From today's Times Colonist:
"She was 15, with severe developmental disabilities due to Down syndrome. Her mother, with her own issues, died in the home they shared in a Cultus Lake mobile home park.
And for nine days, the girl lived beside her mother's corpse. She had been told not to go out alone.
When rescued, she was emaciated and filthy -- she was unable to use the toilet and had been wearing the same diaper for a week. Her legs and abdomen were raw with diaper rash. Pills and boxes of macaroni were on the floor, apparently left as the girl tried to bring her mother back to life.
The Minister of Children and Family Development had been involved with the family; in fact, the girl's brothers had asked that their sister be taken into care because of their mother's alcoholism and drug abuse and the filth in the house.
The law calls for deaths or such events that cause "serious or long-term impairment" of a child's health to be reported to the Representative for Children and Youth as soon as officials become aware of them.
But the ministry didn't do that. Nine weeks after the girl was discovered, Minister Mary Polak says it's still not clear to her that the girl suffered an injury that required reporting.
That's at once insulting and stupid. . ."
Read the rest here.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Bill Bennett has it right
Cut Bill Bennett’s claims about life inside the Liberal government in half and it’s still ugly.
Reject them entirely and you still face the reality that Bennett is right when he says that each day Gordon Campbell stays as leader is one more blow to the Liberals’ chances for recovery.
The East Kootenay MLA was fired as energy minister Wednesday for saying Campbell should step down now for the good of the party. Next step is expulsion from caucus.
The firing wasn’t unexpected. Bennett noted he had broken the “no surprises” rule by not warning the premier¹s office.
But what happened next was surprising.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen maintained the cabinet had fired Bennett. They might have approved, but only the premier can hire and fire cabinet ministers.
And Hansen and others said Bennett had broken his cabinet oath. That’s not true. Ministers promise to maintain confidentiality about cabinet discussions, not to shut up about everything.
Bennett left the meeting and came to Victoria to face the media.
The scrum was about 35 minutes and, by the end, Bennett had carpet-bombed Campbell. The premier was a bully and autocrat who ignored cabinet, caucus and stakeholders. He had reduced MLAs to tears in meetings. One shouting incident had left Bennett wiping the premier¹s spit from his face, he said.
“He¹s lost the public entirely,” Bennett said. “He should just leave. Every day that Premier Campbell stays around is one less day we have to start a renewal.”
A lineup of ministers denied Bennett’s charges, as did Campbell. Health Minister Kevin Falcon said he had been in shouting matches with the premier, but that was just the way things were done in cabinet.
So who should you believe?
MLAs and ex-MLAs have complained, usually quietly, about Campbell’s bullying. The HST introduction, dropped on a surprised caucus with no discussion or consultation, confirms the tendency to one-man rule.
And Bennett, in my experience, has been a straight shooter.
Maybe he exaggerated or his perceptions were skewed. But if he sees the problems, they exist.
Certainly he’s right that Campbell’s long goodbye is doing great damage to the Liberals.
Campbell acknowledged the public doesn’t trust him. That’s why he’s leaving.
But by staying on until a new leader is in place, likely in March, he’s condemning the party to months of growing unpopularity and tainting the leadership selection process. Cabinet ministers considering a leadership run should be focused on demonstrating they offer a new vision and direction for the party and the government.
Instead, Falcon and George Abbott, both possible candidates, responded to Bennett’s comments by defending Campbell’s leadership and achievements. They stepped forward as apologists for a terribly unpopular premier, as ministers and MLAs have since the HST was introduced to such anger.
Bennett’s concerns about political life need to be addressed, no matter what people think about his criticism of Campbell.
Power has increasingly been concentrated in the leader’s office. MLAs have had little role in shaping policy; if they had, the HST debacle might have been avoided.
And cabinet ministers are often out of the loop. Bennett noted that the sweeping reorganization of resource ministries announced by Campbell was done without the involvement of the ministers responsible for those areas. The deputy ministers working on it were told not to let their ministers know what was going on.
Bennett spoke highly of most of his cabinet colleagues and the people working in government.
But his frustration came through in almost every sentence. And it was based, I’d argue, not on anger at being fired from cabinet but on years of disappointment. MLAs start their time in Victoria with great hopes of making a difference. Those hopes are often replaced by bitterness and disappointment.
“I¹m tired of the bullshit going on in politics,” Bennett said.
He speaks for many British Columbians.
Footnote: Bennett recounted his first-term interest in starting an outdoor caucus - MLAs from both parties interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and snowmobiling issues that are often neglected. Campbell tried to bully him out of the idea, Bennett said, especially rejecting the idea that New Democrat MLAs could be involved. Bennett went ahead anyway.
Reject them entirely and you still face the reality that Bennett is right when he says that each day Gordon Campbell stays as leader is one more blow to the Liberals’ chances for recovery.
The East Kootenay MLA was fired as energy minister Wednesday for saying Campbell should step down now for the good of the party. Next step is expulsion from caucus.
The firing wasn’t unexpected. Bennett noted he had broken the “no surprises” rule by not warning the premier¹s office.
But what happened next was surprising.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen maintained the cabinet had fired Bennett. They might have approved, but only the premier can hire and fire cabinet ministers.
And Hansen and others said Bennett had broken his cabinet oath. That’s not true. Ministers promise to maintain confidentiality about cabinet discussions, not to shut up about everything.
Bennett left the meeting and came to Victoria to face the media.
The scrum was about 35 minutes and, by the end, Bennett had carpet-bombed Campbell. The premier was a bully and autocrat who ignored cabinet, caucus and stakeholders. He had reduced MLAs to tears in meetings. One shouting incident had left Bennett wiping the premier¹s spit from his face, he said.
“He¹s lost the public entirely,” Bennett said. “He should just leave. Every day that Premier Campbell stays around is one less day we have to start a renewal.”
A lineup of ministers denied Bennett’s charges, as did Campbell. Health Minister Kevin Falcon said he had been in shouting matches with the premier, but that was just the way things were done in cabinet.
So who should you believe?
MLAs and ex-MLAs have complained, usually quietly, about Campbell’s bullying. The HST introduction, dropped on a surprised caucus with no discussion or consultation, confirms the tendency to one-man rule.
And Bennett, in my experience, has been a straight shooter.
Maybe he exaggerated or his perceptions were skewed. But if he sees the problems, they exist.
Certainly he’s right that Campbell’s long goodbye is doing great damage to the Liberals.
Campbell acknowledged the public doesn’t trust him. That’s why he’s leaving.
But by staying on until a new leader is in place, likely in March, he’s condemning the party to months of growing unpopularity and tainting the leadership selection process. Cabinet ministers considering a leadership run should be focused on demonstrating they offer a new vision and direction for the party and the government.
Instead, Falcon and George Abbott, both possible candidates, responded to Bennett’s comments by defending Campbell’s leadership and achievements. They stepped forward as apologists for a terribly unpopular premier, as ministers and MLAs have since the HST was introduced to such anger.
Bennett’s concerns about political life need to be addressed, no matter what people think about his criticism of Campbell.
Power has increasingly been concentrated in the leader’s office. MLAs have had little role in shaping policy; if they had, the HST debacle might have been avoided.
And cabinet ministers are often out of the loop. Bennett noted that the sweeping reorganization of resource ministries announced by Campbell was done without the involvement of the ministers responsible for those areas. The deputy ministers working on it were told not to let their ministers know what was going on.
Bennett spoke highly of most of his cabinet colleagues and the people working in government.
But his frustration came through in almost every sentence. And it was based, I’d argue, not on anger at being fired from cabinet but on years of disappointment. MLAs start their time in Victoria with great hopes of making a difference. Those hopes are often replaced by bitterness and disappointment.
“I¹m tired of the bullshit going on in politics,” Bennett said.
He speaks for many British Columbians.
Footnote: Bennett recounted his first-term interest in starting an outdoor caucus - MLAs from both parties interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and snowmobiling issues that are often neglected. Campbell tried to bully him out of the idea, Bennett said, especially rejecting the idea that New Democrat MLAs could be involved. Bennett went ahead anyway.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Bennett tapes
I have always had time for Bill Bennett.
When he made it back into cabinet in a 2008 shuffle, I had this prescient comment:
"Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for their constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table."
Bennett was bounced from cabinet Wednesday for saying Gordon Campbell should step down as premier now to let the party begin rebuilding.
He did not go quietly, accusing Campbell of being a bully and one-man government. The Times Colonist has offered an audio file of his comments in a scrum here.
When he made it back into cabinet in a 2008 shuffle, I had this prescient comment:
"Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for their constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table."
Bennett was bounced from cabinet Wednesday for saying Gordon Campbell should step down as premier now to let the party begin rebuilding.
