The New Democrats’ stumbling start to the leadership race should leave loyalists in despair and raise questions - again - about the sense in forcing Carole James out as leader.
The contest has barely begun and it has been hit with a divisive scandal.
To be eligible to vote in the April 17 leadership ballot, people had to join the party by 5 p.m. last Monday.
All the campaign teams had scrambled to sign up new members who would vote for their candidate. They carted in completed membership applications - each accompanied by the required donation - through the day.
But organizers for Adrian Dix showed up with big batches of memberships and separate piles of cash, then started attaching the money to the application forms.
Candidates Harry Lali and Mike Farnworth both cried foul, Lali most vigorously.
The complaints were that the memberships weren't submitted with the money, as required, and that the Dix workers were still pulling the material together after the 5 p.m. deadline.
But the fear was that the Dix campaign had undertaken a campaign of mass sign-ups of instant members in South Asian ethnic communities. The stacks of cash raised questions about whether the new party members had actually made the required donations themselves or whether the campaign was picking up the tab.
It's a common political tactic. Send some well-connected operatives into a close-knit community, sign up hundreds or thousands of members, and you can control a riding association or a leadership race.
It's also destructive. The instant members disappear the day after the vote. Real party members find they've been elbowed out of the process, so they drift away. Supporters of losing candidates feel cheated. And the party is left, in many cases, with a leader without real support.
The New Democrats hoped to reduce the problems by setting an early deadline for new members who would be eligible to vote. It didn't seem to work.
The other candidates are right to be concerned.
The NDP had something like 12,000 members when James was ousted. The numbers have climbed as candidates signed up new members, but an influx of several thousand instant members supporting one contender could tip the scales. The race could be over before real party members were even sure who was running.
NDP provincial secretary Jan O'Brien ruled the memberships were valid. They got there before 5 p.m. even if they weren't complete by that time.
O'Brien acknowledged the rules issued to all the candidates said each membership must be submitted with individual payments attached, but she had now decided that was a "redundant, internal process." She woudn’t enforce the rules.
At best, the New Democrats look like bunglers, setting campaign rules - which most candidates played by - and then ignoring them.
And at worst, the party looks to be condoning mass sign-ups paid for by third parties and favouring one candidate over the others.
Farnworth said he accepts the ruling; Lali says he hasn’t ruled out legal action over the memberships.
The party might be able to satisfy both with a pledge to contact a large sample of the new members to establish if they actually joined and made the required personal donation.
It's hard to see any renewal in all this, which the anti-James people said they were looking for.
The four leading candidates are holdovers from the Clark government of the 1990s. Farnworth and Lali were in cabinet; Horgan and Dix were political staffers, with stints in the premier's office. Dix resigned after faking a document in an attempt to help deflect attention from Clark in the casino scandal. Only Nicholas Simons is a relatively new face and he is a long shot.
The race is already tainted with scandal and allegations of fraud.
And the Liberals, I expect, are very pleased.
Footnote: The Liberals are looking wise in having adopted a process that gives each riding 100 votes, no matter how many members it has. The votes are allocated based on a constituency vote. This reduces the benefits of mass sign-ups and gives candidates from outside the Lower Mainland, where sign-ups are easier, a better chance.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Why MLAs don't get more respect
People should admire politicians, be proud of them. They should have the support of their fellow citizens, who selected them in an election process.
So why doesn't it work that way more often?
It's an important question. If the people we elect to represent us don't have our respect, neither does government or the rule of law. There is no reason to pay taxes or accept the rules of a government that you don't consider legitimate.
Rich Coleman just offered a pretty good example of part of the problem
MLAs have refused to reveal their expense claims - how much they get for food, housing in the capital and other costs.
They promised disclosure last May.
In July, it became a big issue when filings required by cabinet ministers revealed Ida Chong had claimed $5,921 in meal allowances - even thought she lived 10 kilometres from the legislature.
MLAs are entitled to a $61 per day meal allowance when the legislature is sitting or they're on government business. (No receipts needed; they can grab a bagel, pizza slice and burger for the day and pocket $40.) Chong claimed 98 days worth of meal allowances.
If you're from Dawson Creek, maybe you need a meal allowance. But not if you live in the capital and are paid $150,000 a year.
Chong is not likely alone. New Democrat MLAs from the capital region supported Chong. And they refused to say how much they had claimed in taxpayer-funded meal allowances.
But the good news was that the controversy forced MLAs to promise an end to secrecy by last September.
It hasn't happened. Mike de Jong, the former Liberal house leader, said MLAs were resisting disclosure of how they spent taxpayers' money.
No, said Coleman, the current house leader. "I'm not finding a lot of opposition to it."
It's January. Disclosure was supposed to happen four months ago. In the real world, that's a problem. There is no commitment on when taxpayers will get the facts.
Coleman wasn't being candid. If there was no resistance, the September commitment would have been met.
Kevin Krueger offered another reason politicians are held in disrepute.
The cabinet minister bristled during a Kamloops radio interview about an announcement of hospital improvements when the host noted New Democrat health critic Adrian Dix had campaigned for the changes.
"If there ever was a guy who shouldn't put his head up to get it shot off - as the soldiers refer to it - it's Adrian Dix," Krueger responded.
In the week after the week after a politician and 19 others were shot in Tucson, it was an especially dumb remark.
But it would have been a dumb remark anytime. Dix had pushed for needed improvements to the hospital, especially to equipment that left surgeons starting operations with dirty instruments. That's just the truth; slagging him doesn't change it.
Dumb remarks are human. Krueger said he realized right away he had made a mistake.
Still he initially told the Globe and Mail he wouldn't apologize.
Dix is "constantly negative" and has a "reprehensive history" in B.C. politics, Krueger said. "It was an off-the-cuff comment that I do regret, but I certainly don't think anyone owes Adrian Dix an apology."
So according to Krueger, only some people can be wronged. People who are "constantly negative" don't have the a right to expect fair treatment.
Krueger did apologize later. But it was too late. Who could know if it was his conscience, or the public affairs bureau commanding the change of heart.
These people can do better. Certainly many voters expect better of them.
