and mandate are both being questioned —not surprisingly, given an election campaign that failed to mention plans for the HST, health care cuts, slashed grants and was based on a bogus budget. (And that’s just so far.)
The new sales tax, which will shift some $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals, has sparked a special outrage. Campbell’s claim that he just woke up one day a couple of weeks after the election and discovered the new tax was urgently
needed is, literally, incredible.
Some angry voters are looking for any way to throw out a government - including recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs. The theory is that eight successful recall campaigns, followed by eight NDP byelection victories, would bring a New Democrat majority government.
If Campbell had fulfilled his campaign promise to introduce workable recall legislation to make it “easier for citizens to hold their MLAs accountable,” it might have worked.
But he didn’t. That means recall campaigns have to meet the requirements set by the NDP government when it introduced the process in 1995.
So campaigns can’t start until 18 months after the election. Organizers have just 60 days to get the signatures of 40 per cent of the registered voters in the last election — not of actual voters, but of all those on the list.
Take a capital riding, Saanich North, as an example. Anyone who wants to oust Liberal Murray Coell, who eked out a 245-vote win over his New Democrat opponent, would have to get 17,460 signatures from people who were registered to vote.
Coell won with just 13,120 votes. Thousands of people will have moved or died. The challenge is enormous.
Unfair, said Campbell in opposition. He introduced amendments to allow recall efforts within six months of an election and gave proponents six months to get the signatures.
And his law would have seen an MLA ousted if opponents could collect petition signatures from the same number of people who voted for the candidate, plus one.
So instead of 17,460 signatures, proponents would need 13,121. Tough, but much more doable.
The changes, Campbell said in opposition, were desperately needed.
“One of the most critical issues that faces all of us in public institutions today is the re-establishment of trust and public accountability between elected officials and those who elect them,” he said in the legislature. “The current recall and referenda legislation fails on both counts.”
His version, Campbell said, would “bring true accountability to the legislature and give us an opportunity to give our constituents the real sense of control that they deserve to have over their elected representatives.”
That was all forgotten once the Liberals were elected.
There have been 20 recall efforts since then: 19 have failed and one was halted when the MLA - Paul Reitsma - resigned.
Even with little chance of success, recall campaigns have some political appeal. They keep the targeted MLAs on the defensive and provide a focus for protests. Kevin Falcon got big publicity for the Liberals and created headaches for New Democrats in 1999 simply by threatening a “Total Recall” campaign against the NDP. He couldn’t raise enough money to go ahead.
And, positively, perhaps recall efforts would encourage MLAs to make more of an effort to earn the continued support of their constituents. It’s embarrassing to think of all those Liberal MLAs who were as surprised as everyone else when the new HST was imposed without discussion or consultation.
It’s too bad Campbell didn’t improve recall legislation. It could offer a needed safety valve when people feel they have been cheated in the election process and, as he said,
Footnote: An Angus Reid Strategies poll confirmed the public anger. The Liberals, with 34 per cent support, trailed the NDP at 42 per cent. The Greens were at 12 per cent and the B.C. Conservative Party - which barely exists - was at seven per cent.
And it might have been gone by next spring.
The Liberals’ integrity and mandate are both being questioned —not surprisingly, given an election campaign that failed to mention plans for the HST, health care cuts, slashed grants and was based on a bogus budget. (And that’s just so far.)
The new sales tax, which will shift some $1.9 billion in taxes from businesses to individuals, has sparked a special outrage. Campbell’s claim that he just woke up one day a couple of weeks after the election and discovered the new tax was urgently
needed is, literally, incredible.
Some angry voters are looking for any way to throw out a government - including recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs. The theory is that eight successful recall campaigns, followed by eight NDP byelection victories, would bring a New Democrat majority government.
If Campbell had fulfilled his campaign promise to introduce workable recall legislation to make it “easier for citizens to hold their MLAs accountable,” it might have worked.
But he didn’t. That means recall campaigns have to meet the requirements set by the NDP government when it introduced the process in 1995.
So campaigns can’t start until 18 months after the election. Organizers have just 60 days to get the signatures of 40 per cent of the registered voters in the last election — not of actual voters, but of all those on the list.