He did not go quietly, accusing Campbell of being a bully and one-man government. The Times Colonist has offered an audio file of his comments in a scrum here.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Recall ups destructive political uncertainty
Things are turning into a mess in B.C.
Recall, leadership squabbling, a lame duck premier who won’t go away, a referendum that might axe the HST – it’s a formula for political chaos.
And political chaos is a formula for government paralysis on issues that matter to British Columbians.
First, recall. The Fight HST forces announced their recall targets Monday. Universities Minister Ida Chong is first on the hit list.
She won her Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding by a skinny margin - 561 votes - in 2009. Lots of recall canvassers have signed up in her riding and nearby Saanich North. And Chong has not been effective in representing the riding on key local issues.
She is thus vulnerable, even given the tough threshold for a successful recall effort. Proponents will need to get signatures from 40 per cent of the people registered to vote in the last election - about 18,000 names. (Chong won with 11,877 votes.)
The recall campaign starts Monday. Proponents have 60 days to get enough signatures to oust the MLA and force a byelection.
The Fight HST crew plans campaigns against Terry Lake in Kamloop North and Don McRae in Comox starting in early January, with more efforts launched every month until the HST is gone or the Liberals bumped from power.
Chong’s recall has become the trial run for both sides.
Her first-day response made no mention of the HST. She said she had done a good job, the NDP was playing a big behind-the-scenes recall role (likely true) and the effort was an abuse of the recall legislation. Recall was supposed to be used against MLAs who acted unethically, Chong said.
That’s just untrue. The successful referendum on recall, which led to the legislation, asked if British Columbians should have the right to remove their MLA between elections. Voters would decide what constituted grounds for dismissal.
And the claim will be a tough sell, given the Liberals’ history. Gordon Campbell was calling for recall campaigns against New Democrat MLAs within months of losing the 1996 election. Kevin Falcon’s Total Recall targeted all 40 NDP MLAs in 1999; he said it had nothing to do with the individuals, but was attempt to oust the government. (The effort flopped, but created big headaches for the New Democrats.)
The justifiable claim that the NDP is playing a political role in the campaigns might deter some people from signing.
Campbell is a big problem for Chong. He has announced he’ll leave after a new leader is selected Feb. 26.
But that’s three months away, And he’s still insisting that he - and Chong - did everything right in bringing in the HST. The only failure was not explaining the decision more effectively after it was a done deal, he says.
In fact, Campbell is a big problem for the party. Lame duck leaders always are. When they are unpopular and don’t recognize that they’re lame, things get really messy.
Campbell says he’s still the premier and in charge of the budget and throne speech. Nothing will change until the new Liberal leader is selected.
For the Liberal party, that’s terrible. Campbell is leaving because the public thinks he’s doing a bad job and doesn’t trust him. Yet he’ll be the face of the party for another three months and defend the budget and throne speech.
Chong and the Liberal party would be helped if Campbell stepped down as premier now. MLAs could select someone - ideally not running for the leadership - to be premier until the leadership was decided. Campbell could cart away some baggage and avoid some unpleasant months.
And the interim premier could announce the HST referendum would be held in February, before a new leader was selected. An earlier departure by Campbell might help the party and calm things down a bit.
But the months ahead - and perhaps until the next election - are going to bring uncertainty that slows investment and progress in B.C.
Footnote: The New Democrats are adding to the uncertainty as some party members continue to take aim at the leadership of Carole James. The issues are likely to be addressed at an NDP provincial council meeting this weekend.
Recall, leadership squabbling, a lame duck premier who won’t go away, a referendum that might axe the HST – it’s a formula for political chaos.
And political chaos is a formula for government paralysis on issues that matter to British Columbians.
First, recall. The Fight HST forces announced their recall targets Monday. Universities Minister Ida Chong is first on the hit list.
She won her Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding by a skinny margin - 561 votes - in 2009. Lots of recall canvassers have signed up in her riding and nearby Saanich North. And Chong has not been effective in representing the riding on key local issues.
She is thus vulnerable, even given the tough threshold for a successful recall effort. Proponents will need to get signatures from 40 per cent of the people registered to vote in the last election - about 18,000 names. (Chong won with 11,877 votes.)
The recall campaign starts Monday. Proponents have 60 days to get enough signatures to oust the MLA and force a byelection.
The Fight HST crew plans campaigns against Terry Lake in Kamloop North and Don McRae in Comox starting in early January, with more efforts launched every month until the HST is gone or the Liberals bumped from power.
Chong’s recall has become the trial run for both sides.
Her first-day response made no mention of the HST. She said she had done a good job, the NDP was playing a big behind-the-scenes recall role (likely true) and the effort was an abuse of the recall legislation. Recall was supposed to be used against MLAs who acted unethically, Chong said.
That’s just untrue. The successful referendum on recall, which led to the legislation, asked if British Columbians should have the right to remove their MLA between elections. Voters would decide what constituted grounds for dismissal.
And the claim will be a tough sell, given the Liberals’ history. Gordon Campbell was calling for recall campaigns against New Democrat MLAs within months of losing the 1996 election. Kevin Falcon’s Total Recall targeted all 40 NDP MLAs in 1999; he said it had nothing to do with the individuals, but was attempt to oust the government. (The effort flopped, but created big headaches for the New Democrats.)
The justifiable claim that the NDP is playing a political role in the campaigns might deter some people from signing.
Campbell is a big problem for Chong. He has announced he’ll leave after a new leader is selected Feb. 26.
But that’s three months away, And he’s still insisting that he - and Chong - did everything right in bringing in the HST. The only failure was not explaining the decision more effectively after it was a done deal, he says.
In fact, Campbell is a big problem for the party. Lame duck leaders always are. When they are unpopular and don’t recognize that they’re lame, things get really messy.
Campbell says he’s still the premier and in charge of the budget and throne speech. Nothing will change until the new Liberal leader is selected.
For the Liberal party, that’s terrible. Campbell is leaving because the public thinks he’s doing a bad job and doesn’t trust him. Yet he’ll be the face of the party for another three months and defend the budget and throne speech.
Chong and the Liberal party would be helped if Campbell stepped down as premier now. MLAs could select someone - ideally not running for the leadership - to be premier until the leadership was decided. Campbell could cart away some baggage and avoid some unpleasant months.
And the interim premier could announce the HST referendum would be held in February, before a new leader was selected. An earlier departure by Campbell might help the party and calm things down a bit.
But the months ahead - and perhaps until the next election - are going to bring uncertainty that slows investment and progress in B.C.
Footnote: The New Democrats are adding to the uncertainty as some party members continue to take aim at the leadership of Carole James. The issues are likely to be addressed at an NDP provincial council meeting this weekend.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What's wrong with New Democrats?
I almost choked on my coffee when I read that Dale Lovick was calling for Carole James to be dumped as NDP leader.
What is wrong with this party?
Lovick is on the NDP riding association executive in Nanaimo-North Cowichan. He told Michael Smyth of The Province that the executive recently passed a motion calling on James to step down while a leadership contest takes place.
This from a cabinet minister who stayed loyal, at least publicly, to Glen Clark until the bitter end.
Lovick never called for Clark’s resignation or expressed doubts about the NDP government’s direction.
Now he thinks James should go.
His credentials aren’t great. Lovick was part of an NDP team - a cabinet minister - who ran the party into the ground. People saw the government as dishonest and incompetent and loathed the New Democrats. Lovick and company’s legacy was the NDP’s 2001 election performance - 22 per cent of the vote and two seats.
Today, a recent poll puts the New Democrats at 47 per cent, enough to win a big majority. James doesn’t great approval ratings, but she’s by far people’s first choice.
And Lovick and others are calling for a leadership change.
It’s good NDP riding associations feel free to express their opinions. It’s bad that they seem so foolish.
What is wrong with this party?
Lovick is on the NDP riding association executive in Nanaimo-North Cowichan. He told Michael Smyth of The Province that the executive recently passed a motion calling on James to step down while a leadership contest takes place.
This from a cabinet minister who stayed loyal, at least publicly, to Glen Clark until the bitter end.
Lovick never called for Clark’s resignation or expressed doubts about the NDP government’s direction.
Now he thinks James should go.
His credentials aren’t great. Lovick was part of an NDP team - a cabinet minister - who ran the party into the ground. People saw the government as dishonest and incompetent and loathed the New Democrats. Lovick and company’s legacy was the NDP’s 2001 election performance - 22 per cent of the vote and two seats.
Today, a recent poll puts the New Democrats at 47 per cent, enough to win a big majority. James doesn’t great approval ratings, but she’s by far people’s first choice.
And Lovick and others are calling for a leadership change.