The recall campaign against Chong looks like it will fall short of the required 40 per cent of registered voters. But it seems likely more people will sign petitions calling for her firing than voter for her in 2009.
Chong is a perfectly average MLA. The strength of the recall effort shows many voters expect more from their elected representatives.
Footnote: MLAs do have a high opinion of their own value. They can claim up to $19,000 a year for a capital residence if they're from outside Victoria. That's four times as much as a single disabled person gets in income assistance for shelter. Chong's meal claims were just slightly less than a disabled person gets for all expenses except housing for an entire year. And MLAs increased their pay 34 per cent in five years, while the average wage in B.C. rose 12 per cent.
So why doesn't it work that way more often?
It's an important question. If the people we elect to represent us don't have our respect, neither does government or the rule of law. There is no reason to pay taxes or accept the rules of a government that you don't consider legitimate.
Rich Coleman just offered a pretty good example of part of the problem
MLAs have refused to reveal their expense claims - how much they get for food, housing in the capital and other costs.
They promised disclosure last May.
In July, it became a big issue when filings required by cabinet ministers revealed Ida Chong had claimed $5,921 in meal allowances - even thought she lived 10 kilometres from the legislature.
MLAs are entitled to a $61 per day meal allowance when the legislature is sitting or they're on government business. (No receipts needed; they can grab a bagel, pizza slice and burger for the day and pocket $40.) Chong claimed 98 days worth of meal allowances.
If you're from Dawson Creek, maybe you need a meal allowance. But not if you live in the capital and are paid $150,000 a year.
Chong is not likely alone. New Democrat MLAs from the capital region supported Chong. And they refused to say how much they had claimed in taxpayer-funded meal allowances.
But the good news was that the controversy forced MLAs to promise an end to secrecy by last September.
It hasn't happened. Mike de Jong, the former Liberal house leader, said MLAs were resisting disclosure of how they spent taxpayers' money.
No, said Coleman, the current house leader. "I'm not finding a lot of opposition to it."
It's January. Disclosure was supposed to happen four months ago. In the real world, that's a problem. There is no commitment on when taxpayers will get the facts.
Coleman wasn't being candid. If there was no resistance, the September commitment would have been met.
Kevin Krueger offered another reason politicians are held in disrepute.
The cabinet minister bristled during a Kamloops radio interview about an announcement of hospital improvements when the host noted New Democrat health critic Adrian Dix had campaigned for the changes.
"If there ever was a guy who shouldn't put his head up to get it shot off - as the soldiers refer to it - it's Adrian Dix," Krueger responded.
In the week after the week after a politician and 19 others were shot in Tucson, it was an especially dumb remark.
But it would have been a dumb remark anytime. Dix had pushed for needed improvements to the hospital, especially to equipment that left surgeons starting operations with dirty instruments. That's just the truth; slagging him doesn't change it.
Dumb remarks are human. Krueger said he realized right away he had made a mistake.
Still he initially told the Globe and Mail he wouldn't apologize.
Dix is "constantly negative" and has a "reprehensive history" in B.C. politics, Krueger said. "It was an off-the-cuff comment that I do regret, but I certainly don't think anyone owes Adrian Dix an apology."
So according to Krueger, only some people can be wronged. People who are "constantly negative" don't have the a right to expect fair treatment.
Krueger did apologize later. But it was too late. Who could know if it was his conscience, or the public affairs bureau commanding the change of heart.
These people can do better. Certainly many voters expect better of them.
The recall campaign against Chong looks like it will fall short of the required 40 per cent of registered voters. But it seems likely more people will sign petitions calling for her firing than voter for her in 2009.
Chong is a perfectly average MLA. The strength of the recall effort shows many voters expect more from their elected representatives.
Footnote: MLAs do have a high opinion of their own value. They can claim up to $19,000 a year for a capital residence if they're from outside Victoria. That's four times as much as a single disabled person gets in income assistance for shelter. Chong's meal claims were just slightly less than a disabled person gets for all expenses except housing for an entire year. And MLAs increased their pay 34 per cent in five years, while the average wage in B.C. rose 12 per cent.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
'Melding news with drama, politics with theatre'
The Globe had an interesting weekend piece on "Five reasons why gun control has been disarmed" on the weekend.
Anyone interested in building public/popular support around issues should take a lok.
I was struck by a section on the gun lobby's response after "a string of catastrophic school shootings" before the U.S. elections in 2000.
"So they called in the pros.
The NRA hired the Mercury Group, a high-powered consulting company that describes itself on its website as 'masters at melding news with drama, politics with theatre, and public affairs with popular buzz to make your message sing and your story sell.'
Their client list includes the Navajo Nation, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Air Force Memorial Foundation.
Mercury Group worked with the NRA to identify key states to target with their new campaign: 'Vote Freedom First.'
The campaign featured radio and television ads, billboards, bumper stickers and 'other collateral materials.' Huge 'Freedom First' rallies were organized in dozens of cities in swing states leading up to election day.
Afterward, the NRA and Mercury Group declared victory, citing an 85 per cent success rate in state and local elections of sympathetic candidates, a pro-NRA majority seated in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and 'a pro-NRA President in the White House.'"
The Mercury Group's description of their role is useful for anyone who is thinking about how to influence opinion (or is the target of such efforts).
Anyone interested in building public/popular support around issues should take a lok.
I was struck by a section on the gun lobby's response after "a string of catastrophic school shootings" before the U.S. elections in 2000.
"So they called in the pros.
The NRA hired the Mercury Group, a high-powered consulting company that describes itself on its website as 'masters at melding news with drama, politics with theatre, and public affairs with popular buzz to make your message sing and your story sell.'
Their client list includes the Navajo Nation, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Air Force Memorial Foundation.
Mercury Group worked with the NRA to identify key states to target with their new campaign: 'Vote Freedom First.'
The campaign featured radio and television ads, billboards, bumper stickers and 'other collateral materials.' Huge 'Freedom First' rallies were organized in dozens of cities in swing states leading up to election day.
Afterward, the NRA and Mercury Group declared victory, citing an 85 per cent success rate in state and local elections of sympathetic candidates, a pro-NRA majority seated in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and 'a pro-NRA President in the White House.'"
