Taking a break

Time for a little change of pace. Blogging will be highly intermittent to non-existent for a while until we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Moving past the politics of blind division

I admit to being a bit critical of government.
Crabby, you might even say.
I like to think I’m offering useful information and constructive perspective, but not everyone is going to see it that way.
Which is fine. As it’s fine to challenge my arguments or offer an alternate view of the issues. I was charmed by the headline last year on a letter to the editor responding to a column last year — “If Willcocks likes it, it must be bad.”
But it’s puzzling and frustrating when some readers think that a critical look at the policies or actions of the party in power means a writer must support another political party.
And it’s worrisome. It speaks of polarized, mindless divisions and the politics of contempt. People don’t talk about policies. They pick teams. Hell’s Angels versus Bandidos, Leafs versus Canucks.
Policies don’t matter, only loyalties.
I have done this kind of work in five provinces. The attitude toward politics varied widely. In New Brunswick, political loyalty brought direct benefits like a government job (which was at risk if the other party won next time). In Alberta, people united behind a dominant governing regime.
But in B.C., we pick sides. If you criticize the NDP position on the carbon tax, then you are expected to support the Liberal position on minimum wage. If you criticize the Liberals for not having a plan to reduce child poverty, then you must think the NDP is right on private power.
That makes no logical sense. On election day, voters have to choose between candidates and parties. But, except for the hardcore partisans and loyalists, between elections molst of us can worry about policies.
We can be free to praise the party in power for good actions and carp at it for failures.
When we don’t, public discourse is cheapened, reduced to slogans and posturing. It demeans us as thinking, caring people.
And to the extent that people buy into the need to pick sides, we lose the benefit of their intelligence and experience.
The Liberals, for example, are keen to expand private power production for export. There are risks of higher electricity rates for residents as a result.
It’s complex and we would benefit from a discussion. But if people feel compelled to support or oppose it on some party basis, there is no critical discussion of the benefits and costs.
It’s troubling for a columnist. Between elections, the opposition doesn’t much matter. The party in power sets the budget and brings in the policy changes and deals with the problems and opportunities. So you write generally about how it is doing. The opposition criticizes, but sets out few clear policies.
And mostly I write about things that could be done better.
That’s a compliment to readers and our political system. It’s based on the belief that journalism provides information and perspective to people.
That they then weigh all the information and use their good judgment and experience to form their opinions and act on them. And that politicians respond to the public. Otherwise, what’s the point of writing this stuff, or reading it?
It can be negative. Probably a few more columns about successes would be good. But with a couple of columns a week, it seems important to write about a problem that could be fixed or examine an issue that matters.
And it can seem partisan. When the New Democrats were in government and I was writing about their truly dismal performance, I was characterized as a Liberal supporter. Now the topics involve Liberal stumbles – often, sadly, in the same areas – and I’m seen as a shill for the NDP.
Writing about things that the party in power could and should do better by shouldn’t be seen as support for the opposition.
Public policy matters. To reduce it to us versus them undermines democracy and creates more stupid, destructive politics.
Footnote: For the record, I think I have voted for Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates in federal and provincial elections, depending on the candidates and the policies and issues of the day.

'Rural' tax break for Whistler chalet owner; not for PG renter

There's a certain late-1990s NDP quality in the budget's $200 tax break for "northern and rural homeowners."
By any rational economic or public policy test, the move makes no sense.
The government is collecting $80 million from all taxpayers and then redistributing the money to some people, without any consideration of need or public benefit.
Poor people, who have it really tough, will pay taxes that will be redistributed to multimillionaires who need no help at all.
But the ploy scores political points and spins well - both important to the NDP government of the late-'90s and, apparently, the Campbell government.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the tax credit - an add-on to the homeowner grant - would provide "breathing room" for people in communities hit hardest by the economic downturn.
It does no such thing.
The government decided to give $200 to every homeowner living outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. (More specifically, outside the Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Capital Regional Districts.)
About 70 per cent of British Columbians live in those three excluded areas. No matter how tough time are for their families, no money for them. They're paying taxes to help other people.
Which, given competent government, could be OK. We accept the notion that those who are doing well will help those who aren't.
We grumble. We certainly worry about waste. But when government can show that our taxes help a sick person get care or a child get a fair chance at life, most of us are willing to write the cheques.
But not so much if we're giving money to people who are already financially better we off than we are.
Which is what the government is doing.
Kelowna is, according to the government, a northern or rural community. People who own houses there will get the $200 from other taxpayers.
The unemployment rate in Kelowna is about six per cent.
In Prince George, unemployment is 12.9 per cent, more than twice the level in Kelowna.
Kelowna's population includes many people who are doing just fine, to their credit. But why would we send money to someone doing well? Especially when the money was being, in part, from people who were doing very poorly, while still paying taxes?
A laid-off forest worker in Sooke won't get the grant because he lives in the CRD; instead, he will pay taxes in part so a person living in a $2-million house in Whistler will get the $200 as a "rural and northern resident."
And the grants only go to homeowners. That would be fine if the goal was to provide a little extra income to people who owned homes.
But Hansen said it was to all help provide "breathing room" for all people in hardhit communities. A lot of the people suffering through this recession are renters, many of them in the middle-income brackets. They get nothing; in fact a portion of their taxes will go to providing a $200 cheque to the neighbour on the next block with a mortgage-free houses.
There is a vaguely sensible public policy buried deeply beneath all the political calculations. The recession's impact has fallen particularly heavily on people in specific communities. And within the community, the blows have fallen hardest on a specific group. People who were really poor before the recession still are; people who were relatively comfortable have some cushion.
But people working for modest wages, with narrow skills and living from pay cheque to pay cheque, have had a tough time. You could argue for targeted aid in some form.
Just tossing out $80 million and hoping for the best doesn't really qualify as targeted aid.
The money could fund career training each year for 8,000 people displaced from their jobs by the recession. It could increase income assistance benefits for families for a time after they employment insurance benefits expired.
There are lots of options. Instead, a single mom working for $14 an hour is going to pay taxes to provide $200 to a millionaire vineyard owner in Oliver.
Footnote: The rural and northern homeowners grant was part of the Liberal government's pre-election budget last year, the one that projected a deficit of $495 million, one-fifth the size of the real shortfall. Despite other cuts, the program is going ahead next year.