It’s good NDP riding associations feel free to express their opinions. It’s bad that they seem so foolish.
Come on, folks, let's drink and drive more: Coleman
The weirdness of things in this province continue to amaze.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman — in charge of public safety and increasing alcohol consumption — has to be the first mainstream politician to urge a little more drinking and driving as a good thing.
And his advice that people should feel free to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home because they would be under the .05 limit is just flat-out wrong. (Coleman has a problem with stating things as fact that are simply not.) The reality is that people who take his advice could end up facing a lost licence, fines and an impounded car.
The Times Colonist looks at this in an editorial today.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman — in charge of public safety and increasing alcohol consumption — has to be the first mainstream politician to urge a little more drinking and driving as a good thing.
And his advice that people should feel free to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home because they would be under the .05 limit is just flat-out wrong. (Coleman has a problem with stating things as fact that are simply not.) The reality is that people who take his advice could end up facing a lost licence, fines and an impounded car.
The Times Colonist looks at this in an editorial today.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Campbell's $2 billion doomed bet on keeping his job (with your money)
I thought the budget consultation process hit bottom in 2004.
But Gordon Campbell took things to a new low with his TV announcement of an arbitrary 15 per cent tax cut, a desperate, doomed move to hang on to his job at the expense of the Liberal party and the democratic process.
The legislature finance committee - six Liberal MLAs, four New Democrats - travels the province each fall to hear suggestions for the February budget.
It’s a big deal for many people. Business groups propose tax shifts, advocates make the case for spending on schools or health care. People send e-mails or briefs on what they think should be priorities. Many presentations are thoughtful and well-researched.
And the committee writes a report that, theoretically - though rarely practically - shapes the budget.
This year, the government noted that an improving economy offered opportunities. There was an extra $2 billion over the next three years available for initiatives.
"What would you do with additional resources?,” it asked. “Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?"
So chambers of commerce and arts groups and non-profits and individuals prepared their submissions. People already working 10 hours a day worked longer to offer their ideas.
Then Campbell went on TV and announced a 15-per-cent tax cut that wiped out that $2 billion, before the committee even started preparing its report.
It was a grand insult. The committee had travelled to 14 communities and done videoconferences with people and organizations in another nine. A lot of effort had gone into hundreds of submissions.
And Campbell gave the finger to them. He decided on a tax cut before he even heard from all those people across the province. The consultation was a sham.
There was no reason for haste. The tax cut doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1. The committee was to report by Nov. 15.
If Campbell had delayed his TV address three weeks, he could have read the committee report and learned what British Columbians believed the budget priorities should be. That would have been polite.
He didn’t, which speaks of a certain contempt for all those people and groups working on their budget submissions.
The New Democrat MLAs withdrew from the committee in protest.
The loyal Liberals defended the premier’s tax cut announcement. You would think, after listening to all those presentations and reading all the submissions, they would have urged the premier to wait a few weeks for the report.
If, as Campbell maintains, all decisions are backed by caucus, surely the Liberal committee members - John Les, Norm Letnick, Don MacRae, John Rustad, Jane Thornthwaite and John van Dongen - would have suggested the tax cut announcement could wait until the public was heard.
But either they weren’t consulted, they were silent or they were ignored. I’m keen to know which.
The previous low point in budget consultation came in 2004, when the government sent out a pre-election campaign flyer/budget consultation document to every household in the province. About 26,000 people responded with budget suggestions. But the flyer went out late, time was tight and the government threw 23,500 of the responses in the garbage and looked at 2,550 - one in 10.
Campbell, seeking political salvation, went farther and ignored every single submission.
Liberal supporters should be the angriest.
If Campbell hadn’t bet $2 billion on a doomed effort to rebuild his personal popularity, the new Liberal leader would have had the chance to announce tax cuts or measures to reduce surgical waits or investments in economic growth.
This isn’t a partisan, or left-right issue, whatever that means.
It’s about bad behaviour, contempt for citizens, docile elected representatives, abuse of power and the reckless spending of $650 million a year.
And it brings shame on the government, and all those who went along with the abuse.
Footnote: First Call, an advocacy group for children and youth, probably speaks for a lot of the organizations - business groups, non-profits, community organizations - who presented to the committee. First Call encourages members to engage in the democratic process, the group noted. But it asked why people should spend time preparing recommendations if the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Campbell’s answer should be interesting.
But Gordon Campbell took things to a new low with his TV announcement of an arbitrary 15 per cent tax cut, a desperate, doomed move to hang on to his job at the expense of the Liberal party and the democratic process.
The legislature finance committee - six Liberal MLAs, four New Democrats - travels the province each fall to hear suggestions for the February budget.
It’s a big deal for many people. Business groups propose tax shifts, advocates make the case for spending on schools or health care. People send e-mails or briefs on what they think should be priorities. Many presentations are thoughtful and well-researched.
And the committee writes a report that, theoretically - though rarely practically - shapes the budget.
This year, the government noted that an improving economy offered opportunities. There was an extra $2 billion over the next three years available for initiatives.
"What would you do with additional resources?,” it asked. “Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?"
So chambers of commerce and arts groups and non-profits and individuals prepared their submissions. People already working 10 hours a day worked longer to offer their ideas.
Then Campbell went on TV and announced a 15-per-cent tax cut that wiped out that $2 billion, before the committee even started preparing its report.
It was a grand insult. The committee had travelled to 14 communities and done videoconferences with people and organizations in another nine. A lot of effort had gone into hundreds of submissions.
And Campbell gave the finger to them. He decided on a tax cut before he even heard from all those people across the province. The consultation was a sham.
There was no reason for haste. The tax cut doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1. The committee was to report by Nov. 15.
If Campbell had delayed his TV address three weeks, he could have read the committee report and learned what British Columbians believed the budget priorities should be. That would have been polite.
He didn’t, which speaks of a certain contempt for all those people and groups working on their budget submissions.
The New Democrat MLAs withdrew from the committee in protest.
The loyal Liberals defended the premier’s tax cut announcement. You would think, after listening to all those presentations and reading all the submissions, they would have urged the premier to wait a few weeks for the report.
If, as Campbell maintains, all decisions are backed by caucus, surely the Liberal committee members - John Les, Norm Letnick, Don MacRae, John Rustad, Jane Thornthwaite and John van Dongen - would have suggested the tax cut announcement could wait until the public was heard.
But either they weren’t consulted, they were silent or they were ignored. I’m keen to know which.
The previous low point in budget consultation came in 2004, when the government sent out a pre-election campaign flyer/budget consultation document to every household in the province. About 26,000 people responded with budget suggestions. But the flyer went out late, time was tight and the government threw 23,500 of the responses in the garbage and looked at 2,550 - one in 10.
Campbell, seeking political salvation, went farther and ignored every single submission.
Liberal supporters should be the angriest.
If Campbell hadn’t bet $2 billion on a doomed effort to rebuild his personal popularity, the new Liberal leader would have had the chance to announce tax cuts or measures to reduce surgical waits or investments in economic growth.
This isn’t a partisan, or left-right issue, whatever that means.
It’s about bad behaviour, contempt for citizens, docile elected representatives, abuse of power and the reckless spending of $650 million a year.
And it brings shame on the government, and all those who went along with the abuse.
Footnote: First Call, an advocacy group for children and youth, probably speaks for a lot of the organizations - business groups, non-profits, community organizations - who presented to the committee. First Call encourages members to engage in the democratic process, the group noted. But it asked why people should spend time preparing recommendations if the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Campbell’s answer should be interesting.
Campbell dragging party down with him
Gordon Campbell's decision to stick around as a lame duck party leader is terrible news for the Liberals.
Campbell took questions from reporters on the day after he announced he would step down.
It was an odd performance. Campbell talked like a popular premier leaving at the top of his game, rather than a liability for his party.
He said he wouldn't step aside for an interim leader. Instead, he'll stay on as leader and premier until a leadership convention is held - within the next six months or so, according to the party's shaky constitution.
That wouldn't be awkward, he said. It's not as if any of the leadership candidates would be questioning the Liberals' past choices on the HST or other issues.
"The new leader, certainly if they're from inside government, will have been part of those decisions," Campbell said.
Bad news for Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon or anyone else in the current government looking to run for leader on the promise of a new direction.
Even if outside candidates came forward, Campbell said, they surely would accept his priorities.
"They believe in strengthening the private sector economy," he said. "They'll believe in leaving more money in people's pockets. That's what the party has always stood for, and frankly, it's a continuation of that."
Leadership campaigns can be a chance for unpopular parties - like the Liberals - to make a fresh start. They can distance themselves from an unpopular leader - like Campbell - and offer a new vision and style.
Unless the old leader sabotages that opportunity by insisting that it will be business as usual no matter who emerges as Liberal leader.