The Mercury Group's description of their role is useful for anyone who is thinking about how to influence opinion (or is the target of such efforts).
Friday, January 14, 2011
Leadership races both entering important phase
The Liberal and NDP races are both finally under way, but much of the work right now is behind the scenes, as candidates scramble to sign up new party members who will support them.
That's critical, especially for the New Democrat hopefuls. Their leadership ballot is April 17; to be able to vote, people have to be party members by Jan. 17. The Liberal contest is Feb. 26, but anyone who joins by Feb. 4 will be able to vote
So the serious candidates and their camps are rushing to sign up new members. A few thousand new party members - if they vote - could tip the balance.
It's striking how much the leadership campaigns have come to resemble election campaigns, with pollsters, full-time staff and - paid or not - and tightly scripted agendas.
It's also striking, especially on the Liberal side, how important lobbyists and government relations consultants are to the candidates' efforts.
The practitioners increasingly move from lobbying politicians to helping them raise money or win elections or leadership races and then back to lobbying the same politicians.
Take the well-connected Progressive Group. The firm's Patrick Kinsella, of B.C. Rail fame, is helping Christy Clark. Mark Jiles, also of the Progressive Group, is assisting George Abbott's campaign, as is Sarah Weddell of National Public Relations, another company that sells companies advice on getting government to see things their way.
And the emails I get from Kevin Falcon's campaign come from the Pace Group. Norman Stowe, its managing partner is supporting Falcon; the company's vice-president for media relations is handling communications for the leadership contest. The Pace Group has millions of dollars worth of government contracts and advises others on dealing with governments.
And it's striking how much money these campaigns will cost. The New Democrats have set a campaign spending limit of $175,000 for candidates; the Liberals are rumoured to be imposing a $450,000 limit per candidate.
The parties also differ on donations.
The New Democrats have set a $2,500 limit on contributions. The idea is that large donations can create real or perceived conflicts of interest - that a successful candidate will be indebted to big backers, or that shape his actions to suit them.
The Liberals have no limits. A single business, for example, could entirely fund the campaign of the leadership candidate of its choice.
Both parties have to live by the Elections Act, which requires public disclosure of donations.
But the New Democrats have added a useful refinement. Candidates will have to publicly report all donations of more than $250 before party members vote.
That's a much more meaningful measure. If the sources of a candidates' cash cause concern, members will have a chance to ask questions and consider the issue before voting.
Once the membership sign-up deadlines are past, the leadership candidates will turn to courting the current party faithful, setting out a platform that differentiates them from their rivals and trying to show they are popular enough to win the next election.
The last task is important. It's one thing to appeal to people already in your party's camp. But most sensible party members will be looking for candidate who can win the next election, not one who offers the prospect of a noble defeat.
At this point, that might be good news for George Abbott, particularly if Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon end up running hard against each other and raise the fear of divisions in the party.
It's harder to figure out which New Democrat offers the best prospects for electoral success. John Horgan, Mike Farnworth and, likely, Adrian Dix, are credible candidates. (Harry Lali and Nicholas Simons are unlikely likely to persuade Liberal voters that they offer a better plan for the province.)
And none of the main NDP candidates represents renewal - Dix, Farnworth, Horgan and Lali are all associated with the discredited New Democrat government of the 1990s.
Footnote: The challenge for candidates in both parties is to stake out a distinctive position without attacking other hopefuls. That's important both to keep the party united and because no candidate is likely to get a majority on the first ballot; alienating supporters of other candidates could be costly.
That's critical, especially for the New Democrat hopefuls. Their leadership ballot is April 17; to be able to vote, people have to be party members by Jan. 17. The Liberal contest is Feb. 26, but anyone who joins by Feb. 4 will be able to vote
So the serious candidates and their camps are rushing to sign up new members. A few thousand new party members - if they vote - could tip the balance.
It's striking how much the leadership campaigns have come to resemble election campaigns, with pollsters, full-time staff and - paid or not - and tightly scripted agendas.
It's also striking, especially on the Liberal side, how important lobbyists and government relations consultants are to the candidates' efforts.
The practitioners increasingly move from lobbying politicians to helping them raise money or win elections or leadership races and then back to lobbying the same politicians.
Take the well-connected Progressive Group. The firm's Patrick Kinsella, of B.C. Rail fame, is helping Christy Clark. Mark Jiles, also of the Progressive Group, is assisting George Abbott's campaign, as is Sarah Weddell of National Public Relations, another company that sells companies advice on getting government to see things their way.
And the emails I get from Kevin Falcon's campaign come from the Pace Group. Norman Stowe, its managing partner is supporting Falcon; the company's vice-president for media relations is handling communications for the leadership contest. The Pace Group has millions of dollars worth of government contracts and advises others on dealing with governments.
And it's striking how much money these campaigns will cost. The New Democrats have set a campaign spending limit of $175,000 for candidates; the Liberals are rumoured to be imposing a $450,000 limit per candidate.
The parties also differ on donations.
The New Democrats have set a $2,500 limit on contributions. The idea is that large donations can create real or perceived conflicts of interest - that a successful candidate will be indebted to big backers, or that shape his actions to suit them.
The Liberals have no limits. A single business, for example, could entirely fund the campaign of the leadership candidate of its choice.
Both parties have to live by the Elections Act, which requires public disclosure of donations.
But the New Democrats have added a useful refinement. Candidates will have to publicly report all donations of more than $250 before party members vote.
That's a much more meaningful measure. If the sources of a candidates' cash cause concern, members will have a chance to ask questions and consider the issue before voting.
Once the membership sign-up deadlines are past, the leadership candidates will turn to courting the current party faithful, setting out a platform that differentiates them from their rivals and trying to show they are popular enough to win the next election.
The last task is important. It's one thing to appeal to people already in your party's camp. But most sensible party members will be looking for candidate who can win the next election, not one who offers the prospect of a noble defeat.
At this point, that might be good news for George Abbott, particularly if Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon end up running hard against each other and raise the fear of divisions in the party.
It's harder to figure out which New Democrat offers the best prospects for electoral success. John Horgan, Mike Farnworth and, likely, Adrian Dix, are credible candidates. (Harry Lali and Nicholas Simons are unlikely likely to persuade Liberal voters that they offer a better plan for the province.)