Cut steals communication from the disabled

Many of us fear being trapped in our bodies in old age, unable to communicate.
For some people, that's a reality long before they're old.
An amazing initiative has been changing that reality — and people's lives. But now the provincial government has eliminated its modest support for the program.
Giving the gift of communication to people with disabilities isn't a priority.
The name is a little dull - Communication Assistance for Youth and Adults, or CAYA.
But the work is astonishing. It combines advanced technology, therapy and ingenuity. The results are life changing.
Imagine being 29, and suffering from a spinal cord injury or illness that meant you couldn't speak or sign or communicate. When doctors asked about pain, you couldn't answer. You couldn't ask for something you badly wanted or tell someone how much you cared.
CAYA changes that. The speech pathologists work with clients to find the best way to communicate. The tech people identify the best communication device. There's training and support.
Imagine that gift for you or someone you care about.
The CAYA website has some wonderful client stories. People freed from the prison of their bodies to work and share life. You should read them. It's heartening and humbling to see the enthusiastic embrace of life from people dealing with such big challenges.
Like Melissa Yaretz of Sicamous. She's 19. She has struggled to survive physically. But she was an academic star in high school, thanks to advanced communications technology.
"Without a communication system there would have been no grades and no proof that I am all that I am." Yaretz wrote. "I would have just sat in the back of the room looking cute. Cute only works for so long. Without communication, to the rest of the world I am just a woman in a wheelchair with a severe disability, who is dependent for everything."
Or Andrea Paterson of Abbotsford. Her Lightwriter voice communication device gives her a voice and allowed her to move into a group home.
"I use my Lightwriter to help the staff at my new group home know what I like to do, to eat, or how I am feeling," Paterson says. "Once when I was sick I wrote 'I want to go home.' I love to have fun and to tease the staff and the Lightwriter helps me do that. I love it here!"
Government revenues are down and costs must be balanced against benefits.
But cutting a small amount of funding that produced huge changes in people's lives betrays the values most of us live by.
Since 1989, SET - Special Education Technology B.C. - has been working to help school-age children communicate. In 2005, CAYA was created to extend the effort to adults, with government support.
Two years ago, then education minister Shirley Bond and income assistance minister Claude Richmond announced a $500,000 grant for CAYA. "Our government wants every British Columbian to achieve their very best, both in school and in life," said Bond.
"I know that CAYA will continue to make a tremendous difference in the lives of those with severe communication disabilities," Richmond said.
But now the government has eliminated funding. A disabled person with a chance of employment or a volunteer role can apply to CAYA, which will dip into the money it has left to help.
Otherwise, disabled people are apparently not worth the money it would take to allow them to communicate.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible, said government recognizes the program's effectiveness and how lives have been changed.
"However, the economic downturn has placed significant pressure on our programs and we are no longer able to provide funding to the CAYA project," Coleman wrote. (MLAs, beyond having forgone a one-per-cent wage increase, haven't cut their wages or benefits.)
Last word to Melissa Yaretz.
"What about Love? I too desire love from life and all that it can mean. How can someone love me if they don't know me? How can they know me if they don't understand me? To be able to communicate all my thoughts and feelings allows others to know all of me inside and out. As I desire an equal place in life, I also desire the same of love."
Sorry, the government says. Too expensive. Go away.

It would save lives, but photo radar is not returning

Photo radar saves lives and reduces injuries and health care costs.
It's simple. Drivers pay more attention to speed limits if they're worried about tickets. And when they obey the posted speed limits, fewer people are maimed and killed.
There is no real debate about those basic facts. The global research and the evidence from B.C. are overwhelming.
That doesn't mean people must support photo radar. They can argue the money spent on the equipment could produce greater safety improvements if it was used in some other way.
Or they can maintain that some laws shouldn't really be enforced too rigorously, though it's hard to see the logic of that position. Or that photo radar is unfair in some unspecified way.
But the reality is that B.C. politicians have decided it's not worth getting yelled at over an unpopular measure, even if better law enforcement would save lives. That's why the NDP and Liberals both reject the return of photo radar and run like scared cats when the issue comes up.
Mostly. NDP MLA John Horgan did a radio interview in Victoria and said he personally supports photo radar because it saves lives.
Which prompted a quick response from the Liberal caucus communications people (whose salary you pay).
"NDP wants to resurrect failed photo radar plan," the title said.
The staffers crafted imaginary quotes for Solicitor General Kash Heed. Photo radar was a "total failure" in B.C., they imagined Heed saying. "Only the NDP would want to resurrect a plan to use police as tax collectors rather than having them on the street fighting crime and targeting problem drivers."
Crash deaths fell 15 per cent in 2008 compared with 2007, the release noted. Other policing efforts have worked to make the roads safer.
But that's not really true. Photo radar caught speeders in B.C. for six years. The average number of people who died in crashes was 408.
In the six previous years, the toll had averaged 534.
In the same period after photo radar was eliminated, the average number of people killed in crashes was 439.
So despite the new measures, the lives of 30 more families each year were shattered. Many were victims of someone else's speeding, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thousands more people were injured. The costs to us all were huge, from health care to higher insurance rates.
A study that looked at the first year of photo radar in the province found a "dramatic reduction" in speed at deployment sites. "The analysis found a 25-per-cent reduction in daytime unsafe-speed-related collisions, an 11-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17-per-cent reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities," the report said.
Another review analyzed data from 26 photo radar studies around the world. Crashes were reduced by between 14 per cent and 72 per cent. Fatalities by 40 to 46 per cent.
There's lots of support for photo radar. The RCMP and ICBC and Surrey council all sought photo radar for the Patullo Bridge.
And a 2007 poll for the Canada Safety Council found 75 per cent of British Columbians supported photo radar on the highways - and 90 per cent in school zones.
Politically, it's still poison. The NDP photo-radar was tainted by the government's unpopularity. The program was wasteful, with a police officer in each van. And people felt the predatory locations were chosen to boost revenue.
But there are effective alternatives. Boxes for photo radar - or speed cameras - could be mounted on traffic lights or utility poles at high-risk areas. Cameras could be rotated from location to location. Speeders would be caught and more people would drive closer to the speed limit.
Lives would be saved, hospital costs reduced and insurance rates kept lower - and families protected from tragedy.
Perhaps police officers watching for traffic offenders would be even more effective. But the government is not likely to hire a lot more of them.
Or, sadly, to bring back photo radar.
Footnote: Give credit to Horgan for a straight answer. Many MLAs - not all - would have responded to a question about an issue like photo radar with blather, determinedly saying nothing. Honesty and straight talk are refreshing.