Take a capital riding, Saanich North, as an example. Anyone who wants to oust Liberal Murray Coell, who eked out a 245-vote win over his New Democrat opponent, would have to get 17,460 signatures from people who were registered to vote.
Coell won with just 13,120 votes. Thousands of people will have moved or died. The challenge is enormous.
Unfair, said Campbell in opposition. He introduced amendments to allow recall efforts within six months of an election and gave proponents six months to get the signatures.
And his law would have seen an MLA ousted if opponents could collect petition signatures from the same number of people who voted for the candidate, plus one.
So instead of 17,460 signatures, proponents would need 13,121. Tough, but much more doable.
The changes, Campbell said in opposition, were desperately needed.
“One of the most critical issues that faces all of us in public institutions today is the re-establishment of trust and public accountability between elected officials and those who elect them,” he said in the legislature. “The current recall and referenda legislation fails on both counts.”
His version, Campbell said, would “bring true accountability to the legislature and give us an opportunity to give our constituents the real sense of control that they deserve to have over their elected representatives.”
That was all forgotten once the Liberals were elected.
There have been 20 recall efforts since then: 19 have failed and one was halted when the MLA - Paul Reitsma - resigned.
Even with little chance of success, recall campaigns have some political appeal. They keep the targeted MLAs on the defensive and provide a focus for protests. Kevin Falcon got big publicity for the Liberals and created headaches for New Democrats in 1999 simply by threatening a “Total Recall” campaign against the NDP. He couldn’t raise enough money to go ahead.
And, positively, perhaps recall efforts would encourage MLAs to make more of an effort to earn the continued support of their constituents. It’s embarrassing to think of all those Liberal MLAs who were as surprised as everyone else when the new HST was imposed without discussion or consultation.
It’s too bad Campbell didn’t improve recall legislation. It could offer a needed safety valve when people feel they have been cheated in the election process and, as he said,
Footnote: An Angus Reid Strategies poll confirmed the public anger. The Liberals, with 34 per cent support, trailed the NDP at 42 per cent. The Greens were at 12 per cent and the B.C. Conservative Party - which barely exists - was at seven per cent.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
A sleazy attack on some of B.C.'s best kids
This is truly cruddy behaviour on the part of the government.
As Jeff Nagel reports here (and in Black Press papers across the province), the government has cancelled the Premier's Excellence Awards. The scholarship program has run since 1986, providing financial aid to some of B.C.'s top high school grads. The awards - bumped to $15,000 from $5,000 by the Liberals in 2005 - recognize academic excellence and community service. The application process is time-consuming - essays and the like - and the students really work at it. Finalists had been selected, and the 15 winners were to be announced mid-July.
But the government stalled and gave evasive answers and then - without notifying the students - cancelled the whole program.
Leaving aside the fact that education is supposed to be a priority with the government, this is simply sleazy. Students participated in good faith based on a government commitment, only to be betrayed weeks before their first year of post-secondary education.
The move is part of a $16-million cut in support for post-secondary students in B.C.
It will save $240,000 - less than the premier's last salary increase over the current four-year term.
As Jeff Nagel reports here (and in Black Press papers across the province), the government has cancelled the Premier's Excellence Awards. The scholarship program has run since 1986, providing financial aid to some of B.C.'s top high school grads. The awards - bumped to $15,000 from $5,000 by the Liberals in 2005 - recognize academic excellence and community service. The application process is time-consuming - essays and the like - and the students really work at it. Finalists had been selected, and the 15 winners were to be announced mid-July.
But the government stalled and gave evasive answers and then - without notifying the students - cancelled the whole program.
Leaving aside the fact that education is supposed to be a priority with the government, this is simply sleazy. Students participated in good faith based on a government commitment, only to be betrayed weeks before their first year of post-secondary education.
The move is part of a $16-million cut in support for post-secondary students in B.C.
It will save $240,000 - less than the premier's last salary increase over the current four-year term.
Friday, August 07, 2009
What I think the utilities commission was saying about private power
The B.C. Utilities Commission deserves a slap upside the head for its ruling on B.C. Hydro's plans to sign deals with private power companies that will cost consumers billions of dollars.
Not for its substance. As far as I can tell, the murky, acronym-laden swamp of a decision makes sense.
But it's incomprehensibility - not just to dabbling journalists or interested readers, but to energy experts - is appalling.