So Campbell will be peering over the shoulders of leadership candidates, frowning at challenges to the status quo or any concerns about the party's past efforts.
Meanwhile, the Liberal party has apparently been caught off guard by the first leadership contest in 17 years.
The Liberal constitution sets out a leadership vote process. Anyone who joins the party at least seven weeks before the leadership contest gets a vote. Low-polling candidates are dropped until someone gets majority support. And the constitution seems to contemplate a series of mail ballots - kind of a slow motion leadership process.
The Liberals are now considering new rules, according to Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com.
The one-member, one-vote model has appeal. But it also encourages the mass sign-up of instant party members by candidates - religious and ethnic communities are often targeted - and places candidates outside the Lower Mainland at a huge disadvantage.
Holman reports some Liberals are advocating a leadership selection process like the Ontario Conservatives used last year. Each riding had 100 votes; those were allocated based on the party members' choice in a constituency ballot.
That makes it worthwhile to sign up new members, but doesn't let the leadership choice rest on instant Liberals gathered in bulk. (Though it does give the same weight to a riding with 40 members and no hope of electing a Liberal MLA as it does to a powerhouse of party support.)
Meanwhile, the leadership race has begun. Rich Coleman has promised to look at the new drinking-driving laws to see if they're too effective in keeping drivers who have had a glass or two of wine off the roads. George Abbott says he'd step down from cabinet if he runs, to avoid conflict. Coleman says he won't. Kevin Falcon says he hopes Carole Taylor runs. And that's just the early jockeying.
Campbell's decision to hang around, the ghost of Olympics past, does the Liberal party no favours.
And a slow-motion leadership campaign would do the province no favours. Business and consumers hate uncertainty; a long campaign - along with the wait for the HST referendum - create months of political and economic uncertainty.
Footnote: Meanwhile, some New Democrats continue to grumble about Carole James. That seems bizarre - the NDP has a two-to-one lead in the polls and a good chance of forming government no matter who the Liberals select. Plunging the party into a potentially divisive leadership fight makes little sense.
Campbell took questions from reporters on the day after he announced he would step down.
It was an odd performance. Campbell talked like a popular premier leaving at the top of his game, rather than a liability for his party.
He said he wouldn't step aside for an interim leader. Instead, he'll stay on as leader and premier until a leadership convention is held - within the next six months or so, according to the party's shaky constitution.
That wouldn't be awkward, he said. It's not as if any of the leadership candidates would be questioning the Liberals' past choices on the HST or other issues.
"The new leader, certainly if they're from inside government, will have been part of those decisions," Campbell said.
Bad news for Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon or anyone else in the current government looking to run for leader on the promise of a new direction.
Even if outside candidates came forward, Campbell said, they surely would accept his priorities.
"They believe in strengthening the private sector economy," he said. "They'll believe in leaving more money in people's pockets. That's what the party has always stood for, and frankly, it's a continuation of that."
Leadership campaigns can be a chance for unpopular parties - like the Liberals - to make a fresh start. They can distance themselves from an unpopular leader - like Campbell - and offer a new vision and style.
Unless the old leader sabotages that opportunity by insisting that it will be business as usual no matter who emerges as Liberal leader.
So Campbell will be peering over the shoulders of leadership candidates, frowning at challenges to the status quo or any concerns about the party's past efforts.
Meanwhile, the Liberal party has apparently been caught off guard by the first leadership contest in 17 years.
The Liberal constitution sets out a leadership vote process. Anyone who joins the party at least seven weeks before the leadership contest gets a vote. Low-polling candidates are dropped until someone gets majority support. And the constitution seems to contemplate a series of mail ballots - kind of a slow motion leadership process.
The Liberals are now considering new rules, according to Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com.
The one-member, one-vote model has appeal. But it also encourages the mass sign-up of instant party members by candidates - religious and ethnic communities are often targeted - and places candidates outside the Lower Mainland at a huge disadvantage.
Holman reports some Liberals are advocating a leadership selection process like the Ontario Conservatives used last year. Each riding had 100 votes; those were allocated based on the party members' choice in a constituency ballot.
That makes it worthwhile to sign up new members, but doesn't let the leadership choice rest on instant Liberals gathered in bulk. (Though it does give the same weight to a riding with 40 members and no hope of electing a Liberal MLA as it does to a powerhouse of party support.)
Meanwhile, the leadership race has begun. Rich Coleman has promised to look at the new drinking-driving laws to see if they're too effective in keeping drivers who have had a glass or two of wine off the roads. George Abbott says he'd step down from cabinet if he runs, to avoid conflict. Coleman says he won't. Kevin Falcon says he hopes Carole Taylor runs. And that's just the early jockeying.
Campbell's decision to hang around, the ghost of Olympics past, does the Liberal party no favours.
And a slow-motion leadership campaign would do the province no favours. Business and consumers hate uncertainty; a long campaign - along with the wait for the HST referendum - create months of political and economic uncertainty.
Footnote: Meanwhile, some New Democrats continue to grumble about Carole James. That seems bizarre - the NDP has a two-to-one lead in the polls and a good chance of forming government no matter who the Liberals select. Plunging the party into a potentially divisive leadership fight makes little sense.
Monday, November 08, 2010
The leadership race begins...
B.C.'s solicitor-general mulls changes to tough drinking and driving laws
BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN
VICTORIA - Solicitor-general Rich Coleman said Monday his government is planning to review B.C.'s tough new drinking and driving laws, suggesting any changes could be introduced as early as this coming spring.
"This [the drinking and driving law] has certainly got some issues with it and quite frankly we're going to look at those," Coleman, who has been solicitor-general for just two weeks, said Monday.
Interesting that Coleman says he believes he'll stay in cabinet if he enters the Liberal leadership race, while George Abbott says he won't.
BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN
VICTORIA - Solicitor-general Rich Coleman said Monday his government is planning to review B.C.'s tough new drinking and driving laws, suggesting any changes could be introduced as early as this coming spring.
"This [the drinking and driving law] has certainly got some issues with it and quite frankly we're going to look at those," Coleman, who has been solicitor-general for just two weeks, said Monday.
Interesting that Coleman says he believes he'll stay in cabinet if he enters the Liberal leadership race, while George Abbott says he won't.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Liberal leadership campaign rules
Leadership campaign rules and their application can help or hurt candidates.
The Liberal constitution - supplied helpfully by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com - gives the party executive four weeks to set a date for a leadership vote after they get a resignation letter.
They have to set a date for the vote within the next six months. Assuming Gordon Campbell wrote a resignation letter today, the leadership vote would have to be held no later than June 1.
All paid-up party members get a mail-in vote if they have joined at least 41 days - say six weeks - before the date of the leadership convention.
So, if the executive set a Dec. 12 leadership vote, only the people who were already party members could vote.
But parties like leadership races because the candidates rush around signing up new party members who will support them, theoretically building the membership base. (Though instant party members tend not to stick around after the leadership vote.) A later date would give leadership candidates a chance to persuade more people to buy memberships and support them.
This is all uncharted territory. The last leadership contest, which Campbell, of course, won, was 17 years ago and used a telephone voting system the party has abandoned.
To win, a candidate needs a majority. It's not clear, to me anyway, whether that must mean a succession of mail ballots or some form of voting that lets members rank all the candidates.
The Liberal constitution - supplied helpfully by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com - gives the party executive four weeks to set a date for a leadership vote after they get a resignation letter.
They have to set a date for the vote within the next six months. Assuming Gordon Campbell wrote a resignation letter today, the leadership vote would have to be held no later than June 1.
All paid-up party members get a mail-in vote if they have joined at least 41 days - say six weeks - before the date of the leadership convention.
So, if the executive set a Dec. 12 leadership vote, only the people who were already party members could vote.
But parties like leadership races because the candidates rush around signing up new party members who will support them, theoretically building the membership base. (Though instant party members tend not to stick around after the leadership vote.) A later date would give leadership candidates a chance to persuade more people to buy memberships and support them.
This is all uncharted territory. The last leadership contest, which Campbell, of course, won, was 17 years ago and used a telephone voting system the party has abandoned.
To win, a candidate needs a majority. It's not clear, to me anyway, whether that must mean a succession of mail ballots or some form of voting that lets members rank all the candidates.
Resignation brings a new set of problems
Gordon Campbell's resignation was inevitable. He lost the confidence of British Columbians and, finally, of at least some within the Liberal ranks.
But the timing was a surprise and leaves the party, government and province in a tough spot.
I expected Campbell to stick around and defend the HST in the run up to next September's referendum. Then he could leave and a new Liberal leader could declare the tax battle in the past, say lessons had been learned and pledge a fresh start.