Glowing HST report too little, too late

There are two big problems with the economic analysis the government released this week to try and win support for the HST.
It's a year too late.
And it only addresses the questions the Liberal government wanted answered - not the issues British Columbians have with the new harmonized sales tax.
The approach to HST represents one of the great government fumbles. The tax isn't an easy sell, but in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces the governments figured out a way to take it to the public for a real discussion.
Not here. The Liberals vowed not to introduce the HST during the election campaign 10 months ago because it would be bad for B.C.
Weeks after winning the election, they decided to bring in the tax. According to the Liberal line, which isn't convincing many people, they had some sort of epiphany in the weeks after the election.
The HST was suddenly revealed to be not just OK, but critical to the province's future.
The analysis from Jack Mintz, a University of Calgary economist and former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, supports the decision. The government paid him $12,000 for a 12-page report on the impact of the new tax.
It's a great move, he concluded. The HST shifts the costs of government services from businesses to individuals and families.
Companies will pay less tax in capital investments in B.C. - things like new equipment or expanded operations. Lower taxes mean higher return on investment, so companies will choose to invest here rather than in some other jurisdiction. That, mostly, creates jobs.
Mintz estimates that by 2020 the HST will have resulted in $11.5 billion in additional capital investment - new equipment and factories and business start-ups.
Overall, Mintz predicts, the tax will mean a net additional 113,000 jobs by 2020. That's about five per cent more than the current number of jobs.
Mintz has a PhD in economics. I have an English degree and one economics course.
But there are a couple of legitimate questions here.
If the HST was such an obvious way to attract $11.5 billion in investment and bring 113,000 new jobs, why weren't Gordon Campbell and Hansen alert to that possibility a year or two ago? How could they be clued out about the benefits?
And given that this is a big change - a $1.9 billion a year tax shift from business to individuals and families - why is the first analysis being done nine months after the government decided to bring in the new tax?
According to Campbell, the government didn't one study or review of the impact on British Columbia before it decided to introduce the tax. That's an admission of incompetence.
The other problem is that the Mintz review doesn't look at the impact on ordinary British Columbians.
Budget documents show most British Columbians - aside from the poor - will pay more in total taxes to the provincial government this year, with the HST the biggest factor.
The budget offers six examples of the way different people will be affected. Seniors with an income of $30,000 and a single person with income of $25,000 will pay less.
The other four examples provided will pay between 2.1 per cent and and 6.2 per cent more. A family of four with a household income of $60,000 faces a 5.4 per cent increase in provincial taxes and fees.
The review doesn't analyze the higher cost of living as a result of the tax, which TD Economics put at 0.7 per cent. And it doesn't offer any information on the effect on wages.
The HST is quite likely a positive measure.
But the questions for the Liberals remain. If the HST was so great for B.C., why did Campbell reject it during the election campaign? What sort of government introduces a huge tax change with no studies or consultation?
And how can the public trust a party that promises one thing, and does the opposite?
It will take more than a 12-page report to answer those questions.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder in Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a scathing report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.
Footnote: In the small world department, Mintz is a director of Brookfield Asset Management, the effective controlling shareholder of Western Forest Products. WFP was enriched by some $200 million by then forest minister Rich Coleman in 2007, when he released land near Victoria from tree farm licences. The provincial auditor general, in a damning report, said there was no justification for the gift, no effort to ensure benefits for the public and a failure to even consider the public interest.

Going backward on support for families who step up to help children

The B.C. Association of Social Workers offers informed and balanced analysis. Thus the concerns about changes to supports for grandparents and other family members who step up to care for children should be given serious consideration. Children need families.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BC ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
MARCH 11, 2010

“EXTENDED FAMILY PROGRAM” OFFERS IMPROVED SUPPORTS FOR SOME, BUT DISQUALIFIES TOO MANY OTHERS

Effective April 1st, the provincial government will institute changes to support services for family members/family friends who have stepped in to care for a child whose parents cannot look after them. The Child in a Home of a Relative (CIHR) program under the Ministry of Housing and Social Development will be phased out, with no new applications accepted after March 31st, 2010. The new Extended Family Program (EFP) under the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), heralded by the provincial government as a way to “support strong, stable home environments and ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth who are temporarily unable to live with their parents,” states its most important goal is to “improve outcomes for children and youth.”

The majority of these children will be living with their grandparents. In fact, there are more children being raised by their grandparents in BC than there are in the foster care system. A recent survey by Parent Support Services Society of BC and the University of Victoria School of Social Work indicated that half the grandparents raising their grandchildren had the children placed with them by MCFD. Grandparents have been referred to as ‘the underground foster care system’ for good reason.

The BC Association of Social Workers has reviewed the new Extended Family Program, and has identified some major concerns:

Although anyone currently in receipt of CIHR benefits will continue to be covered under that program until the child reaches the age of majority, after March 31st, the only apparent option for a relative who undertakes the care of a child is through the Extended Family Program. If they do not qualify, they will be left with very few supports – and indeed many will not qualify. Two major flaws are apparent in the planning for the EFP:

• The only gateway to the new program is through the child’s parent, who must request and agree to the arrangement. Too often that parent cannot be found, suffers from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street engaged, may have an estranged relationship with the grandparents or simply may be unwilling or unable to cooperate for a variety of reasons.

• The new policy disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child to receive services, even if they have great need. This is despite the fact that MCFD staff and often lawyers advise grandparents (or other relatives) to obtain legal guardianship because of the protection it affords the child and the grandparents in decision making and acquiring services for the child.

Unlike the CIHR plan, which covers children until they age out, the service plan under the Extended Family Program will be reviewed every six months, and supports will continue “as long as there is an assessed need and the parent agrees that the out-of-home placement remains the best option for the child.” This leaves relatives unable to plan far into the future as all or some supports could disappear in a very short time. The agreements are “not expected to continue beyond 24 months maximum... unless an assessment of the child’s needs supports a longer timeline.” Two years in the life of a child who has likely experienced substantial turmoil, and whose parents may have chronic problems that interfere with their ability to parent, is extraordinarily brief. Many grandparents hope that their child will be able to parent again when well. Sometimes that is possible. Often the children stay with their grandparents until they are grown or the grandparents are too old or ill to care for them. But this program can only assure them they will receive help for between 6 and 24 months.

As for the screenings and assessments, we are concerned that these procedures now become the responsibility of MCFD. No new funding or staffing has been allocated to handle the additional workloads in an already under-resourced ministry. While we support the need for in- depth assessments, adding this task to social work caseloads which are already too high in most regions will only result in critical delays across the board to families needing help, and create untenable situations for professional staff.

We do not note any appeal system for people refused under the new program, nor is there any increased advocacy funding or service to assist with navigation, clarification, problem solving etc. In fact, it has been reduced, with the elimination of LawLINE, which was often the first step in receiving legal rights information.

We applaud the services the new Extended Family Program will provide – financial help, respite care, medical, optical and dental benefits, increased access to counselling services – it’s all good. But why, we ask, has this program been designed to deliberately exclude many of the families who need it most – the family members who cannot locate or have an estranged relationship with the child’s parent, the grandparents or other relatives who fought for legal guardianship to protect the child’s best interests – many of whom live near or beneath the poverty line or struggle on fixed incomes, and who have undertaken responsibility for a child or children who may have many special needs.

Currently, 4500 families receive benefits under CIHR and less than 200 under Kith and Kin agreements. With the tight screening criteria of the Extended Family Program, it is likely that few families will qualify. For those who do, it will be a wonderful benefit. For the vast majority who do not, it will be devastating.

BCASW asks the government to review this program in the light of our concerns, and institute the changes that will ensure no children are excluded from the help they need to live in a safe and secure family environment. Specifically, we ask that:

• Legal guardians be considered eligible for the EFP • Caregivers be allowed to apply for the EFP in circumstances that preclude a parent from giving consent
• The program be reframed from a ‘temporary’ stopgap to one that offers help until a child reaches the age of majority, where it is in the child’s best interests. • Funding be increased to MCFD to handle the additional workload • MCFD establish an external advisory body that includes social workers, legal advocates and other stakeholders
• MCFD recognize the unique hardships and contributions of grandparents and other relatives/close family friends and demonstrate its commitment to supporting children to remain with extended family on a long term basis if needed.