And none of the main NDP candidates represents renewal - Dix, Farnworth, Horgan and Lali are all associated with the discredited New Democrat government of the 1990s.
Footnote: The challenge for candidates in both parties is to stake out a distinctive position without attacking other hopefuls. That's important both to keep the party united and because no candidate is likely to get a majority on the first ballot; alienating supporters of other candidates could be costly.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Casino money laundering suspicious cases soar
Criminals love casinos. They're great places for loan sharking and passing counterfeit money.
And even more important for the serious crooks, casinos are the easiest place to launder money.
The CBC used freedom of information requests to learn that millions of dollars in suspicious transactions flowed through two B.C. casinos in three months last year. The casino companies told B.C. Lotteries, but no one passed the information on to police immediately.
These aren't slightly suspicious transactions. In one case, a man entered a New Westminster casino with $1.2 million worth of chips. He didn't place a bet. He just turned them in and took the money in cash.
He told staff he was boarding a flight and was concerned the money might look suspicious. So the casino gave him a letter confirming the money was a casino payout.
It's a classic money-laundering scenario. Crime - drug dealing, robbery, whatever - can produce lots of cash. Banks have to report deposits of more than $10,000 to FINTRAC, a federal agency that fights money laundering and organized crime. Even if money is broken into smaller deposits to come under the limit, a criminal might end up having to explain where all the money came from.
Instead, criminals can buy chips in casinos, cash them in and get a cheque or, in this case, cash with a letter suggesting they were winnings. The money is clean.
In another case uncovered by the CBC, a man entered a Richmond casino with a bag stuffed with $460,000 in $20 bills and bought chips. The casino reported that there was nothing suspicious in the transaction.
All told, there were 90 large transactions worth $8 million in three months.
The RCMP only learned about this after the fact. Insp. Barry Baxter, with the unit that tracks the proceeds of crime, said the police suspect money laundering. "The common person would say this stinks," he said.
Casinos also have to report large transactions to FINTRAC, the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, and also report to police and the province's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch. But the reports aren't required for 30 days; a quick first step would be to require immediate reporting to police.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for gambling, initially downplayed the reports. He later promised an investigation.
But none of this is surprising.
The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, warned of a crime explosion at casinos, with investigations into offences like loan sharking and money laundering more than doubling in a year.
Last year, it was revealed B.C. Lotteries had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing. There were more than 1,000 infractions; in eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000.
FINTRAC said fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law."
Despite the warnings, enforcement has been minimal. In 2009, the government shut down the five-year-old specialized police unit created to target gambling-related crime.
And the enforcement branch's just-released annual report for the 2009-10 fiscal year reveals that it opened 635 investigations into money laundering, loan sharking and counterfeit offences in casinos, without laying a single charge.
Again, none of this is surprising. Casinos want to make money. Coleman and B.C. Lotteries are responsible for increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the average amount each one loses and the province's take.
Cracking down on transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers.
The obvious, and long overdue, first step is end the inherent conflict in having one minister responsible both for promoting gambling losses and fighting crime in casinos.
Footnote: The CBC reported that reports to FINTRAC showed that while the dollar value of suspicious transactions at casinos in other provinces stayed the same or went down in the past year, they tripled in B.C.
And even more important for the serious crooks, casinos are the easiest place to launder money.
The CBC used freedom of information requests to learn that millions of dollars in suspicious transactions flowed through two B.C. casinos in three months last year. The casino companies told B.C. Lotteries, but no one passed the information on to police immediately.
These aren't slightly suspicious transactions. In one case, a man entered a New Westminster casino with $1.2 million worth of chips. He didn't place a bet. He just turned them in and took the money in cash.
He told staff he was boarding a flight and was concerned the money might look suspicious. So the casino gave him a letter confirming the money was a casino payout.
It's a classic money-laundering scenario. Crime - drug dealing, robbery, whatever - can produce lots of cash. Banks have to report deposits of more than $10,000 to FINTRAC, a federal agency that fights money laundering and organized crime. Even if money is broken into smaller deposits to come under the limit, a criminal might end up having to explain where all the money came from.
Instead, criminals can buy chips in casinos, cash them in and get a cheque or, in this case, cash with a letter suggesting they were winnings. The money is clean.
In another case uncovered by the CBC, a man entered a Richmond casino with a bag stuffed with $460,000 in $20 bills and bought chips. The casino reported that there was nothing suspicious in the transaction.
All told, there were 90 large transactions worth $8 million in three months.
The RCMP only learned about this after the fact. Insp. Barry Baxter, with the unit that tracks the proceeds of crime, said the police suspect money laundering. "The common person would say this stinks," he said.
Casinos also have to report large transactions to FINTRAC, the federal Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, and also report to police and the province's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch. But the reports aren't required for 30 days; a quick first step would be to require immediate reporting to police.
Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for gambling, initially downplayed the reports. He later promised an investigation.
But none of this is surprising.
The government's Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch 2006 annual report, for example, warned of a crime explosion at casinos, with investigations into offences like loan sharking and money laundering more than doubling in a year.
Last year, it was revealed B.C. Lotteries had been fined $670,000 under federal laws aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing. There were more than 1,000 infractions; in eight cases, the most basic information wasn't collected when people walked out of casinos with more than $10,000.
FINTRAC said fines are only imposed for a "persistent, chronic failure to comply with the law."
Despite the warnings, enforcement has been minimal. In 2009, the government shut down the five-year-old specialized police unit created to target gambling-related crime.
And the enforcement branch's just-released annual report for the 2009-10 fiscal year reveals that it opened 635 investigations into money laundering, loan sharking and counterfeit offences in casinos, without laying a single charge.
Again, none of this is surprising. Casinos want to make money. Coleman and B.C. Lotteries are responsible for increasing the number of gamblers in the province, the average amount each one loses and the province's take.
Cracking down on transactions that could be linked to money laundering is a threat to those goals. Casinos fear that asking for information from big gamblers could drive away some of their best customers.
The obvious, and long overdue, first step is end the inherent conflict in having one minister responsible both for promoting gambling losses and fighting crime in casinos.