That didn't work. Campbell faced increasing internal discontent - note Energy Minister Bill Bennett's criticism of the premier's autocratic decision-making on resource minstry restructuring - that increased when his televised address last week was a failure.
The early departure creates big problems. The Liberal party executive has six months to call a leadership convention. The latest date would be in May.
The HST referendum is set for Sept. 24. That means a new Liberal leader faces months either campaigning in favour of the HST or dodging questions about the tax. Either way, public anger about the tax and the incompetent way it was introduced would fix immediately on the new leader.
The leadership race will also be run with the tax still a live issue. That's bad news for potential candidates from within the current cabinet, like Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike de Jong.
They have all defended the HST and backed the government's position that it was not possible or necessary to consult the public. They have all supported the claim the tax "wasn't on the radar" during the election campaign, even though talks on implementing it started days after the vote. They have supported, they insisted, Campbell's actions.
The same actions that so angered the public that he had to resign.
Those are problems for the Liberal party. (Although they could be eased by moving the referendum date up to the spring.)
But months of uncertainty are also bad news for the government and the province.
The government had big, if vague, plans for changes to the education system, for example. Those are stalled. The major shuffle of resource industries to speed project approvals announced last week will slow as all involved wait to see what the new leader thinks.
And work on next year's budget, to be presented in February, will move into high gear in coming months. Absent a leader, decisions on everything from health spending to tax policy will be put off.
This is all coming as the province emerges from a recession and businesses and consumer wait to see if the HST will survive the referendum (or, for that matter, whether the Liberal government will survive recall attempts).
The uncertainty will be damaging.
It's a sad end for Campbell, no matter what people think of his time in government. He rode into office with considerable goodwill in 2001 (in part because the former NDP government was so loathed). And he was re-elected twice. No one has ever challenged his work ethic or commitment to the job. His enthusiasms - for First Nations treaties, health reform, action on climate change and all those other great goals - were compelling.
But they were also short-lived. And as time went on they were overshadowed by broken promises and a sense that this was a one-man government not much interested in the views of anyone outside a like-minded inner circle. It was not just the public's views that were discounted; Liberal MLAs weren't consulted about the HST or a host of other policy directions either.
That was too bad. Leaders, unless they are careful, ended up surrounded by people who think like they do and are far more likely to say "great idea, chief" than they are to raise concerns - either their own or their constituents.
So premiers come to believe, for example, that the reason people oppose the HST is that they are just too dim to recognize the premier's wisdom.
And eventually, they stand in front of the TV cameras offering their resignations.
Footnote: The Liberals should be looking ruefully at that 15 per cent tax cut. It reduced revenue by $1.2 billion over the next two years without saving Campbell's job. That's money a new leader could have used to build quick public support, either through tax cuts or an expansion of needed services.
But the timing was a surprise and leaves the party, government and province in a tough spot.
I expected Campbell to stick around and defend the HST in the run up to next September's referendum. Then he could leave and a new Liberal leader could declare the tax battle in the past, say lessons had been learned and pledge a fresh start.
That didn't work. Campbell faced increasing internal discontent - note Energy Minister Bill Bennett's criticism of the premier's autocratic decision-making on resource minstry restructuring - that increased when his televised address last week was a failure.
The early departure creates big problems. The Liberal party executive has six months to call a leadership convention. The latest date would be in May.
The HST referendum is set for Sept. 24. That means a new Liberal leader faces months either campaigning in favour of the HST or dodging questions about the tax. Either way, public anger about the tax and the incompetent way it was introduced would fix immediately on the new leader.
The leadership race will also be run with the tax still a live issue. That's bad news for potential candidates from within the current cabinet, like Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike de Jong.
They have all defended the HST and backed the government's position that it was not possible or necessary to consult the public. They have all supported the claim the tax "wasn't on the radar" during the election campaign, even though talks on implementing it started days after the vote. They have supported, they insisted, Campbell's actions.
The same actions that so angered the public that he had to resign.
Those are problems for the Liberal party. (Although they could be eased by moving the referendum date up to the spring.)
But months of uncertainty are also bad news for the government and the province.
The government had big, if vague, plans for changes to the education system, for example. Those are stalled. The major shuffle of resource industries to speed project approvals announced last week will slow as all involved wait to see what the new leader thinks.
And work on next year's budget, to be presented in February, will move into high gear in coming months. Absent a leader, decisions on everything from health spending to tax policy will be put off.
This is all coming as the province emerges from a recession and businesses and consumer wait to see if the HST will survive the referendum (or, for that matter, whether the Liberal government will survive recall attempts).
The uncertainty will be damaging.
It's a sad end for Campbell, no matter what people think of his time in government. He rode into office with considerable goodwill in 2001 (in part because the former NDP government was so loathed). And he was re-elected twice. No one has ever challenged his work ethic or commitment to the job. His enthusiasms - for First Nations treaties, health reform, action on climate change and all those other great goals - were compelling.
But they were also short-lived. And as time went on they were overshadowed by broken promises and a sense that this was a one-man government not much interested in the views of anyone outside a like-minded inner circle. It was not just the public's views that were discounted; Liberal MLAs weren't consulted about the HST or a host of other policy directions either.
That was too bad. Leaders, unless they are careful, ended up surrounded by people who think like they do and are far more likely to say "great idea, chief" than they are to raise concerns - either their own or their constituents.
So premiers come to believe, for example, that the reason people oppose the HST is that they are just too dim to recognize the premier's wisdom.
And eventually, they stand in front of the TV cameras offering their resignations.
Footnote: The Liberals should be looking ruefully at that 15 per cent tax cut. It reduced revenue by $1.2 billion over the next two years without saving Campbell's job. That's money a new leader could have used to build quick public support, either through tax cuts or an expansion of needed services.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Tough to see economic case for tax cut
Gordon Campbell's TV speech bombed, according to the one public poll done in its aftermath. Even the 15 per cent income tax cut wasn't a runaway success.
The Ipsos Reid poll, done for Global TV, found one-third of British Columbians disapproved of the tax reduction.
That still leaves a majority - 62 per cent - in favour of the tax cut.
But the fact that one in three British Columbians didn't think the tax cut was a good idea is interesting.
The Liberals have spent a decade arguing taxes are bad. "We think you make better choices about how to spend those dollars than the government can," Campbell said last week, sticking with a familiar theme. "You all want to have critical services but you know the individual issues that you face as a family, it's better for you to choose where you want your dollars to go."
It's just political talk, crafted to play well on TV. But Campbell did appear to suggest that if you want "critical services" you should pay for them yourself, rather than expect the government to collect taxes and ensure that health and education, for example, are available for everyone.
It's tough to draw too many conclusions from the poll. It could be that the one-third of British Columbians who think the tax cut is a bad idea just dislike Campbell so much that anything he proposed would be tainted.
Or they could be the people who won't benefit from the tax cut. About 40 per cent of British Columbians don't earn tp pay provincial income tax. For someone with $20,000 income, the tax cut is worth a little over $1 a week. (They will benefit from the low-income HST rebate of up to $230 a year.)
But it could also be that man people don't think a tax cut is a good idea when the government is running a deficit. Paying for the tax reduction means borrowing money our kids will have to pay back or cutting more services.
It is a puzzling bit of public policy. Campbell has said deficits are an abomination, but he plunged the province deeper in debt - the tax cut will reduce revenues by $568 million next year, more the year after.
And he once again justified the snap imposition of the HST by saying B.C. desperately needed the $1.6 billion the federal government was offering as an inducement.
But the government is booking $580 million of that payment next year - almost exactly the revenue lost because of the tax cut. The HST incentive payment doesn't look quite so essential as a result.
The tax cut also opens the door to an unending litany of what-ifs. The government is moving people with developmental disabilities out of group homes and programs that have been part of their lives for years to save $22 million. That wouldn't be necessary with the tax cut.
In September, Health Minister Kevin Falcon announced an extra $23 million in health funding that would help 33,000 patients get speedier treatment. On that basis, the money the government gave up could have helped hundreds of thousands of people to get better access to needed health care.
Campbell made a brief reference to the economic benefits. The theory is that people will spend the money they get as a result of the tax cuts (and that government won't cut its spending because of the reduced revenue).
Some of that spending will result in jobs and economic growth in the province. The cuts will pay for themselves
But the business case is weak. A Central 1 Credit Union "preliminary impact assessment" estimated the 15 per cemt cut would increase economic growth from 2.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent next year.
That, according to the budget documents, translates into about $20 million in additional government revenue, compared to the $568 million given up as a result of the tax cut.
Even the 62 per cent who welcome the tax cut must wonder about the decision-making process.