Health care cuts for disabled cost us all

The latest cuts to health services for the poorest British Columbians crossed a line.
The income assistance and disability benefit cuts are cruel, wasteful and petty.
And the hypocrisy and contempt for the public - everyone, not just those disabled and poor people hurt by the cuts - is shameful.
The cuts weren't announced as part of the budget last week or included in the ministry's service plan.
Instead, the public affairs bureau - the government's $26-million-a-year communications arm - put out a news release headlined "Province protects services for low-income clients."
In fact, it was cutting services for those people.
The basic goal is to reduce the health benefits for people living on provincial disability benefits and income assistance.
They are already dirt poor. A disabled person in B.C., unable to work and with no other income, gets $906 a month, with $375 of that for housing. That's $10,872 a year, including $4,500 for housing.
Meanwhile, MLAs can claim up to $19,000 just for an apartment to use while they’re in Victoria. And Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for income assistance, billed taxpayers $18,654 in the most recent reporting period just for meals and accommodation while he was in the capital.
Yet he says people paying all their bills from an income barely half that much should find money for medical costs (most of which MLAs don't have to pay).
Disability and income assistance benefits have included some medical equipment and supplies necessary "to help reduce serious health risks."
But the program was too generous, the government decided.
For example, the benefit plan recognized that people on income assistance or disability benefits couldn't afford birth control and covered the cost of IUDs. No more.
So people who were not good at taking birth control pills or couldn't use them for medical reasons are now at greater risk of pregnancy. The result will be more unwanted children born to poor families, or more abortions. Neither seems desirable for a sensible government.
The government will no longer pay for medical testing devices such as glucometers for diabetics. People with the illness - often called a disease of poverty - are supposed to find the money themselves out of an income equivalent to a full-time job paying $5.75 an hour.
Most won't. Glucometers are essential for measuring glucose levels in the blood and managing diabetes. Without monitoring, which lets individuals manage their illness, the risks of medical complications and much more expensive care rise sharply.
What can be dumber than measures that increase illness, abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And what can be smaller than beating up on these people to save, in the case of the cuts to medical equipment and supplies, $3 million this year and $6 million next year?
The government had no hesitation in giving MLAs a raise last April (though salaries are frozen this year). And it spent $16.4 million last year to enrich pensions for MLAs - more than all these cuts to the vulnerable will save annually.
Petty and wasteful seem covered.
Cruel is more subjective. But consider this cut. The government has provided a minimum shelter allowance to people between 59 and 65 even if they were homeless or not paying rent. It was only $75 a month, but it helped.
Now it's taking that money away.
So a 62-year-old woman who had been getting by on the basic disability income - $531 a month - plus the $75 shelter allowance, will now face a 12-per-cent cut in income.
If she makes it to 65, the federal pension of $1,170 a month will be will be $640 higher than the amount the Liberal government thinks seniors should be able to survive on.
The Liberals didn't run on cuts to support for disabled British Columbians.
And Coleman has no studies or analysis to show this makes sense. It would be hard to find a doctor in B.C., outside the Liberal caucus, at least, who would support them.
Dumb, small, mean - and incompetent.
Footnote: Coleman said the cuts are needed because more people are on income assistance. That hardly seems unexpected. The economic slowdown has meant more people have lost their jobs. For too many, once EI benefits and their savings run out, income assistance is the only option.

Low point, again

Question: How can this committee encourage more strongly positive collaboration and engagement between the ministry and the children's representative?

Answer, from Lesley du Toit, deputy minister, Children and Families.
I can only reiterate that it has been our intention from the day that the representative arrived here, and it will continue to be our intention, and it is certainly built into our practice. We have built in systems, processes and various other mechanisms. I will ask Mark Sieben to talk to some of this, but it is our fundamental commitment to work together with anybody else who is committed to the children and families of this province. I will not accept that we will not do that.
What I was saying earlier on does not take away from the fact…. In fact, I was trying to emphasize that our job as two professional organizations committed to children across this province is to put our heads down — and sometimes, hopefully, together — and focus on the children of this province and figure out ways in which we can do that together.
I'm committed to doing that. My team is committed to doing that. We could spend probably the next hour or two explaining every possible process and mechanism that we've put into place to make sure that we honour that, including an interface unit which you, I think, have a report on in the package. It is fundamentally there to do nothing else but make sure that the representative gets what she needs to be successful in doing her job.
I want to make sure that everybody understands that that is our commitment, and I would like to ask Mark if he can add to that.

This is a low point

Watch the video from publiceyeonline.com, and consider if this is the response you want from those in positions of power.

Bad news budget

The main news from the budget is that life in B.C. is going to be worse for most people over the next several years.
For all our crabbing about government, it provides useful services for individuals and communities.
And this week’s budget sets the stages for cuts in almost every aspect of government services, from environment to health care to schools.
The Liberal government is sticking with its September commitment to balance the budget by 2013-14. That means tight controls on spending.
More than half the ministries - that’s 11 of 20 - are projected to spend less in 2012 than they did in the fiscal year that is just ending.
In many cases the cuts are deep. The aboriginal relations budget, for example, is to fall from $67 million to $37 million. (The money for reaching treaties has been cut by 80 per cent.) The forest ministry budget is cut from $1 billion this year to $606 million.
Some changes are understandable. The government sees no significant recovery for forestry, so the ministry is likely to shrink.
The cuts aren’t just in those areas. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said the budget aimed to support children and families.
The children and families ministry gets a 1.2-per-cent increase this year and then faces a funding freeze for the next two years, despite inflation, population growth and growing demand.
Funding for universities and colleges is effectively frozen for the next three years.
Even health care faces a continued squeeze. Funding for health regions will go up 4.3 per cent in the 2010 budget, which is significant.
But it’s also a lower increase than the health authorities received this year, which resulted in cancelled surgeries and reduced care.
The education budget increased 2.8 per cent, to cover the costs of introducing kindergarten. But the extra money - $140 million - is less than half the shortfall school districts across the province are reporting. And the per-pupil grant will only rise 1.3 per cent this year.
The bottom line is that government will be doing much less. In theory, people often like the idea. But when their children sit in crowded classes or their community’s water supply is contaminated, they aren’t quite so keen.
Especially when they are paying more. There were no tax surprises in the budget.
But the harmonized sales tax is coming, which will mean about $270 in increased sales taxes for a middle-income family of four. MSP premiums are increasing by $84 a year for most families. And B.C. Hydro rates are forecast to jump an average eight per cent a year.
The government did face real pressures. The global economic meltdown reduced its revenues sharply. Maintaining services would mean either higher taxes or deficits for a longer period. (The federal government has opted for the second approach.)
But the Liberals - who vowed never to run deficits - have opted instead for reduced services as part of a short-term effort.
Overall, the budget is counting on healthy revenue recovery - 5.8 per cent this year - and program spending increases are to be held to less than half that amount.
The impact will be significant, and not just in services. The plan calls for the elimination of about government 4,000 jobs, or about 10 per cent of the workforce. (The government is also attempting to freeze wages for the next three years as contracts expire.)
And the news isn’t good for anyone already looking for work. The government predicts it will take two years for employment to grow to the level it was at the beginning of 2009.
The budget reflects short-term thinking. The goal is to eliminate the deficits as soon as possible, accepting reduced services. That reduces future debt, but as the government points out in the budget documents, B.C.’s debt is manageable.
And it reflects some wishful thinking as well. The return to balanced budgets, for example, counts on limiting the health spending increase in the final year of the plan to 2.9 per cent. That’s highly unlikely.
It’s going to be a tough three years, especially for those who need government services that just aren’t there.
Footnote: The hokiest part of the budget was the announcement that HST revenue would be dedicated to health care. It’s an obvious attempt at phoney spin; all the money flows into general government coffers and is allocated as the politicians choose.