Footnote: The CBC reported that reports to FINTRAC showed that while the dollar value of suspicious transactions at casinos in other provinces stayed the same or went down in the past year, they tripled in B.C.
Monday, January 10, 2011
A lot more oversight for fish farm industry
The Times Colonist has an interesting editorial looking at the shift of most responsibilities for the fish-farm infustry from the provincial to federal government as a result of a lawsuit.
The numbers tell the story. The federal DFO is adding 52 positions in B.C. — most on the Island — to monitor the farms, enforce regulations, share information and develop managememnt policy.
The provincial government is eliminating 13 positions as a result of the shift.
The feds are committing four times as many people to do the same work.
The editorial is here.
The numbers tell the story. The federal DFO is adding 52 positions in B.C. — most on the Island — to monitor the farms, enforce regulations, share information and develop managememnt policy.
The provincial government is eliminating 13 positions as a result of the shift.
The feds are committing four times as many people to do the same work.
The editorial is here.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Falcon's confusing merit-pay pitch underwhelms
Kevin Falcon's proposal to introduce merit pay for teachers remains a mystery. That's not a good thing in a leadership campaign.
In interviews this week, Falcon proposed a radical re-ordering of teachers' compensation that would lead to huge battles with their union.
No more pay grid based on seniority with regular raises. "Teachers' growth in income shouldn't just be determined by how long they have been in a classroom, but by how well they are doing their job," he said.
Hard to argue with in the abstract. My children had teachers who were brilliant, committed and devoted great amounts of extra time to helping students and they had some who were duds. It would be nice if their pay recognized their effectiveness.
And the idea is would appeal to the party's right wing.
But it's pointlessly impractical. There's no way to measure teacher effectiveness currently in place in B.C. Any effort would involve huge costs, including much more testing.
It's not a realistic goal in bargaining with the B.C. Teachers Federation, which is adamantly opposed. Going ahead would mean - once more - using legislation to rip up contracts the government has already agreed to.
And there is mixed evidence on whether merit pay actually improves educational outcomes for students.
All in, not a sound public policy proposal.
In a campaign press release, Falcon changed directions, proposing a "master teacher incentive program." Better teachers - judged on a range of criteria, from test result improvements to peer reviews to parents' reviews - would get extra pay.
They would be encouraged to share their skills and experience as mentors. The program could be extended to whole schools, Falcon said.
The model could be based on a proposal by Australia's Labour government, he said.
That would be expensive. Australia proposes to pay almost 10 per cent of teachers an extra $8,000 a year in merit pay. The cost in B.C. would be about $25 million.
And Australia hasn't actually done it, so there are no results to monitor.
But it's a more sensible proposal than empty talk about a merit-pay plan with no chance of implementation or strong supporting evidence.
The whole process left Falcon looking like a less-than-serious candidate. No one should expect fully costed, studied proposals during a leadership race. Part of the point is to hear new ideas from the contenders.
But it's reasonable to expect clarity about what the candidate is proposing, rather than two contradictory versions.
It would also have been welcome if Falcon had talked about a more modest, inclusive approach, rather than another provincewide edict from government.
Why not invite three school districts to submit merit pay plans, developed with teachers (and their union), principals, school board and school councils, fund them and see what worked?
All the candidates should be addressing some of the major education issues - dismal graduation rates for aboriginal students, the loss of students to private schools, the failure to improve student achievement (while acknowledging it is, compared to other jurisdictions, very good).
Falcon also got things wrong in his press release. "A high quality education system is the best anti-poverty initiative and the best health program government can advance," he said.
Educational achievement is critical for creating opportunities for individuals and a strong province. Educated graduates are healthier and less likely to be poor.
But Falcon has it backward.
Reducing the number of poor kids in B.C. is the best educational and health program government can advance.
Children who grow up in poverty have lower educational achievement, worse lifetime health and lower incomes and are more likely to commit crimes. Those are facts.
Instead of expecting the school system to change all that, we need to hear a plan - so far missing after nine years of Liberal government - to reduce the number of children living in poverty in this rich province.
Footnote: George Abbott rejected, nicely, Falcon's plan. He called for a broader focus on helping students in their first years in school. Christ Clark said the idea had merit, but wasn't worth the conflict it would create. Mike de Jong said he needed more information before commenting.
In interviews this week, Falcon proposed a radical re-ordering of teachers' compensation that would lead to huge battles with their union.
No more pay grid based on seniority with regular raises. "Teachers' growth in income shouldn't just be determined by how long they have been in a classroom, but by how well they are doing their job," he said.
Hard to argue with in the abstract. My children had teachers who were brilliant, committed and devoted great amounts of extra time to helping students and they had some who were duds. It would be nice if their pay recognized their effectiveness.
And the idea is would appeal to the party's right wing.
But it's pointlessly impractical. There's no way to measure teacher effectiveness currently in place in B.C. Any effort would involve huge costs, including much more testing.
It's not a realistic goal in bargaining with the B.C. Teachers Federation, which is adamantly opposed. Going ahead would mean - once more - using legislation to rip up contracts the government has already agreed to.
And there is mixed evidence on whether merit pay actually improves educational outcomes for students.
All in, not a sound public policy proposal.
In a campaign press release, Falcon changed directions, proposing a "master teacher incentive program." Better teachers - judged on a range of criteria, from test result improvements to peer reviews to parents' reviews - would get extra pay.
They would be encouraged to share their skills and experience as mentors. The program could be extended to whole schools, Falcon said.
The model could be based on a proposal by Australia's Labour government, he said.
That would be expensive. Australia proposes to pay almost 10 per cent of teachers an extra $8,000 a year in merit pay. The cost in B.C. would be about $25 million.
And Australia hasn't actually done it, so there are no results to monitor.
But it's a more sensible proposal than empty talk about a merit-pay plan with no chance of implementation or strong supporting evidence.
The whole process left Falcon looking like a less-than-serious candidate. No one should expect fully costed, studied proposals during a leadership race. Part of the point is to hear new ideas from the contenders.
But it's reasonable to expect clarity about what the candidate is proposing, rather than two contradictory versions.
It would also have been welcome if Falcon had talked about a more modest, inclusive approach, rather than another provincewide edict from government.