Footnote: The poll found 11 per cent of British Columbians had an improved opinion of Campbell after the speech; 43 per cent thought worse of him. Thirteen per cent said they were more likely to vote Liberal; almost half - 46 per cent - said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals.
So who thought it would be a good idea to deliver that speech on television?
The Ipsos Reid poll, done for Global TV, found one-third of British Columbians disapproved of the tax reduction.
That still leaves a majority - 62 per cent - in favour of the tax cut.
But the fact that one in three British Columbians didn't think the tax cut was a good idea is interesting.
The Liberals have spent a decade arguing taxes are bad. "We think you make better choices about how to spend those dollars than the government can," Campbell said last week, sticking with a familiar theme. "You all want to have critical services but you know the individual issues that you face as a family, it's better for you to choose where you want your dollars to go."
It's just political talk, crafted to play well on TV. But Campbell did appear to suggest that if you want "critical services" you should pay for them yourself, rather than expect the government to collect taxes and ensure that health and education, for example, are available for everyone.
It's tough to draw too many conclusions from the poll. It could be that the one-third of British Columbians who think the tax cut is a bad idea just dislike Campbell so much that anything he proposed would be tainted.
Or they could be the people who won't benefit from the tax cut. About 40 per cent of British Columbians don't earn tp pay provincial income tax. For someone with $20,000 income, the tax cut is worth a little over $1 a week. (They will benefit from the low-income HST rebate of up to $230 a year.)
But it could also be that man people don't think a tax cut is a good idea when the government is running a deficit. Paying for the tax reduction means borrowing money our kids will have to pay back or cutting more services.
It is a puzzling bit of public policy. Campbell has said deficits are an abomination, but he plunged the province deeper in debt - the tax cut will reduce revenues by $568 million next year, more the year after.
And he once again justified the snap imposition of the HST by saying B.C. desperately needed the $1.6 billion the federal government was offering as an inducement.
But the government is booking $580 million of that payment next year - almost exactly the revenue lost because of the tax cut. The HST incentive payment doesn't look quite so essential as a result.
The tax cut also opens the door to an unending litany of what-ifs. The government is moving people with developmental disabilities out of group homes and programs that have been part of their lives for years to save $22 million. That wouldn't be necessary with the tax cut.
In September, Health Minister Kevin Falcon announced an extra $23 million in health funding that would help 33,000 patients get speedier treatment. On that basis, the money the government gave up could have helped hundreds of thousands of people to get better access to needed health care.
Campbell made a brief reference to the economic benefits. The theory is that people will spend the money they get as a result of the tax cuts (and that government won't cut its spending because of the reduced revenue).
Some of that spending will result in jobs and economic growth in the province. The cuts will pay for themselves
But the business case is weak. A Central 1 Credit Union "preliminary impact assessment" estimated the 15 per cemt cut would increase economic growth from 2.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent next year.
That, according to the budget documents, translates into about $20 million in additional government revenue, compared to the $568 million given up as a result of the tax cut.
Even the 62 per cent who welcome the tax cut must wonder about the decision-making process.
Footnote: The poll found 11 per cent of British Columbians had an improved opinion of Campbell after the speech; 43 per cent thought worse of him. Thirteen per cent said they were more likely to vote Liberal; almost half - 46 per cent - said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals.
So who thought it would be a good idea to deliver that speech on television?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
About those tankers.....
"Drunken captain of ship seized in Strait gets short prison term
By Chris Tucker/Peninsula Daily News
TACOMA -- Skippering a 590-foot freighter in the Strait of Juan de Fuca while legally drunk gets you 14 days in prison, six months of supervised release and a six-month ban from U.S. waters.... (full story below)."
I note this is not some tramp freighter. The ship is almost two football fields long and STX, the owner, is a giant shipbuilding and transportation corporation which operates oil tankers. (And note the Coho in the background in this image of the ship in Port Angeles.)
The statement from the U.S. Attorney's officer is here.
It says:
"In asking for a significant sentence, the government noted the potential for disaster with a drunk captain aboard a 20,763 gross tons freighter. 'The consequences of an accident that may have occurred due to the defendants intoxication could have been catastrophic. The defendant’s intended journey through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and down the Puget Sound to Olympia covered over 205 miles through areas characterized by narrow channels and strong currents. More importantly, the defendant’s intended track crossed no less than six Washington State Ferry routes, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and many areas of high commercial shipping and recreational boating activity. The defendant’s ship, carrying large quantities of fuel oil posed further risk to the marine environment.'"
Which does not mean tankers can't be safe; but it is a reminder that industry claims that nothing could go wrong are false.
Drunken captain of ship seized in Strait gets short prison term
By Chris Tucker/Peninsula Daily News
TACOMA -- Skippering a 590-foot freighter in the Strait of Juan de Fuca while legally drunk gets you 14 days in prison, six months of supervised release and a six-month ban from U.S. waters.
That essentially was the sentence handed down Monday in U.S. District Court in Tacoma to Korean national Seong Ug Sin, who was arrested by a Coast Guard inspection team in the Strait last April 14.
U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura, who imposed the sentence, heard evidence earlier this month that Sin, who resisted the inspection team's boarding of the STX Daisy he was commanding, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.108 percent, more than twice the legal limit.
No matter who is at the ship's helm, U.S. law requires captains to have a blood-alcohol level of less than 0.04 percent when traversing U.S. waters.
Once the boarding team took charge of the ship, it was ordered to Port Angeles Harbor, where it anchored for several days until another captain arrived to take it to Olympia.
According to trial testimony, the Coast Guard inspection team had difficulty boarding the STX Daisy from a small inflatable boat because Sin refused to follow their instructions.
"Once on board, Capt. Sin continued to have difficulty providing the records required, and a review determined he had no usable charts of Puget Sound," according to a statement Monday from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle.
"A search of the ship determined that significant quantities of Korean whisky had been consumed by SIN and one other officer."
Prosecutors noted during the trial that the STX Daisy's intended route of 205 miles was through Admiralty Inlet and south on Puget Sound to Olympia to pick up a cargo of logs.
"More importantly, the defendant's intended track crossed no less than six Washington State Ferry routes, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and many areas of high commercial shipping and recreational boating activity," Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew Thomas and David Reese Jennings wrote in their sentencing memo to Creatura.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard and was prosecuted by Thomas and Jennings along with Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Zlomek, a Coast Guard lieutenant commander.
Sin faced a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
If Campbell's Grade 4 pledge is serious...
If Premier Gordon Campbell is serious about his TV pledge to have every Grade 4 student meeting expectations for reading, writing and numeracy within five years and is willing to fund a serious plan, he'll be creating a real legacy.
The Times Colonist looks at the pledge in an editorial today
And even the discussion confirms the usefulness of the FSA tests, as I argued here.
The Times Colonist looks at the pledge in an editorial today
And even the discussion confirms the usefulness of the FSA tests, as I argued here.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Assembly of First Nations rejects Oppal inquiry
Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and Grand Chief Doug Kelly, chairman of the First Nations Health Council, set out the reasons they have decided that Wally Oppal is the wrong person to head the missing women inquiry and why the inquiry itself is inadequate in a piece in the Times Colonist today.
"We must turn these horrific serial murders into a full exploration of how to protect and support women, especially indigenous women," they write.
"We will be left with the most important question - why were the lives of these and so many other indigenous women in Canada not adequately supported, and how could our systems treat them, and others, as something to be thrown away, then put to the bottom of the heap in pursuing their murderers and abusers? Probably because we didn't care enough to make it different.
"We can't let that happen again. Join us in calling for a real inquiry that puts the lives of those victims at the forefront."
This is, I believe, the first time the AFN has presented its position on the inquiry.
"We must turn these horrific serial murders into a full exploration of how to protect and support women, especially indigenous women," they write.
"We will be left with the most important question - why were the lives of these and so many other indigenous women in Canada not adequately supported, and how could our systems treat them, and others, as something to be thrown away, then put to the bottom of the heap in pursuing their murderers and abusers? Probably because we didn't care enough to make it different.
"We can't let that happen again. Join us in calling for a real inquiry that puts the lives of those victims at the forefront."
This is, I believe, the first time the AFN has presented its position on the inquiry.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A terrible TV night for Campbell
That was a dismal effort on TV by Premier Gordon Campbell. Especially for an address that was crucial to rebuilding Liberal support and slowing the recall movement.
Campbell announced a surprise big income tax cut - 15 per cent on the first $72,000 of income - effective Jan. 1. Someone earning $50,000 a year will save about $7 a week.
The tax cut will knock about $600 million off government revenues.
Two points are relevant about that number.
First, it’s less than one-third of the $1.9 billion in additional taxes imposed on individuals and families by the new HST.