Stents

I wrote about heart surgery not long ago. The issue was whether health authorities should be restricting access to the use of stents in treating clogged and weakened arteries.

It used to be that doctors treated abdominal artery problems by cutting open the patient's chest and using a plastic tube to patch weak points.

Stents are newish. Instead of prying open your chest, surgeons make a small slit in your groin, slide the stents up into the right place and then use a balloon to expand the little metal mesh tube. The artery is kept open. Drugs built into the stent keep the cells from growing back around.

Is it worth the big money? Read this, a link from a knowledgeable reader

Fixing the pension crunch before it's too late

Canadians are worrying about pensions these days.

But for the most part, the worrying isn't translating into much constructive action. The B.C. government deserves credit for leading a push to change that.

The concern is understandable. Once people could count on workplace pension plans and basic government pensions to cover a relatively short retirement.

But companies have been getting out of the pension business and trimming benefits. Private pension plan coverage peaked two decades ago; today, only 25 per cent of British Columbians have a workplace plan.

RRSPs were supposed to encourage people to save on their own. But personal savings rates have been falling since 1982. (Although home equity is a source of retirement income for many.)

The core problem is that our system of retirement incomes hasn't evolved with these changes.

Canada's current pension system rests on three pillars.

Basic public pensions are paid from tax revenues and are intended to keep people from the grimmest poverty.

Old age security and the guaranteed income supplement together provide about $1,170 a month for people with no other source of income. (Which is, it's worth noting, about 30 per cent more than a disabled person is supposed to survive on under B.C.'s income assistance program.)

The Canada Pension plan is the second pillar. It provides defined benefits for people who have worked based on their contributions over their careers. The highest benefit is about $935 a month.

Those public pensions are relatively poor compared with other developed countries. But that mattered less when working Canadians could count on a plan through their employer or union and their own savings.

An analysis done last year found middle-income Canadians face the greatest retirement crunch. Poor people experience a relatively small drop in post-retirement income because they already don't have much. Rich people tend to have savings and workplace plans.

Those in the middle face the steepest decline in income.

Time is running out for action. The big bulge of baby boomers is heading toward long retirements.

This is not just a problem for them.

Remember, for example, that the basic old age pension is paid from current tax revenues.

Back in 1971, there were 6.2 British Columbians of working age for every person over 65. Today, the ratio is 4.3 to one. And by 2034, there will be 2.4 people of working age for every person over 65.

So in 1971, six people of working age shared the cost of providing the basic pension for one retiree. In 2034, just 2.4 people will be sharing the cost. That's a greater burden. And the political clout of the baby boom gang could lead them to pressure politicians to bump up pensions at the same time.

Premier Gordon Campbell has promised improvements. In October 2008, he made pension reform the second item in his 10-part plan to respond to the global economic crisis. B.C. was prepared to push ahead on its own if a national agreement couldn't be reached, he said.

Progress has been slow, but that's not surprising. The issues are complex.

Campbell's proposal would see a new voluntary pension plan created. There would be no tax benefits and employers could choose whether to contribute. Pensions would be based on the amount of money contributed.

Which sounds much like an RRSP without the tax breaks.

But there would be advantages. The fund would be managed by existing public sector pension management agencies. That would mean participants would avoid management and sales fees, which can eat up RRSP and mutual fund returns.

And there would be safety and security for people contributing to the plan.

But it's far from the only option. And deciding on the plan is not even the first question. The starting points should be what kind of retirement income are we striving for and how we believe responsibility should be shared.

I'll look at that in a future column - but not until after the budget.

Footnote: The provincial government has started consultations on pension reform. It has useful background here and people have until the end of March to offer comments.

Inside the decision to kick miners out of the Flathead

One of the big throne speech surprises was the promise to ban mining and oil and gas development from the Flathead Valley in the East Kootenay.

The valley is north of the Montana border, beside a U.S. national park. It's the headwaters for the Flathead River, a big deal in Montana. For decades, there has been cross-border wrangling. B.C. wanted the area open for resource activities. Montana wanted it protected.

Now Montana has won.

There are several interesting aspects to this.

First, the decision undermines critics who say the Liberal government is pro-industry. The Mining Association of B.C. called the ban "dismaying," claiming it was unfair political interference. The environmental assessment process should determine whether companies could go ahead with coal, gold and coalbed methane projects, it said, adding that the decision will cost jobs and tax revenue.

Second, it offered a glimpse at how decisions are made. Environmental groups in Montana have been active in calling for a ban. And there has been some high-profile political pressure. U.S. Sen. Max "Blame Canada" Baucus went to a meeting in Fernie in 2005 to oppose coal-mining plans and got a hostile reception from Liberal MLA Bill Bennett.

You can get the tone from Bennett's subsequent legislature speech when he wondered what "unscrupulous, traitorous twit" invited Baucus, who was a big antagonist in the softwood lumber dispute.

But at the same time, Montana Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer was meeting quietly with Premier Gordon Campbell over five years. They came to trust each other, Schweitzer said. They worked hard to keep the talks secret and out of the news. "We were quietly, methodically always moving forward," he told the Flathead Beacon.

Campbell deserves the credit, he said. He kept coming back to the table, even when times got tough.

Third, the politicians' response to the ban highlights interesting differences between the U.S. and Canada.

After the throne speech announcement, Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com asked Mining Minister Blair Lekstrom if the companies who have leases and had spent money on development would be compensated. At least four companies have provincial permits, leases or claims.

"I'm not at a point where I can speculate," Lekstrom replied.

Which is interesting, Holman noted, as Schweitzer readily confirmed that companies affected by the ban - and similar measures on the U.S. side - would get government compensation.

So did Lekstrom not know about the arrangement? Did the government decide on the ban without knowing if compensation would be paid? Is Campbell the only one who can speak for the government?

Or are they just more open and transparent down there in Montana?

Last week, Campbell said there would be some "minimal" compensation costs.