The utilities commission exists to protect the public interest. B.C. Hydro is a monopoly. It sold $2.8 billion worth of electricity within the province last year - about $650 for every person in the province.
The commission, among other things, scrutinizes B.C. Hydro's operations and plans to make sure it isn't making mistakes that result in unnecessarily high electricity costs.
This decision ruled on B.C. Hydro's long-term plan to meet energy demand in the province.
And the utilities commission had some big doubts.
It had to look at several components of the plan, starting with B.C. Hydro's forecast of future energy demand. That was OK.
Then it reviewed B.C. Hydro's plans for reducing demand, through increased efficiency and conservation and off-peak power. Curbing demand can be cheaper than adding new dams or wind turbines.
Those didn't pass the commission's scrutiny. The corporation wasn't doing enough, it ruled.
Next the commission looked at how B.C. Hydro proposed to meet the province's energy demands in the coming decades. That matters because wrong decisions mean unnecessary costs for consumers and companies. If B.C. Hydro enters into a long-term deal to buy electricity from a company developing a big power project on a B.C. river system, for example, when it's not needed, consumers pay the price.
The utilities' commission rejected B.C. Hydro's long-term energy acquisition plan.
The Crown corporation, acting on government direction, has set three criteria for new power. It has to be green - hydro, wind or burning wood waste. It has to come from private companies, not B.C. Hydro's own projects. And the capacity has to be so great that no imports would be needed.
That's consistent with the government's decision, two years ago, that climate change was an over-riding issue.
But it comes at a cost. New, green energy from private companies is expensive. If B.C. Hydro commits to paying too much, or buying too much, energy prices will be higher than necessary.
The commission - based on my reading of an opaque 200-page decision - thought B.C. Hydro could be planning to buy more power than was necessary, building a large cushion into its plans.
And the corporation had reduced the potential capacity of Burrard Thermal, the gas-powered plant in the Lower Mainland. Burrard is old and inefficient and produces a lot of greenhouse gases. But it can provide cheap standby insurance power, an alternative to costly contracts with private power corporations.
The ruling baffled everyone. It didn't order a halt to the current call for new green power projects from private corporations. But it did reject B.C. Hydro's plans to reach power deals with those companies.
Plutonic Power, one of the big IPPs, saw its share fall 19 per cent on the day after the decision's release, making it worth about $35 million less.
The bottom line, I would say, is the utilities commission judged that B.C. Hydro is trying to buy too much expensive energy from private companies, at consumers' expense.
The Crown corporation is in an interesting spot. The government and the well-connected private power companies want it to go ahead with more long-term deals.
But the utilities commission has served notice that B.C. Hydro will be taking a risk if it goes ahead.
The commission might not allow those costs to be passed on to consumers, which would threaten the $500 million - more or less - the government expects in profits from B.C. Hydro.
Unless, of course, the government abandons its commitment to an independent utilities board and opts for political interference.
Footnote: Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom called some of the analysts for the big investment houses who track the private power companies operating in the province in the wake of the ruling. The ministry won't say who got the chats with the minister. No transcript exists of the briefing, the ministry says.
Not for its substance. As far as I can tell, the murky, acronym-laden swamp of a decision makes sense.
But it's incomprehensibility - not just to dabbling journalists or interested readers, but to energy experts - is appalling.
The utilities commission exists to protect the public interest. B.C. Hydro is a monopoly. It sold $2.8 billion worth of electricity within the province last year - about $650 for every person in the province.
The commission, among other things, scrutinizes B.C. Hydro's operations and plans to make sure it isn't making mistakes that result in unnecessarily high electricity costs.
This decision ruled on B.C. Hydro's long-term plan to meet energy demand in the province.
And the utilities commission had some big doubts.
It had to look at several components of the plan, starting with B.C. Hydro's forecast of future energy demand. That was OK.
Then it reviewed B.C. Hydro's plans for reducing demand, through increased efficiency and conservation and off-peak power. Curbing demand can be cheaper than adding new dams or wind turbines.
Those didn't pass the commission's scrutiny. The corporation wasn't doing enough, it ruled.
Next the commission looked at how B.C. Hydro proposed to meet the province's energy demands in the coming decades. That matters because wrong decisions mean unnecessary costs for consumers and companies. If B.C. Hydro enters into a long-term deal to buy electricity from a company developing a big power project on a B.C. river system, for example, when it's not needed, consumers pay the price.