Why not invite three school districts to submit merit pay plans, developed with teachers (and their union), principals, school board and school councils, fund them and see what worked?
All the candidates should be addressing some of the major education issues - dismal graduation rates for aboriginal students, the loss of students to private schools, the failure to improve student achievement (while acknowledging it is, compared to other jurisdictions, very good).
Falcon also got things wrong in his press release. "A high quality education system is the best anti-poverty initiative and the best health program government can advance," he said.
Educational achievement is critical for creating opportunities for individuals and a strong province. Educated graduates are healthier and less likely to be poor.
But Falcon has it backward.
Reducing the number of poor kids in B.C. is the best educational and health program government can advance.
Children who grow up in poverty have lower educational achievement, worse lifetime health and lower incomes and are more likely to commit crimes. Those are facts.
Instead of expecting the school system to change all that, we need to hear a plan - so far missing after nine years of Liberal government - to reduce the number of children living in poverty in this rich province.
Footnote: George Abbott rejected, nicely, Falcon's plan. He called for a broader focus on helping students in their first years in school. Christ Clark said the idea had merit, but wasn't worth the conflict it would create. Mike de Jong said he needed more information before commenting.
Government news, or party advertising
I wrote last month about a highly spun provincial government release on job grown reported in StatsCan monthly release, suggesting in a post that taxpayers shouldn't be paying for what looked like party advertising.
The point was reinforced this month. B.C. lost 22,000 jobs, 19,900 of them full-time, StatsCan reported.
But there was no release from the provincial government.
If news releases about job numbers are actually a useful government communications effort, then they would go out whether the numbers made the party in power look good, or bad, and would provide context.
If releases only are sent when the news is good, then the party should be paying — as the Liberals would have once, long ago, agreed.
The point was reinforced this month. B.C. lost 22,000 jobs, 19,900 of them full-time, StatsCan reported.
But there was no release from the provincial government.
If news releases about job numbers are actually a useful government communications effort, then they would go out whether the numbers made the party in power look good, or bad, and would provide context.
If releases only are sent when the news is good, then the party should be paying — as the Liberals would have once, long ago, agreed.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Softwood border skirmish raises issue for B.C. taxpayers
The latest skirmish in the perpetual softwood lumber battle with the U.S. is worth your attention.
American lumber producers are complaining, again, that B.C. is subsidizing forest companies based in the province. That’s giving the companies an unfair advantage and costing profits and jobs in the U.S., they argue.
If the complaints are legitimate, it also means B.C. taxpayers are losing out on payments we should be getting for the trees.
The American grumbling is to be expected. The industry maintains a pretty much permanent effort to fight imported lumber from Canada, using lobbyists, political allies and the softwood lumber agreement appeals process.
But their criticisms are being supported by forest researchers here and at least one Canadian industry executive.
The issue is stumpage. We own most of the trees in the province. Companies have to pay for them when they cut them down. The price is set by government, partly based on market forces.
The American producers argue the stumpage system is rigged to give the companies the wood at a big discount. Their companies, which pay market prices for trees on private land, can’t compete.
The pine beetle is at the centre of the latest offensive.
The government sets a dirt-cheap stumpage rate for low-value wood - traditionally trees too small or low quality to be used for lumber, which ended up being shredded and made into pulp. The rate, at 25 cents per cubic metre, pretty much gives the trees away. The stumpage rate for trees destined for lumber has been about 50 times greater.
But since the latest softwood agreement was signed in 2006, more and more wood has graded at the lowest rate. About 10 per cent of logs used for timber used to qualify for the 25-cent rate, the U.S. industry says. That’s climbed to 50 per cent. (All this courtesy of a report in The Oregonian, Portland’s newspaper. The issue has been getting media attention south of the border.)
Forest Minister Pat Bell says the stumpage being charged is appropriate. Vast tracts of dead forest, killed by the pine beetle, are deteriorating in quality. The trees are worth less and tougher to use for lumber.
But Rick Doman, tracked down by the Oregonian, disagrees. He fought unsuccessfully to save Doman Industries, his families’ Island-based forest company and now runs Eacom Timber Group of Montreal.
Doman says the U.S. producers are right. Good quality wood is being graded falsely to give the companies a great deal. The pine beetle-killed lumber was good enough to use in the Richmond Olympic Oval, he notes.
The Canadian companies are getting a gift from government, the U.S. industry faces unfair competition and B.C. taxpayers are the “losers,” he told the Oregonian.
It’s tough to know who is right. Government forest revenues have plummeted from $1.2 billion in 2005-6 to about $345 million last year. But the recession and collapse of the U.S. housing market were the major factors.
Still, forestry revenues were equal to 19 per cent of the value of exports in 2005; that’s fallen to 12 per cent in 2009. If trees had been selling to the companies for the same average stumpage levels today as they were four years ago, taxpayers could expect an extra $200 million in revenue this year.
The consultation process under the softwood lumber agreement didn’t produce any settlement. The next step, while political pressure continues, is arbitration.
British Columbians should be watching that with as much interest as the American industry.
The whole issue would be a useful topic for review by the province’s auditor general. As well as concerns about stumpage rates, earlier reviews have highlighted risks in letting companies set their own grades for public wood, an inadequate number of spot checks and puny fines for violations.
Footnote: The low stumpage rates have protected jobs. The cheap timber has encouraged companies to invest in more efficient mills in the interior to deal with the pine beetle-killed wood and opened opportunities in using the fibre to produce electricity.
American lumber producers are complaining, again, that B.C. is subsidizing forest companies based in the province. That’s giving the companies an unfair advantage and costing profits and jobs in the U.S., they argue.
If the complaints are legitimate, it also means B.C. taxpayers are losing out on payments we should be getting for the trees.
The American grumbling is to be expected. The industry maintains a pretty much permanent effort to fight imported lumber from Canada, using lobbyists, political allies and the softwood lumber agreement appeals process.
But their criticisms are being supported by forest researchers here and at least one Canadian industry executive.
The issue is stumpage. We own most of the trees in the province. Companies have to pay for them when they cut them down. The price is set by government, partly based on market forces.