That too is interesting. Schweitzer seemed to think the costs would be more significant and plans to press the U.S. federal government to contribute to the compensation B.C. has to pay. "The costs are greater on the Canadian side," he said.

Bennett acknowledged some compensation would be paid.

But the companies should have known they were wasting time and money, he said. "So come on, let's be honest about this," he told the Cranbrook Daily Townsman. "There was never going to be a mine in the Flathead Valley and I think people with claims there know it."

But - while stating he didn't think coal mining was a good idea - Bennett had always said the companies' plans would go through the normal approval process.

The government "wouldn't make a simple, unilateral political decisions to just scrap the due process, and to heck with the proponents rights and to heck with the reputation of B.C. to investors from around the world."

Pragmatically the decision makes sense - the opposition to mining in the valley, from both sides of the border, was intense.

And with this action, the government heads off, at least for a while, calls for the Flathead to be included in a park, which would prevent logging, hunting and other activities.

Footnote: Among the companies seeking compensation, reports Gerry Warner of the Daily Townsman, is Teck Corp. The corporation is a major donor to the Liberal party, contributing about $500,000 since 2005. It has eight coal licences in the Flathead and renewed them as recently as 2008.

Watch out – an army of greedy geezers is coming

Are you going to have enough money when you retire? If you’re too young to worry about that, are you prepared to start paying big taxes to pay for better pensions and health care for all those boomers?

Federal budget officer Kevin Page reported this week that Canada isn’t doing enough to get ready for the impact of millions of retiring baby boomers.

I’d been looking at similar issues in B.C., prompted by the government’s pension review.

It’s fascinating — and very worrying — stuff (at least for a numbers geek).

Consider this. In 1971, there were 6.2 British Columbians of working age for every person over 65.

Today, the ratio is 4.3 to one.

By 2034, there will 2.4 people of working age for every person over 65. Basic public pensions — old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for those with little or no other income — come from current tax dollars.

So back in 1971, about six people of working age shared the cost of providing a basic pension for each retired person. (And for their health care.)

By 2034 — which is closer than 1971 — just 2.4 people will be picking the tab for each retired person. That’s a way bigger commitment.

It’s not quite that simple. Back in 1971 children — those under 18 — made up 35 per cent of the population. By 2034 they will be less than 18 per cent. People in the 1970s were paying for fewer seniors each, but more children. (And there were more stay-at-home moms in 1971.)

Still, you can calculate a rough dependency ratio. In 1971, about 56 per cent of the population was working age. The rest were under 18 or over 65.

The percentage of people of working age increased steadily over the last 29 years. That has benefits because people of working age pay the taxes and generate the economic activity that supports the young and the old. (Not entirely, of course.)

That also made the last few decades a good time to be in government.

The working-age population in B.C. is set to peak next year at 65 per cent and then start declining again.

By 2034 it will be down to 58 per cent.

Why does that matter? The more people in the working-age group, the lighter the individual cost of providing services for young and old. Better services are affordable. Or people can choose to pay less in taxes. Or they can choose and encourage governments to borrow against the future.

That’s another aspect of all this — the political clout of the baby boomers. It’s not that we’re selfish, necessarily. But there are a lot of us, so politicians pay attention to our interests.

When baby boomers were interested in schools for their children — the late 1970s and early 1980s — governments thought schools were important. When our hips and knees started going, waitlists for those operations became a health-care priority.

And pretty soon we’re going to worrying about retirement incomes and residential care.

Watch out, you young ’uns.

Again, consider the numbers. Back in 1971, people over 65 made up 14 per cent of the voting-age population. Today, they’re about 19 per cent.

And in 2034, people over 65 will make up 25 per cent of the voting age population.

Add in the fact that younger voters tend not to bother to cast ballots and the support of geezers is going to be critical to political parties. So if we want better health care and richer pensions, governments will look for ways to provide them. Even if that means higher taxes for those of working age or deficits and debt that will have to be repaid after we’re dead.

The changes are all predictable. Which makes it that much more surprising that we have done so little to prepare for them.

Footnote: Planning hasn’t been so great at the other end either. The number of school-age children has been declining since 2000 and the government pushed for school closures. But in three years, the numbers will begin climbing sharply. Within 13 years, the school population will be the largest in B.C.’s history.

Good care, cheap care and secret decision-making

It seems a simple choice.

If you have an abdominal aneurysm - a bulge and weak spot in an artery - there are two treatment options.

Doctors can cut you open from breastbone to hips, push your organs over and sew in a plastic tube to replace the weak spot. After a week or so in hospital, you face a long recovery.

Or they can make a small incision in your groin and insert a stent - a little compressed metal mesh tube - into the artery and then slide it into place and expand it. A day or two in hospital and you’re as good as new.

Personally, I’d like option two. That’s what Bill Clinton had last week and he was home the next day.

But for health authorities it’s complicated. And a dispute between vascular surgeons and the Vancouver Island Health Authority is opening the door on the world of health care rationing. It’s not pretty.

The surgeons want to do more of the stent procedures. The health authority wants to control costs so it sets a quota on the number on them - 38 this fiscal year.

The surgeons are supposed to manage so that about 100 patients get the traditional surgery and the 38 people at greatest risk of complications get the stent treatment.

The surgeons got so frustrated they went public. Patients who needed the stent surgery were being made to wait because of the quota, they said. Patients said they felt the authority was playing Russian roulette with their lives. An aneurysm can burst without warning.

And, the surgeons said, the costs are the same if you include the extra time in acute care beds required by patients who undergo the traditional surgery.

It gets interesting here.

VIHA costs the traditional open surgery at about $1,500. A nurse, anesthetist and surgeon.

A stent procedure, it figures, costs $19,500. The little mesh tubes, perhaps an inch long, cost about $13,000 each. The surgeons say you can’t just look at operating costs. As well as being better for high-risk patients, the stent procedure means about a week less in hospital, so the real costs are in the same range.

The authority’s response explodes a health care myth. We tend to think care is limited by hard factors — too few beds or nurses, not enough MRI scanners.

VIHA said the savings from having patients spend a week less in hospital aren’t real. Some other sick person would just occupy the bed and the money would still be spent.

The health authority, because of the funding from government, needed that sick person waiting at home, not getting care.

Logically, the correct response would be to do the stent procedure and then leave the bed vacant for a week. The cost would be the same and the patient would be better off.

But that wouldn’t happen. People could accept their child waiting for needed care because there just wasn’t a bed. But not to meet an arbitrary budget quota.

The health authority said the doctors were being unreasonable, perhaps unprofessional, in seeking to use the stent surgery when it wasn’t warranted.

The surgeons said they limited the use to necessary cases and the arbitrary cap was foolish and dangerous. They had tried to work with the health authority to come up with a rational approach and been turned down.

And the public got a jarring look at health care. Even if you don’t know who is right, this process looks ridiculous.

It’s not just VIHA. The Fraser Health Authority went through a similar dispute last year.