The utilities' commission rejected B.C. Hydro's long-term energy acquisition plan.
The Crown corporation, acting on government direction, has set three criteria for new power. It has to be green - hydro, wind or burning wood waste. It has to come from private companies, not B.C. Hydro's own projects. And the capacity has to be so great that no imports would be needed.
That's consistent with the government's decision, two years ago, that climate change was an over-riding issue.
But it comes at a cost. New, green energy from private companies is expensive. If B.C. Hydro commits to paying too much, or buying too much, energy prices will be higher than necessary.
The commission - based on my reading of an opaque 200-page decision - thought B.C. Hydro could be planning to buy more power than was necessary, building a large cushion into its plans.
And the corporation had reduced the potential capacity of Burrard Thermal, the gas-powered plant in the Lower Mainland. Burrard is old and inefficient and produces a lot of greenhouse gases. But it can provide cheap standby insurance power, an alternative to costly contracts with private power corporations.
The ruling baffled everyone. It didn't order a halt to the current call for new green power projects from private corporations. But it did reject B.C. Hydro's plans to reach power deals with those companies.
Plutonic Power, one of the big IPPs, saw its share fall 19 per cent on the day after the decision's release, making it worth about $35 million less.
The bottom line, I would say, is the utilities commission judged that B.C. Hydro is trying to buy too much expensive energy from private companies, at consumers' expense.
The Crown corporation is in an interesting spot. The government and the well-connected private power companies want it to go ahead with more long-term deals.
But the utilities commission has served notice that B.C. Hydro will be taking a risk if it goes ahead.
The commission might not allow those costs to be passed on to consumers, which would threaten the $500 million - more or less - the government expects in profits from B.C. Hydro.
Unless, of course, the government abandons its commitment to an independent utilities board and opts for political interference.
Footnote: Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom called some of the analysts for the big investment houses who track the private power companies operating in the province in the wake of the ruling. The ministry won't say who got the chats with the minister. No transcript exists of the briefing, the ministry says.
System just wasn't set up to help this baby
This is a third column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable parents who faced some big challenges.
He was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks. The basic problem was that they were too poor to find a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in a matter of months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken.
He's back with his parents today. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. But they're all doing OK, for now.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth, was asked by a legislative committee to review how this all happened.
The real problem was that the parents were poor. They couldn't afford a place to live. Income assistance stalled them, despite the babe in arms. So they stayed with relatives on a small First Nations reserve.
There were concerns about some of the people living in the house, leading to the child's apprehension.
One of Premier Gordon Campbell's earlier enthusiasms was for breaking down "silos" in government - ministries and departments operating in an unco-ordinated fashion, oblivious of their shared objectives.
In this case, parents were about to have their child taken by one ministry because they didn't have a safe place to live.
At the same time, another ministry turned down their request for emergency help finding adequate housing.
Oh, there was communication between the two.
On the day the child was taken from the mother, a Ministry for Children and Families employee called a counterpart in the Income Assistance Ministry.
Not to get help for the family, but to tell them the child had been taken into care in order "to ensure the child's mother would not apply for income assistance for the child as well."
The representative reports that members of the child's family and community thought the apprehension was rushed and other options for care within the family weren't considered.
That, I suppose, could be blamed indirectly to the media. If a protection worker delays taking a child into care and something bad happens, the decision is closely scrutinized. That's appropriate. But we should start with the assumption that workers are making hard decisions based on limited information and managing a big workload.
A friend I respect worries about columns like this. They might give the public the idea that there aren't successes or discourage frontline workers, she fears.
I have to disagree. What the workers helping this family needed was a mandate - and time - to work at a way of keeping the baby boy with his family.
In five months, the report found, at least six frontline ministry staff, a delegated aboriginal agency, a contract family services agency and income assistance were involved with the family. Everyone was clear about their role.
But, the report found, no one thought about how their role affected the little boy's life.
One week after the boy was taken from his parents, a Children's Ministry social worker said in court that the baby would be returned if they had place to live. But ministry staff did nothing to help the family take the one step that would bring their child back (and save the taxpayer money).