The American producers argue the stumpage system is rigged to give the companies the wood at a big discount. Their companies, which pay market prices for trees on private land, can’t compete.
The pine beetle is at the centre of the latest offensive.
The government sets a dirt-cheap stumpage rate for low-value wood - traditionally trees too small or low quality to be used for lumber, which ended up being shredded and made into pulp. The rate, at 25 cents per cubic metre, pretty much gives the trees away. The stumpage rate for trees destined for lumber has been about 50 times greater.
But since the latest softwood agreement was signed in 2006, more and more wood has graded at the lowest rate. About 10 per cent of logs used for timber used to qualify for the 25-cent rate, the U.S. industry says. That’s climbed to 50 per cent. (All this courtesy of a report in The Oregonian, Portland’s newspaper. The issue has been getting media attention south of the border.)
Forest Minister Pat Bell says the stumpage being charged is appropriate. Vast tracts of dead forest, killed by the pine beetle, are deteriorating in quality. The trees are worth less and tougher to use for lumber.
But Rick Doman, tracked down by the Oregonian, disagrees. He fought unsuccessfully to save Doman Industries, his families’ Island-based forest company and now runs Eacom Timber Group of Montreal.
Doman says the U.S. producers are right. Good quality wood is being graded falsely to give the companies a great deal. The pine beetle-killed lumber was good enough to use in the Richmond Olympic Oval, he notes.
The Canadian companies are getting a gift from government, the U.S. industry faces unfair competition and B.C. taxpayers are the “losers,” he told the Oregonian.
It’s tough to know who is right. Government forest revenues have plummeted from $1.2 billion in 2005-6 to about $345 million last year. But the recession and collapse of the U.S. housing market were the major factors.
Still, forestry revenues were equal to 19 per cent of the value of exports in 2005; that’s fallen to 12 per cent in 2009. If trees had been selling to the companies for the same average stumpage levels today as they were four years ago, taxpayers could expect an extra $200 million in revenue this year.
The consultation process under the softwood lumber agreement didn’t produce any settlement. The next step, while political pressure continues, is arbitration.
British Columbians should be watching that with as much interest as the American industry.
The whole issue would be a useful topic for review by the province’s auditor general. As well as concerns about stumpage rates, earlier reviews have highlighted risks in letting companies set their own grades for public wood, an inadequate number of spot checks and puny fines for violations.
Footnote: The low stumpage rates have protected jobs. The cheap timber has encouraged companies to invest in more efficient mills in the interior to deal with the pine beetle-killed wood and opened opportunities in using the fibre to produce electricity.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Government buys an addiciton treatment centre
Jody Paterson draws attention to a surprising announcement from the government three days before Christmas. It's stepping in to spend $3 million to buy the property occupied by the Baldy Hughes Treatment Centre near Prince George, and promising more than $1 million annually in operating funds.
The project, based on a program in Italy, was launched by former Liberal MLA and cabinet minister Lorne Mayencourt. It's an interesting project, but the one-off deal takes a lot of money as existing addiction programs struggle with underfunding.
The project, based on a program in Italy, was launched by former Liberal MLA and cabinet minister Lorne Mayencourt. It's an interesting project, but the one-off deal takes a lot of money as existing addiction programs struggle with underfunding.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
So this is the New Year
I handle letters to the editor at work. Most are e-mailed, but some come by post or are dropped off.
I keep one of those stuck to my computer. It’s neatly printed on a small sheet of lined paper, ripped from a spiral notebook. The page got wet at some point - maybe the person was writing outside. Some of the words, written in black ink, smudged when the page was folded.
“What makes me happy,” it’s headed.
“Going out for walks along the ocean looking at the boats and fishing boats. Having a cup of coffee in a restaurant. Riding the bus when I have money for bus fare. Going shopping for food and clothes. Filling my fridge up with lots of food. Having money left over. Saving money for a rainy day.”
That was it. No name, or we might have used it as a letter.
I didn’t really think about why I kept the note. I just knew it was a message that I didn’t want to dump in the recycling bin and forget.
The list is charming, maybe a little heart-breaking, in its simplicity.
Charming because it has a kind of beautiful spareness. Walking by the ocean. A restaurant coffee. A chance to buy food and maybe have a few dollars left in case something goes wrong.
The list is not infected by overreaching ambitions; it just sets out ordinary pleasures.
That’s the heartbreaking part.
There must be a story behind the note of someone who often finds those pleasures out of reach. A restaurant coffee is impossible; there is no food in the fridge; pelting rain turns a walk beside the ocean into an ordeal.
But how can that be? The person who wrote the note - a woman, I’ve always thought - sounds like someone committed to making the best of life. Things might be rough, but she keeps on working at it.
So how can a society not make sure that the effort is rewarded with the small things that will make her happy?
There are limits, certainly, on what we can do. At current tax rates, the money to improve life for people with disabilities, unable to work, comes partly from minimum wage workers just getting by on tiny incomes.
But there are also moral limits to how wretched we can make their lives without diminishing ourselves.
There is a judgment here. You could provide an income equal to the average wage for those who can’t work because of a chronic illness, for example.
You could stick them in a poorhouse, spending just enough to keep them alive.
Or you could find some sensible point between the two extremes.
We haven’t done that. A mother who develops a disability that keeps her from working, raising a 13-year-old child, gets $570 a month for rent. Which, in Victoria, means a one-room apartment with a kitchen nook in a dodgy building.
There is an additional $796 a month for everything else - food, clothes, bus passes, phone, all the things a mom and 13-year-old girl need to get by.
The total annual income is less than $16,400 — $315 a week. That is one dismal life, for mother and child.
The note shows how the simplest pleasures can be out of reach.
I don’t think we’re that mean. B.C. voters didn’t say they thought tax cuts that caused suffering for thousands of their neighbours were a good or necessary idea.
Which leads, or lurches, to three wishes for the New Year.
Enjoy every cup of coffee in a warm restaurant, each day your fridge is well-stocked and every walk along the ocean.
Refuse to accept the diminished lives imposed on your fellow citizens, recognizing the shame it brings on us all. Demand better - and put your money and volunteer effort into making it so.
And consider how important it is to pay attention - really pay attention - to the people around you.