And it’s not just stents. A wide range of cuts and rationing are being made without clear rationale, the support of doctors or any public discussion.

Ultimately, that’s the biggest concern. The government sets a funding level and the health authorities make life-and-death decisions about service levels behind closed doors.

And the public is left far on the outside.

Footnote: Stents are gold for the companies that have the patents. As all this was being reported, Boston Scientific Corp. said it would pay Johnson & Johnson $1.7 billion to settle a stent patent dispute. The two companies sell about $2 billion worth of stents a year; globally it’s a growing $7 billion a year business.

Liberals drifting away from concerns of British Columbians

I figured out why the throne speech worked so badly. It wasn't enough like a magazine cover.

Magazine editors know you have to grab readers with something that promises to make their lives better.

That's why the covers offer "Six ways to cut your grocery bill" or "Five tips to help you child get better grades" or "Four sure paths to business success."

The throne speech didn't tell British Columbians how the government proposed to make their lives better, except in the most abstract ways.

Streamlining the approval process for mines is a worthwhile goal, and could create jobs. But the speech never expressed those benefits clearly. There was no list of "Six ways we're helping you have a chance at a better job."

And what are people to make of a passage like "new emphasis will be placed on parental involvement and on tailoring our education system to each child's individual needs, interests and passions."

It sounds vaguely positive. But it doesn't say anything. There's no chance a parent can hear that and believe the government actually is doing anything to make life better for their child.

Some sections came closer, like the commitment to introduce preschools over the next five years.

But they were so vague it was hard to know if they would actually meet families' needs.

It's not a question of bad writing or a throne speech crafted by committee.

It's a symptom that the government has actually lost sight of the fact that its reason for existence is to make the lives of British Columbians, now and in the future, better.

And that it needs to be able to draw a direct link between whatever it does and the results for us.

Plans for a "comprehensive strategy to put B.C. at the forefront of clean energy development" are fine - if they benefit British Columbians.

There will be some jobs, certainly, and some companies will do well. But if the strategies just mean higher electricity costs for most of us, why is this a government priority?

The problem was on display the day after the throne speech, in the first question period of this session.

Citizens' Services Minister Ben Stewart was asked about a privacy breach that left confidential files on more than 1,400 British Columbians in the hands of an employee convicted of fraud. The people weren't told for seven months they were at risk. Reviews the government failed to protect their information and failed to respond to the breach.

NDP MLA Shane Simpson asked Stewart to apologize to those 1,400 people for the failures that put them at risk of identity theft.

Stewart wouldn't. Surely saying sorry to citizens you have failed is simply recognizing that they are your first concern.

Even more striking was Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid's response to questions about the deep cuts school districts are making.

She noted that funding to districts rose by 1.9 per cent this year, in spite of a declining enrolment. And she pointed to the coming full-day kindergarten and the expansion of StrongStart centres for preschoolers.

But mostly, MacDiarmid talked about how much the government was spending - not about whether children were getting better educations. Why not say districts are being asked to cut to help keep the deficit down and explain why the government believes it's necessary and possible?

The ministry's budget for the fiscal year that starts April 1 is slated to increase by less than one per cent. School districts have to provide a provincially negotiated teachers' pay increase of at least two per cent. Something has to give.

Why not acknowledge that and explain the main things being done to ensure students' educations aren't being compromised?

An Angus Reid poll last April found less than one-third of British Columbians thought Premier Gordon Campbell understood the problems of people living in the province.

The government isn't doing much to change the minds of all those who think the Liberals are unconcerned with their futures.

Footnote: The throne speech made an effort to sell the harmonized sales tax, but stumbled. In the election campaign 10 months ago, the Liberals said the tax would be bad for British Columbians; the speech said "nothing is more important" for the province's economic future than the tax. The flip-flop is too glaring for people to miss.

Not a whole lot for you in this throne speech

The throne speech, written by the premier's office and read by the lieutenant governor in the legislature, is supposed to set out the government’s intentions.

The problem is the speeches are generally vague.

And in the case of Gordon Campbell's governments, they frequently sketch giant initiatives or tout some grand new cause or direction.

But often, not much happens.

In 2005, the pre-election throne speech featured the "five great goals for a golden decade," which sounded like a slogan from Mao-era China. There hasn't been much talk since of being "a Canadian pioneer in support for people with disabilities and special needs, children at risk and seniors."

After the election, the throne speech for the new session focused on the urgent need for a "new relationship" with First Nations. That didn't get far either.

The 2006 throne speech was about health care reform and announced a "province-wide conversation on health." That $3 million effort - as well as Campbell's fact-finding trip to France, Sweden, Norway and the U.K. - produced few real results.

And 2007 was the year Campbell seized climate change as not just an issue, but also a moral crusade. It's too early to say how much progress will be made.

There wasn't any over-riding theme in this week's throne speech. There was the expected cheering for the Olympics and a defence of the harmonized sales tax.

The speech promised an effort to speed up approvals for big projects like mines. The province hopes to persuade Ottawa that only one environmental assessment is needed for major projects, instead of both federal and provincial reviews.

At the same time the government plans to streamline its own approval process and try to persuade municipalities to look at ways they can make it easier and faster for projects to go ahead.

The speech also promised a review of property tax rates in the province, likely aimed at reducing conflict between municipalities and big industrial taxpayers who claim they are gouged.

The government is also going to push "green energy" projects ahead more quickly, despite concerns about sharply rising electricity rates as a result of that direction. Bioenergy - using wood to produce power or ethanol - is to get a boost.

At the same time, the government announced a ban on mining and oil and gas production in the Flathead Valley on the Montana border in the province's southeast.

What was in it for the average family?

Not much. Families with children under 18 will be able to put off paying their property taxes until their children are older, but there were no details.

The speech talked about "significant reforms" in the education system, but gave no useful information.

More parental involvement, "new forms of schooling," smarter approaches to cut administrative costs were all promised. The latter could mean fewer school districts or elimination of school boards.

The government is still keen on public-private partnerships and the speech promised a P3 dealing with education support services.

And the promised pre-school for three- and four-year-olds is apparently to be delivered by the private sector, not the school system.

The speech sounded another warning about health care costs without offering any clear idea what the government plans to do about them. There was talk of innovation and new choices for patients.

But there was also a warning that health care might become harder to get. "Stemming the unaffordable growth in health costs is essential in meeting our obligation to balance the budget by 2013," the speech said.

Poverty, housing affordability, social issues, employment opportunities - they all got short shrift in the speech.

In fact, told people to expect less. "We must curtail expectations of government," the speech warned.

Given the spending cuts coming in a majority of ministries in next month's budget - and the current shortfalls in health, education and almost every other area - that's probably the critical message from the speech.

Footnote: The green power push will be among the more controversial elements of the policy. The government wants to increase electricity efforts, but major industrial users have warned the plan could double power rates in B.C. with little public benefit.

Children's ministry shunning recommendations to help kids

The ministry of children and families is a competency test for government. The Liberals, like the NDP before them, are failing.