This is not an isolated case, the report suggests. It notes two ministry internal audits found 50 to 84 per cent compliance with its standards in the region where the boy lived while in care. The B.C. Association of Social Workers - representing frontline workers - said the report documents "the tragic consequences of a multi-directional systemic meltdown and a lack of supports, resources and anti-poverty measures."
And considering that this baby was taken from his parents and sent through a series of foster homes because his family was poor, it's notable that B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the past six years. This baby boy's rough life, sadly, wasn't an aberration.
He was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks. The basic problem was that they were too poor to find a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in a matter of months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken.
He's back with his parents today. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. But they're all doing OK, for now.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the representative for children and youth, was asked by a legislative committee to review how this all happened.
The real problem was that the parents were poor. They couldn't afford a place to live. Income assistance stalled them, despite the babe in arms. So they stayed with relatives on a small First Nations reserve.
There were concerns about some of the people living in the house, leading to the child's apprehension.
One of Premier Gordon Campbell's earlier enthusiasms was for breaking down "silos" in government - ministries and departments operating in an unco-ordinated fashion, oblivious of their shared objectives.
In this case, parents were about to have their child taken by one ministry because they didn't have a safe place to live.
At the same time, another ministry turned down their request for emergency help finding adequate housing.
Oh, there was communication between the two.
On the day the child was taken from the mother, a Ministry for Children and Families employee called a counterpart in the Income Assistance Ministry.
Not to get help for the family, but to tell them the child had been taken into care in order "to ensure the child's mother would not apply for income assistance for the child as well."
The representative reports that members of the child's family and community thought the apprehension was rushed and other options for care within the family weren't considered.
That, I suppose, could be blamed indirectly to the media. If a protection worker delays taking a child into care and something bad happens, the decision is closely scrutinized. That's appropriate. But we should start with the assumption that workers are making hard decisions based on limited information and managing a big workload.
A friend I respect worries about columns like this. They might give the public the idea that there aren't successes or discourage frontline workers, she fears.
I have to disagree. What the workers helping this family needed was a mandate - and time - to work at a way of keeping the baby boy with his family.
In five months, the report found, at least six frontline ministry staff, a delegated aboriginal agency, a contract family services agency and income assistance were involved with the family. Everyone was clear about their role.
But, the report found, no one thought about how their role affected the little boy's life.
One week after the boy was taken from his parents, a Children's Ministry social worker said in court that the baby would be returned if they had place to live. But ministry staff did nothing to help the family take the one step that would bring their child back (and save the taxpayer money).
This is not an isolated case, the report suggests. It notes two ministry internal audits found 50 to 84 per cent compliance with its standards in the region where the boy lived while in care. The B.C. Association of Social Workers - representing frontline workers - said the report documents "the tragic consequences of a multi-directional systemic meltdown and a lack of supports, resources and anti-poverty measures."
And considering that this baby was taken from his parents and sent through a series of foster homes because his family was poor, it's notable that B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the past six years. This baby boy's rough life, sadly, wasn't an aberration.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
A child taken away because his parents were poor
A child taken away because his parents were poor
This is a second column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable but challenged parents. But he was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks.
The basic problem was they couldn't afford a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in five months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken while living in the third foster home.
Now he's back with his parents. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. His disabilities are permanent. But they're all doing OK.
The Representative for Children and Youth examined the case to find out what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different ending.
The ministry has already done an internal review. It found that required steps in investigating child protection concerns were skipped, available information wasn't considered and there was too little effort to learn about the child's extended family.
Once the boy was taken from his parents, care was "not fully consistent with legislation, policy and service standards," the internal review reported vaguely. Assessment, training and monitoring of the foster home were he was living when injured were all "were not fully consistent" with policy and standards.
The review resulted in mushy recommendations to review plans and send out memos and hold meetings.
The representative didn't find that adequate. And Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond offered a reminder of what this was all about - a child a few months old, removed from his parents by the state, completely dependent on the adults in his life for all his needs.
The representative's report noted that only one thing blocked the parents from keeping their child - the lack of housing. Everyone acknowledged that.
But in the five months from the time a child protection concern was raised until the baby was hurt, no worker or agency addressed that problem.
The income assistance ministry turned the family away when they sought emergency help; the children and families ministry didn't address the housing issue. If they had been found a one-bedroom, safe apartment, even a motel room, everything might be different.