And second, it comes as the government is running deficits and cutting services because revenues are down. People with developmental disabilities are being forced out of group homes they have lived in for years. Seniors are waiting for health care. Schools are closing.
It hardly seems time for a tax cut.
Campbell announced a couple of education initiatives. The government will continue establishing StrongStart early learning centres. They help families prepare infants and young children for school.
It will begin assessing every child entering school for learning issues that can be addressed.
And Campbell made a goofy commitment. Within five years, he guaranteed, every Grade 4 student will meet expectations for reading, writing and math skills. Today, about 20 per cent of students fall short.
That’s a laudable goal. But it’s a ridiculous, empty political promise.
The children who will be in Grade 4 five years from now are about to enter kindergarten. Almost one-third of them, according to the province’s statistics, aren’t ready to succeed. About 20 per cent have spent their childhood in poverty.
Some 40 per cent of aboriginal children aren’t meeting basic skills expectations in Grade 4. How is that to be entirely changed in five years.
It would be wonderful, if Campbell had a plan to deliver on this promise.
But the education budget is set to rise 1.5 per cent next year and is effectively frozen the following year. With no money, how are schools going to improve the skills of thousands of children, many facing big challenges?
A tax cut and empty education promises. Not inspirational.
The largest block of time - and the first part of the speech - was devoted to defending the HST.
But there was nothing new. The Liberals had opposed harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST because of fears the freedom to set tax policy would be limited, Campbell said.
Then Ontario negotiated a deal with more flexibility and the federal government offered $1.6 billion if B.C. signed on.
And, said Campbell, the federal government demanded an instant commitment or B.C. would have to wait two years. (No one in the federal government has confirmed that ultimatum.)
“Should we have consulted more - I sure would have liked to,” Campbell said.
But he felt comfortable signing a deal that permanently shifted $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals without talking to MLAs or the public or doing financial analysis of the impact.
What’s extraordinary is that Campbell, again, didn’t take the chance to say he was sorry. Sorry that he had put Liberal MLAs in a tough spot. Sorry that so many people felt abused by the government.
Instead he suggested the problem was that British Columbians are just too dim.
Campbell said he talked to a businessman who had some trucks as part of the operation. He was “really upset” because the HST added seven per cent to the cost of his haircut
“But I pointed to the truck in his lot and I said ‘You see that truck over there?’‟
“And he says, ‘Yep’ and I said, “you‟re saving about $5,000 on that truck.‟
“And he said, “I never thought of that.‟
That’s Campbell’s world. Any day, British Columbians will slap themselves on the forehead and say, “Yep, I never thought of that.”
Footnote: It’s hard to say why taxpayers should pay for this TV address. Campbell’s first televised speech to the province as premier, back in 2002, was paid for by the Liberal party. There was nothing in this message that could not have been delivered by press release Or, in the case of the tax cut, in the legislature.
Campbell announced a surprise big income tax cut - 15 per cent on the first $72,000 of income - effective Jan. 1. Someone earning $50,000 a year will save about $7 a week.
The tax cut will knock about $600 million off government revenues.
Two points are relevant about that number.
First, it’s less than one-third of the $1.9 billion in additional taxes imposed on individuals and families by the new HST.
And second, it comes as the government is running deficits and cutting services because revenues are down. People with developmental disabilities are being forced out of group homes they have lived in for years. Seniors are waiting for health care. Schools are closing.
It hardly seems time for a tax cut.
Campbell announced a couple of education initiatives. The government will continue establishing StrongStart early learning centres. They help families prepare infants and young children for school.
It will begin assessing every child entering school for learning issues that can be addressed.
And Campbell made a goofy commitment. Within five years, he guaranteed, every Grade 4 student will meet expectations for reading, writing and math skills. Today, about 20 per cent of students fall short.
That’s a laudable goal. But it’s a ridiculous, empty political promise.
The children who will be in Grade 4 five years from now are about to enter kindergarten. Almost one-third of them, according to the province’s statistics, aren’t ready to succeed. About 20 per cent have spent their childhood in poverty.
Some 40 per cent of aboriginal children aren’t meeting basic skills expectations in Grade 4. How is that to be entirely changed in five years.
It would be wonderful, if Campbell had a plan to deliver on this promise.
But the education budget is set to rise 1.5 per cent next year and is effectively frozen the following year. With no money, how are schools going to improve the skills of thousands of children, many facing big challenges?
A tax cut and empty education promises. Not inspirational.
The largest block of time - and the first part of the speech - was devoted to defending the HST.
But there was nothing new. The Liberals had opposed harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST because of fears the freedom to set tax policy would be limited, Campbell said.
Then Ontario negotiated a deal with more flexibility and the federal government offered $1.6 billion if B.C. signed on.
And, said Campbell, the federal government demanded an instant commitment or B.C. would have to wait two years. (No one in the federal government has confirmed that ultimatum.)
“Should we have consulted more - I sure would have liked to,” Campbell said.
But he felt comfortable signing a deal that permanently shifted $1.9 billion in taxes from business to families and individuals without talking to MLAs or the public or doing financial analysis of the impact.
What’s extraordinary is that Campbell, again, didn’t take the chance to say he was sorry. Sorry that he had put Liberal MLAs in a tough spot. Sorry that so many people felt abused by the government.
Instead he suggested the problem was that British Columbians are just too dim.
Campbell said he talked to a businessman who had some trucks as part of the operation. He was “really upset” because the HST added seven per cent to the cost of his haircut
“But I pointed to the truck in his lot and I said ‘You see that truck over there?’‟
“And he says, ‘Yep’ and I said, “you‟re saving about $5,000 on that truck.‟
“And he said, “I never thought of that.‟
That’s Campbell’s world. Any day, British Columbians will slap themselves on the forehead and say, “Yep, I never thought of that.”
Footnote: It’s hard to say why taxpayers should pay for this TV address. Campbell’s first televised speech to the province as premier, back in 2002, was paid for by the Liberal party. There was nothing in this message that could not have been delivered by press release Or, in the case of the tax cut, in the legislature.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Meet the new cabinet, much like the old cabinet
Cabinet shuffles are mostly political. It's not about the ministers or the government structure. It's the equivalent of designing a new detergent package with big blue letters saying "New, Improved."
Even if the detergent is not much changed. There is only one new minister, Stephanie Cadieux, in community, sport and cultural development. No one was fired. Mostly it's the same crew in slightly modified roles.
There are a couple of significant changes.
George Abbott moves from aboriginal relations to education. Abbott has been in health too, so he's handled tough assignments. They haven't gone wrong, but it's hard to point to big accomplishments.
Premier Gordon Campbell wants to make education and the economy defining issues. So Abbott is going to face big challenges in managing change to the school system while facing well-organized interest groups, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to school trustees.
The other big changes come in the resource ministries. Those are tough to understand.
Basically, Pat Bell is responsible for forests, mining and lands. That adds mining to his former responsibilities, which could make sense. It provides a ministry focused on maximizing forestry and mining opportunities, which should be good for resource-based communities.
But there is also a minister of natural resource operations, Steve Thomson, and a junior minister for mining, Randy Hawes. (Plus Bill Bennett as the energy minister.)
So if you have a great mining opportunity, who do you call - Bell, Thomson, Hawes? Or all three? And how do government employees figure out who does what (especially over the next six months as this all gets sorted out)?
There are other interesting appointments. Rich Coleman is back as solicitor general, but keeps housing because he likes it.
Coleman's former responsibility for income assistance and cuts to services for developmentally disabled adults moves to Kevin Krueger, new minister for social development. Krueger's record in arts and tourism suggest that will end in tears.
The biggest change comes in the premier's office. Martyn Brown, Campbell's chief of staff for more than a dozen years, is out. Paul Taylor is in.
You won't find a more powerful job in most governments. Premiers have a deputy minister, charged with managing the public service and a chief of staff to direct the political agenda, manage the message and make sure the party gets re-elected.
Brown was Campbell's guy through three election wins. But part of the job is taken the fall when things go wrong. So Brown is off to a nice job as deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment. (A softer landing, at public expense, than most of his counterparts experience.)
You can't fault the decision. The Liberals have had an awful go wrong. Their communication strategy has been dreadful. They can't keep doing the same things.
So Taylor takes over his job.
It's interesting that Campbell turned back to a familiar figure. Taylor has been one of the most influential managers in Alberta and B.C for almost two decades. After Ralph Klein took power in 1992, Taylor came up with the plan to cut spending.
Campbell recruited him to do the same thing in this province. Taylor did the work for seven years, then Campbell appointed him to run ICBC in 2004. He left that job in April 2008, to run NaiKun Wind Energy Group, which hoped to score big green energy deals with B.C. Hydro.