They bungled the ministry in their first four years. As the scandals mounted, the government asked Ted Hughes to review the problems.

He blamed botched restructuring and budget cuts, in part. And he made 62 recommendations, including restoration of the independent oversight the Liberals had eliminated.

Premier Gordon Campbell promised to adopt them all. He appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. Oversight and advocacy and complaint resolution were important for children in trouble, the government conceded.

But four years after the Hughes report, the ministry is ignoring the office. And Children's Minister Mary Polak looks badly out of touch.

Turpel-Lafond reports to a legislature committee, which met this month for an update. She told the MLAs most ministries had responded to her recommendations in two reports from last year.

But not the children's ministry, which had by far the largest role. Polak told reporters she was "perplexed." Not once, but 11 times in a 16-minute scrum. (Publiceyeonline.com has video.)

"We have been regularly meeting with her," Polak said. "She's aware of how we intended to be responding. Some of the reports, of course, have yet to be responded to. Some we have responded to."

The representative was clearer.

She told the committee about Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care, released last February. It found children in the government's care - some 9,000 this year - were more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than to graduate from high school.

We claim responsibility for these children and then fail them. The report, delivered to the government a year ago, remember, had sensible recommendations.

Take one. After studying the factors that snared children in crime, the representative recommended that each time a child was involved with the justice system, the plan of care would be reviewed within 30 days to include steps to deal with the criminal behaviour.

If your son or daughter got in trouble, Turpel-Lafond told the committee, that's what you would do. You would look at their stresses, their friends, whether drugs are a problem. You would do everything to get them back on track.

And children in care need the same help.

The recommendation called for the ministry to have the first step - a plan to report quarterly on children in care involved with the justice system - by last November.

But a year after the report, the ministry hasn't responded to the recommendation.

It doesn't have to adopt the measure. The ministry could judge the recommendation not needed or impractical. "It's perfectly fine," Turpel-Lafond said, "to say we reject your recommendation."

But some response is required.

"In order for oversight to work and for change to happen when we do major pieces of work like this, there has to be engagement," she said.

And in her view - not really refuted by Polak - there has not been.

The second report, completed last July, dealt with the terrible story of a baby taken from his parents because they couldn't afford housing. He was injured and permanently disabled while in care. Now he is back with his parents.

The representative's first recommendation said that by Jan. 1 the ministry should have a policy for front-line staff that every effort should be made to avoid taking children from their parents because of poor housing. (Children need their parents and it's cheaper to help with housing than to pay for foster care.)

The ministry, Turpel-Lafond said, has not responded.

Something has gone wrong. If the process were working, Polak wouldn't have been perplexed.

Even days later, when the Public Affairs Bureau released its written statement on the problems, there was nothing about the ministry's actual response to the recommendations.

Polak is to present at the committee's next meeting on March 3. She needs to have real answers.

Footnote: It's unclear why the process has broken down so badly. But Polak or the committee is going to have to find a way to get it back on track.

Once more, the Danes provoke us

We are, once again, on the brink of conflict with the Danes, this time over shrimp.

It does seem a little odd that a country that destroyed the East Coast cod fishery is claiming the high ground on conservation.

But it does give me an excuse to post this column from 2005, when Hans Island loomed as our own Falklands.

A father’s advice, on the eve of war with Daneland

VICTORIA - Son, I know you’re ready to serve your country.
Art school is fine. Perhaps you’ll go back there some day.
But right now, it’s important to stand up to the Danish war machine, before they launch a sneak attack from Daneland and crush the non-existent inhabitants of Hans Island.
No, that’s not near Saltspring. Don’t you students watch the news?
Hans Island is in the north somewhere between Greenland and some Canadian cold place. Defence Minister Bill Graham angered the war-mongering, cheese-loving Danes when he flew over the island in a helicopter and, in a rare carefree moment, said ‘Hey, let’s land on that rock and take some pictures.'
Provocation, the Danes whined, scoffing their fancy open-faced eel sandwiches. Eel sandwiches, son. These people are barbarians, who have never even grasped the concept that a sandwich requires two pieces of bread.
Now the Danes are ready to do battle to try and take away an important Canadian rocky outcrop, which they falsely claim as their own.
Sure, Hans Island is nothing special. A flat rock in a cold ocean, about 100 metres wide and 3,000 metres long. Even birds aren’t dumb enough to live there, and based on that penguin movie they are not picky.
But darn it, son, Bill Graham says it belongs to us. And if we aren’t willing to support a man who has spent a lifetime travelling the world preaching the Gospel in overheated arenas, can we really be Canadians?
Yes, it’s a useless lump of rock today.
But wait a few centuries and global warming will turn Hans Rock into a strategic must-have, our government says. Cruise ships and oil tankers will be booting it through the Northwest Passage as if it was a police-free shortcut home from the bar on Friday night.
Hans Island could be our toll booth, or help us protect the environment, or something. And maybe there’s oil, or kryptonite, waiting to be discovered.
Anyway, that’s not the point, son. This is about sovereignty, and national pride.
Those Danes are laughing at us, an insult made more cruel because of their normal melancholy. They’re taking breaks from watching their beloved women’s handball games to sneer at our way of life, wandering around with their freakishly large dogs, munching their beloved Danish pastries, telling each other Canadian jokes.
They’ve been tormenting us for years, those Victor Borge loving lowlanders.
Consider Ole Kirk Christansen, his company supposedly making ironing boards, stepladders and wooden toys, flying under the radar. In 1955 Christansen struck, unleashing Lego. Three generations of Canadian parents have spent the best years of their lives on their knees each evening, picking up hundreds of tiny plastic blocks, inevitably missing the ones that will later stab into their heels.
The coming conflict won’t be easy, son. It took Germany less than four hours to conquer Denmark in 1940, but we aren’t Germany. Denmark has about twice as many tanks as Canada, and air and sea forces are evenly matched. (Although we outnumber them six to one in population.) We need to negotiate rules of engagement that allow some sort of time-out if anybody gets hurt or one of our submarines catches on fire.
I know what you’re thinking, son.
Is this really your fight? How come I’m talking so tough for somebody who never fought anyone? Where is Daneland? What don’t Graham and his Danish counterpart fight this out on the island, with an appropriate split of the pay-per-view money? What’s with all the question marks?
But ultimately this is simple. The enemy isn’t just trying to take our freedom, or extract some revenge because Aqua was a global one-hit wonder. (Though Barbie Girl was catchy.) No, they hate our freedom, and our liberty.
It’s tough to go to war.
It’s especially tough when the whole conflict would have been ignored if it wasn’t summer and the media desperately short of real news stories.
But life is cruel. Good luck, son. Bring us back some cheese.
Footnote: The Danes have a secret weapon - “hygge.” Hygge is a Danish term for a happy life, suggesting a "warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling of well-being," a life of good food, good company, wine, nice furniture, good music. The risk, of course, is that our brave young warriors may end up lounging on an oiled teak chaise, knocking back Aquavit and herring. Be strong, son.