Helping the family into housing might have cost some money and time. But even at $800 a month, that would be at least 50 per cent cheaper than foster care,.
And, as the representative notes, because of the injuries "the lifelong cost of caring for this child is unknown." I'll guess though, at something well over $4 million.
But there was no evidence that the ministry considered finding a motel room or coming up with a housing subsidy as a better alternative for the baby than apprehension and foster care.
The problems - poverty and no or bad housing - aren't new. The Hughes report, in 2006, noted that poor families were far more likely to have their children apprehended. The First Nations community that was home to this family has a housing waiting list of 200 people.
The representative noted that in First Nations communities, a housing shortage means many family member share one home out of necessity. The ministry acts as if parents have a choice about where the live. So their children are apprehended "largely because they are unable to immediately create a living situation that they could not reasonably be expected to achieve."
Even if people can find their way to income assistance, the representative found, the housing allowance leaves them $200 to $400 a month short of what is needed. A family of three, like this baby boy's, is allowed $660 a month for rent. Check out the apartments and basement suites in your community and see what is available for that rent.
The result, the representative found, is that children are taken from their parents because they are poor. "This places the basic human rights of children in jeopardy and tears families apart in tragic way, especially aboriginal families trying to recover and rebuild," the report found.
The baby boy's parents kept working to reunite their family. They finally secured suitable housing in November 2008. "They deserve credit for their determination, but will now care for a developmentally disabled child while continuing to struggle with poverty," Turpel-Lafond said.
All because, instead of finding them a place to live, the state took their child away.
Next: Isolated case, or a systemic problem?
This is a second column about a three-year-old boy. He started life healthy, loved by capable but challenged parents. But he was taken from them, based on legitimate concerns, at three weeks.
The basic problem was they couldn't afford a safe place to live. He moved through three foster homes in five months and then ended up in hospital, with symptoms suggesting he was shaken while living in the third foster home.
Now he's back with his parents. He's blind in one eye, can't walk and has cerebral palsy. His disabilities are permanent. But they're all doing OK.
The Representative for Children and Youth examined the case to find out what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different ending.
The ministry has already done an internal review. It found that required steps in investigating child protection concerns were skipped, available information wasn't considered and there was too little effort to learn about the child's extended family.
Once the boy was taken from his parents, care was "not fully consistent with legislation, policy and service standards," the internal review reported vaguely. Assessment, training and monitoring of the foster home were he was living when injured were all "were not fully consistent" with policy and standards.
The review resulted in mushy recommendations to review plans and send out memos and hold meetings.
The representative didn't find that adequate. And Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond offered a reminder of what this was all about - a child a few months old, removed from his parents by the state, completely dependent on the adults in his life for all his needs.
The representative's report noted that only one thing blocked the parents from keeping their child - the lack of housing. Everyone acknowledged that.
But in the five months from the time a child protection concern was raised until the baby was hurt, no worker or agency addressed that problem.
The income assistance ministry turned the family away when they sought emergency help; the children and families ministry didn't address the housing issue. If they had been found a one-bedroom, safe apartment, even a motel room, everything might be different.
Helping the family into housing might have cost some money and time. But even at $800 a month, that would be at least 50 per cent cheaper than foster care,.
And, as the representative notes, because of the injuries "the lifelong cost of caring for this child is unknown." I'll guess though, at something well over $4 million.
But there was no evidence that the ministry considered finding a motel room or coming up with a housing subsidy as a better alternative for the baby than apprehension and foster care.
The problems - poverty and no or bad housing - aren't new. The Hughes report, in 2006, noted that poor families were far more likely to have their children apprehended. The First Nations community that was home to this family has a housing waiting list of 200 people.
The representative noted that in First Nations communities, a housing shortage means many family member share one home out of necessity. The ministry acts as if parents have a choice about where the live. So their children are apprehended "largely because they are unable to immediately create a living situation that they could not reasonably be expected to achieve."
Even if people can find their way to income assistance, the representative found, the housing allowance leaves them $200 to $400 a month short of what is needed. A family of three, like this baby boy's, is allowed $660 a month for rent. Check out the apartments and basement suites in your community and see what is available for that rent.