That didn't work out. Taylor left NaiKun in June. The company was worth about $100 million when he arrived, and less than $8 million when he left, as B.C. Hydro shunned the wind-power proposals. (Which should be reassuring - Taylor's connections didn't help.)
Same people, yet another round of tinkering with ministry responsibilities, even more odd positions - Naomi Yamamoto is minister for building code renewal and John Les gets an extra $15,000 as parliamentary secretary in charge of selling the HST.
That's the other thing with shuffles. They never do bring the benefits the leaders hope for.
Footnote: Hours after the shuffle, Bill Bennett offered a rare internal critique. The overhaul of resource ministries was made without any consultation with caucus or the ministers, he said. When the government is so unpopular it's time to start involving people in decisions, Bennett said.
Even if the detergent is not much changed. There is only one new minister, Stephanie Cadieux, in community, sport and cultural development. No one was fired. Mostly it's the same crew in slightly modified roles.
There are a couple of significant changes.
George Abbott moves from aboriginal relations to education. Abbott has been in health too, so he's handled tough assignments. They haven't gone wrong, but it's hard to point to big accomplishments.
Premier Gordon Campbell wants to make education and the economy defining issues. So Abbott is going to face big challenges in managing change to the school system while facing well-organized interest groups, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to school trustees.
The other big changes come in the resource ministries. Those are tough to understand.
Basically, Pat Bell is responsible for forests, mining and lands. That adds mining to his former responsibilities, which could make sense. It provides a ministry focused on maximizing forestry and mining opportunities, which should be good for resource-based communities.
But there is also a minister of natural resource operations, Steve Thomson, and a junior minister for mining, Randy Hawes. (Plus Bill Bennett as the energy minister.)
So if you have a great mining opportunity, who do you call - Bell, Thomson, Hawes? Or all three? And how do government employees figure out who does what (especially over the next six months as this all gets sorted out)?
There are other interesting appointments. Rich Coleman is back as solicitor general, but keeps housing because he likes it.
Coleman's former responsibility for income assistance and cuts to services for developmentally disabled adults moves to Kevin Krueger, new minister for social development. Krueger's record in arts and tourism suggest that will end in tears.
The biggest change comes in the premier's office. Martyn Brown, Campbell's chief of staff for more than a dozen years, is out. Paul Taylor is in.
You won't find a more powerful job in most governments. Premiers have a deputy minister, charged with managing the public service and a chief of staff to direct the political agenda, manage the message and make sure the party gets re-elected.
Brown was Campbell's guy through three election wins. But part of the job is taken the fall when things go wrong. So Brown is off to a nice job as deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment. (A softer landing, at public expense, than most of his counterparts experience.)
You can't fault the decision. The Liberals have had an awful go wrong. Their communication strategy has been dreadful. They can't keep doing the same things.
So Taylor takes over his job.
It's interesting that Campbell turned back to a familiar figure. Taylor has been one of the most influential managers in Alberta and B.C for almost two decades. After Ralph Klein took power in 1992, Taylor came up with the plan to cut spending.
Campbell recruited him to do the same thing in this province. Taylor did the work for seven years, then Campbell appointed him to run ICBC in 2004. He left that job in April 2008, to run NaiKun Wind Energy Group, which hoped to score big green energy deals with B.C. Hydro.
That didn't work out. Taylor left NaiKun in June. The company was worth about $100 million when he arrived, and less than $8 million when he left, as B.C. Hydro shunned the wind-power proposals. (Which should be reassuring - Taylor's connections didn't help.)
Same people, yet another round of tinkering with ministry responsibilities, even more odd positions - Naomi Yamamoto is minister for building code renewal and John Les gets an extra $15,000 as parliamentary secretary in charge of selling the HST.
That's the other thing with shuffles. They never do bring the benefits the leaders hope for.
Footnote: Hours after the shuffle, Bill Bennett offered a rare internal critique. The overhaul of resource ministries was made without any consultation with caucus or the ministers, he said. When the government is so unpopular it's time to start involving people in decisions, Bennett said.
Monday, October 25, 2010
A resource perspective on the cabinet shuffle
I'll do a column on the changes announced by the premier, but there's some interesting initial reaction here.
Bernard Von Schulmann's work as a consultant is mostly about resource development in B.C. He's one of a small number of knowledgeable commentators.
If he's puzzled by the cabinet changes, especially around the "dirt industries," the government has to explain quickly how this will work and result in more economic activity outside B.C.'s urban centres.
Bernard Von Schulmann's work as a consultant is mostly about resource development in B.C. He's one of a small number of knowledgeable commentators.
If he's puzzled by the cabinet changes, especially around the "dirt industries," the government has to explain quickly how this will work and result in more economic activity outside B.C.'s urban centres.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Changing story on B.C. Rail plea deal
The government now says David Loukidelis, deputy in the Attorney General's Ministry, and Graham Whitmarsh, finance deputy made the decision to cover David Basi and Bob Virk's legal bills:
From Thursday's Vancouver Sun:
"Loukidelis said in the statement that he and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh decided to relieve the two men of responsibility for their legal fees because of their inability to pay...
Loukidelis said the special prosecutor in the case and Attorney-General Mike de Jong did not have "any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this." He added that he informed de Jong of the decision after it was made, on Oct. 8."
But on Wednesday in the Sun de Jong appears to be saying he made the decision.
"De Jong said he made the recommendation last week not to recoup outstanding legal costs.
"As attorney-general, I am presented with a set of facts and a set of recommendations and in this case have proceeded on the strength of that and people will have to come to their own conclusions," he said.
De Jong also pointed out the plea bargain means that no more public money needs to be spent in the case."
And that's certainly what he seemed to say in Tuesday's Sun story:
"Attorney-General Mike de Jong said earlier that Basi and Virk will not be asked to repay the estimated $6 million the government has paid to cover their legal costs.
De Jong said he agreed to the deal because the two men had contributed what they could to their defence and "there's nothing left to pursue."
It might be that de Jong was misquited or just careless. But given the seriousness of the case and the size of the payout, why wouldn't he say on Tuesday that the two deputy ministers had made the decision and he had no role, if that was the case?
From Thursday's Vancouver Sun:
"Loukidelis said in the statement that he and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh decided to relieve the two men of responsibility for their legal fees because of their inability to pay...
Loukidelis said the special prosecutor in the case and Attorney-General Mike de Jong did not have "any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this." He added that he informed de Jong of the decision after it was made, on Oct. 8."
But on Wednesday in the Sun de Jong appears to be saying he made the decision.
"De Jong said he made the recommendation last week not to recoup outstanding legal costs.
"As attorney-general, I am presented with a set of facts and a set of recommendations and in this case have proceeded on the strength of that and people will have to come to their own conclusions," he said.
De Jong also pointed out the plea bargain means that no more public money needs to be spent in the case."
And that's certainly what he seemed to say in Tuesday's Sun story:
"Attorney-General Mike de Jong said earlier that Basi and Virk will not be asked to repay the estimated $6 million the government has paid to cover their legal costs.
De Jong said he agreed to the deal because the two men had contributed what they could to their defence and "there's nothing left to pursue."
It might be that de Jong was misquited or just careless. But given the seriousness of the case and the size of the payout, why wouldn't he say on Tuesday that the two deputy ministers had made the decision and he had no role, if that was the case?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Things get worse in the B.C. Rail scandal
The Times Colonist reports that defence lawyers for Dave Basi and Bob Virk negotiated the forgiveness of $6 million in legal fees with deputy attorney general David Loukidelis and deputy finance minister Graham Whitmarsh.
That raises the perception the plea bargain had less to do with justice and more to do with closed door talks about money.
Most alarming though, is this sentence.
"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."
Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer? Special prosecutors are appointed in sensitive cases to ensure independence and avoid even the appearance that political influence was affecting the courts.
But if the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
This seems an extraordinary interference in what is supposed to be an independent justice system.
That raises the perception the plea bargain had less to do with justice and more to do with closed door talks about money.
Most alarming though, is this sentence.
"But when special prosecutor Bill Berardino made the B.C. government aware on Oct. 5 that he had proposed to let the two men plead guilty, it fell to the deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh, and Loukidelis to figure out whether they would actually have to come up with the money, Loukidelis's statement read."
Why would the special prosecutor "make the government aware" of his plea offer? Special prosecutors are appointed in sensitive cases to ensure independence and avoid even the appearance that political influence was affecting the courts.
But if the special prosecutor is briefing the government of his plans, he is no longer independent. Telling the government of plans to seek a plea bargain, for example, invites interference. Either by proposing a different strategy or, as in this case, offering financial inducements to encourage a guilty plea.
This seems an extraordinary interference in what is supposed to be an independent justice system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