The result, the representative found, is that children are taken from their parents because they are poor. "This places the basic human rights of children in jeopardy and tears families apart in tragic way, especially aboriginal families trying to recover and rebuild," the report found.
The baby boy's parents kept working to reunite their family. They finally secured suitable housing in November 2008. "They deserve credit for their determination, but will now care for a developmentally disabled child while continuing to struggle with poverty," Turpel-Lafond said.
All because, instead of finding them a place to live, the state took their child away.
Next: Isolated case, or a systemic problem?
Monday, August 03, 2009
A little boy, failed by the system and forgotten by the rest of us
It’s fitting, in a grimly symbolic way.
Just when attention might be paid to the little boy who fared so badly in the government’s care, a swirl of bigger news stories pushed him into the shadows.
We don’t know his name. The little boy has a right to privacy. Not much else.
The representative for Children and Youth set out his story — how he went from a healthy baby boy to a three-year-old who had suffered devastating injuries that left him with cerebral palsy. He’s blind in one eye, can’t walk yet and faces a life of struggle.
The boy was born on July 9, 2006. His mom was 20; his dad 24. They were from the same First Nations community and had rough childhoods themselves.
But they loved their baby and were capable of nurturing him. They moved back into the boy’s grandparents’ home on an unidentified reserve to care for him.
It was not a great place for an infant. On July 28, someone called the ministry of children and families and said it was not a safe home for a child. Alcohol abuse, neglect, even physical abuse were possible.
The ministry responded admirably. Social workers checked the files and made immediate home visits. They checked on the baby boy, who was doing well. They explained to the parents why the grandparents’ home was not safe.
The mother understood. She said they were going to live with another relative as an interim measure.
There was a 200-person waiting list for reserve housing. To deal with the concerns, she needed help from the ministry of income assistance to get off-reserve housing.
And the mother applied for the help. The income assistance ministry told her to come back after the mandatory three-week wait, if she had found a place. She was denied interim financial assistance.
In September, the ministry received a report the family was back in the grandparents’ home and, apparently, other concerns were raised. The investigating social worker decided the risk was serious enough that the boy should be taken from his parents.
An RCMP officer and social workers from the ministry and the aboriginal agency that provided services found the mother walking her two-month-old son in a stroller.
She had been living in the grandparents’ home for a week because they had no money to live anywhere else, the young mother said. She had been in the hospital for several days and the boy’s father had been caring for him.
And the workers took the baby away.
He was placed in a foster home that day. (A relative who provided foster care offered to take him. That offer was apparently never followed up on.) The parents suggested two other relatives who could care for the child. The ministry says it couldn’t reach them; the family says they were never called.
The ministry came up with a risk-reduction plan that would allow the child to be returned to his parents, once housing was secured and support was provided. But it didn’t do the required plan of care for the child. This is tangled and difficult work, of course. The social worker referred the parents to family counselling. They didn’t go.
The first foster home placement was on a 30-day contract. When it ended on Oct. 2, the baby was moved to another foster home.
In early November, the boy’s mother requested the ministry return her child because she had found shared housing. It wasn’t safe enough, workers decided.
Meanwhile, the child’s second foster mother became ill. So on Dec. 12, he was moved to a third foster home.
It’s worth pausing to think about this. The baby was barely five months old and had been with his parents and in three different foster homes. All good intentions aside, as a parent or grandparent, how do you think a child you loved would handle those changes? How long would he cry for a missing blanket or a person he had come to associate with comfort?
On Dec. 18, the baby boy had a successful supervised visit with his parents. Two days later, it all went wrong. The foster home reported he was unwell. At B.C. Children’s Hospital, doctors said his injuries were consistent with having been shaken. Criminal charges were laid against a caregiver in the foster home and then later stayed.
After almost a month in hospital, the baby was sent to his fourth foster home in January 2007.
In July, he was returned to his parents and started receiving support because of his massive disabilities. He has been making progress in their care since then, but is struggling with permanent, severe disabilities.
Next: What did we learn from this family’s tragedy?
Just when attention might be paid to the little boy who fared so badly in the government’s care, a swirl of bigger news stories pushed him into the shadows.
We don’t know his name. The little boy has a right to privacy. Not much else.
The representative for Children and Youth set out his story — how he went from a healthy baby boy to a three-year-old who had suffered devastating injuries that left him with cerebral palsy. He’s blind in one eye, can’t walk yet and faces a life of struggle.
The boy was born on July 9, 2006. His mom was 20; his dad 24. They were from the same First Nations community and had rough childhoods themselves.
But they loved their baby and were capable of nurturing him. They moved back into the boy’s grandparents’ home on an unidentified reserve to care for him.
It was not a great place for an infant. On July 28, someone called the ministry of children and families and said it was not a safe home for a child. Alcohol abuse, neglect, even physical abuse were possible.
The ministry responded admirably. Social workers checked the files and made immediate home visits. They checked on the baby boy, who was doing well. They explained to the parents why the grandparents’ home was not safe.
The mother understood. She said they were going to live with another relative as an interim measure.
There was a 200-person waiting list for reserve housing. To deal with the concerns, she needed help from the ministry of income assistance to get off-reserve housing.
And the mother applied for the help. The income assistance ministry told her to come back after the mandatory three-week wait, if she had found a place. She was denied interim financial assistance.
In September, the ministry received a report the family was back in the grandparents’ home and, apparently, other concerns were raised. The investigating social worker decided the risk was serious enough that the boy should be taken from his parents.
An RCMP officer and social workers from the ministry and the aboriginal agency that provided services found the mother walking her two-month-old son in a stroller.
She had been living in the grandparents’ home for a week because they had no money to live anywhere else, the young mother said. She had been in the hospital for several days and the boy’s father had been caring for him.
And the workers took the baby away.
He was placed in a foster home that day. (A relative who provided foster care offered to take him. That offer was apparently never followed up on.) The parents suggested two other relatives who could care for the child. The ministry says it couldn’t reach them; the family says they were never called.
The ministry came up with a risk-reduction plan that would allow the child to be returned to his parents, once housing was secured and support was provided. But it didn’t do the required plan of care for the child. This is tangled and difficult work, of course. The social worker referred the parents to family counselling. They didn’t go.
The first foster home placement was on a 30-day contract. When it ended on Oct. 2, the baby was moved to another foster home.
In early November, the boy’s mother requested the ministry return her child because she had found shared housing. It wasn’t safe enough, workers decided.
Meanwhile, the child’s second foster mother became ill. So on Dec. 12, he was moved to a third foster home.
It’s worth pausing to think about this. The baby was barely five months old and had been with his parents and in three different foster homes. All good intentions aside, as a parent or grandparent, how do you think a child you loved would handle those changes? How long would he cry for a missing blanket or a person he had come to associate with comfort?
On Dec. 18, the baby boy had a successful supervised visit with his parents. Two days later, it all went wrong. The foster home reported he was unwell. At B.C. Children’s Hospital, doctors said his injuries were consistent with having been shaken. Criminal charges were laid against a caregiver in the foster home and then later stayed.
After almost a month in hospital, the baby was sent to his fourth foster home in January 2007.
In July, he was returned to his parents and started receiving support because of his massive disabilities. He has been making progress in their care since then, but is struggling with permanent, severe disabilities.
Next: What did we learn from this family’s tragedy?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
I am trying to break you heart
I know we're heading to a long summer weekend, but everyone should read this report from Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.
It's a review of the travails of a baby boy who was taken from his parents as a result of legitimate, but easily addressed concerns. All they really needed was help finding an apartment .
While living in his third foster home, and still not six months old, he suffered massive injuries, consistent, doctors said, with being shaken. He is back with his parents as a three-year-old with cerebral palsy, blind in one eye and unable to walk.
I have a friend who is troubled by the attention on these reports. She fears it slights or discourages the workers doing great things every day, in impossible circumstances.
I think paying real attention is the greatest honour we can do those people.
It's a review of the travails of a baby boy who was taken from his parents as a result of legitimate, but easily addressed concerns. All they really needed was help finding an apartment .
While living in his third foster home, and still not six months old, he suffered massive injuries, consistent, doctors said, with being shaken. He is back with his parents as a three-year-old with cerebral palsy, blind in one eye and unable to walk.
I have a friend who is troubled by the attention on these reports. She fears it slights or discourages the workers doing great things every day, in impossible circumstances.
I think paying real attention is the greatest honour we can do those people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