Your laughter, your praise, your concern, your love - those are the most precious gifts. And so easily given.
I keep one of those stuck to my computer. It’s neatly printed on a small sheet of lined paper, ripped from a spiral notebook. The page got wet at some point - maybe the person was writing outside. Some of the words, written in black ink, smudged when the page was folded.
“What makes me happy,” it’s headed.
“Going out for walks along the ocean looking at the boats and fishing boats. Having a cup of coffee in a restaurant. Riding the bus when I have money for bus fare. Going shopping for food and clothes. Filling my fridge up with lots of food. Having money left over. Saving money for a rainy day.”
That was it. No name, or we might have used it as a letter.
I didn’t really think about why I kept the note. I just knew it was a message that I didn’t want to dump in the recycling bin and forget.
The list is charming, maybe a little heart-breaking, in its simplicity.
Charming because it has a kind of beautiful spareness. Walking by the ocean. A restaurant coffee. A chance to buy food and maybe have a few dollars left in case something goes wrong.
The list is not infected by overreaching ambitions; it just sets out ordinary pleasures.
That’s the heartbreaking part.
There must be a story behind the note of someone who often finds those pleasures out of reach. A restaurant coffee is impossible; there is no food in the fridge; pelting rain turns a walk beside the ocean into an ordeal.
But how can that be? The person who wrote the note - a woman, I’ve always thought - sounds like someone committed to making the best of life. Things might be rough, but she keeps on working at it.
So how can a society not make sure that the effort is rewarded with the small things that will make her happy?
There are limits, certainly, on what we can do. At current tax rates, the money to improve life for people with disabilities, unable to work, comes partly from minimum wage workers just getting by on tiny incomes.
But there are also moral limits to how wretched we can make their lives without diminishing ourselves.
There is a judgment here. You could provide an income equal to the average wage for those who can’t work because of a chronic illness, for example.
You could stick them in a poorhouse, spending just enough to keep them alive.
Or you could find some sensible point between the two extremes.
We haven’t done that. A mother who develops a disability that keeps her from working, raising a 13-year-old child, gets $570 a month for rent. Which, in Victoria, means a one-room apartment with a kitchen nook in a dodgy building.
There is an additional $796 a month for everything else - food, clothes, bus passes, phone, all the things a mom and 13-year-old girl need to get by.
The total annual income is less than $16,400 — $315 a week. That is one dismal life, for mother and child.
The note shows how the simplest pleasures can be out of reach.
I don’t think we’re that mean. B.C. voters didn’t say they thought tax cuts that caused suffering for thousands of their neighbours were a good or necessary idea.
Which leads, or lurches, to three wishes for the New Year.
Enjoy every cup of coffee in a warm restaurant, each day your fridge is well-stocked and every walk along the ocean.
Refuse to accept the diminished lives imposed on your fellow citizens, recognizing the shame it brings on us all. Demand better - and put your money and volunteer effort into making it so.
And consider how important it is to pay attention - really pay attention - to the people around you.
Your laughter, your praise, your concern, your love - those are the most precious gifts. And so easily given.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Sub, helicopter debacles bode ill for jet fighter deal
We often launch our kayaks on the Songhees reserve a few hundred metres from the shed where one of Canada’s hopeless submarines is being repaired.
Our kayaks, rentals bought at the end of a summer, were bargains.
The four used British submarines, in contrast, have been disasters.
The Defence Department confirmed just before Christmas that HMCS Victoria will stay in its custom-built shed in Esquimalt until sometime next year as repairs and refits drag on and on, and the bills mount.
The sorry history of the secondhand submarines should be a loud warning about the government’s $16-billion plan to buy new jet fighters.
The Defence Department and the government of the day celebrated the $891-million purchase of the submarines in 1998. Great boats, almost ready to go, strategically essential and a bargain for taxpayers, they said.
Victoria was delivered in 2000. The Defence Department said that after six months of maintenance in Halifax, it would be at sea keeping us safe from whatever submarines are supposed to keep us safe from.
The six months stretched into three years. Then Victoria sailed for CFB Esquimalt and, after a ceremonial welcome, was docked for 10 months to deal with new problems.
It sailed for a few months in 2004. Then a fire on Chicoutimi, another one of the subs, killed a crewman on its delivery voyage from England. Victoria was pulled from service for another seven months.
By May 2005, it was supposedly ready to sail again. But a few months later, Victoria was back into dry dock for what was supposed to be a two-year repair program.
More than five years later, it’s still sitting on land. The Defence Department has announced — and missed — a series of launch dates.
In the decade since Canada has had the ship, it has spent 115 days in service and 117 months undergoing repairs and refits, with the bills steadily mounting.
It’s like buying a used car and being able to drive it for three weeks in the first two years, with the rest of the time spent in the repair shop. And having the dealer keep telling you what a great purchase you made.
Only one of the other three submarines is in regular service. Chicoutimi has been in dry dock since the 2004 fire and is not expected to be ready until 2012.
You could argue the Defence Department just had bad luck with the submarines.
Except that it is part of a pattern of problem-plagued military purchases.
In November, auditor general Sheila Fraser slammed cost overruns and mismanagement in the purchase of two sets of helicopters.
Costs more than doubled, to $11 billion. The project to replace aging Sea King helicopters with CH-148 Cyclones is seven years behind schedule; the CH-147 Chinook program is five years behind schedule.
And, Fraser said, the contract award process for the Chinooks “was not fair, open and transparent” and the Defence Department deliberately downplayed the risks of overruns and delays.
Three big purchases, three big failures. Which, again, raises great concerns about the $16-billion plan to buy 65 F-35 jet fighters.
The costs have soared already, and no contract has yet been signed. The government and the Defence Department have struggled to justify committing to buy the jets from Lockheed Martin without a competitive bidding process. There are no guarantees of economic benefits for Canadian firms, usually part of such deals.
Fraser has warned of significant risks.
And critics suggest Canada doesn’t need the fighters to fulfill its military obligations.
The government has launched a big sales campaign to persuade Canadians that the jets are needed and the project will be properly managed. Trust us, the military and the Harper government ministers say.
But given the track record on military purchases, only a fool would trust a process that has stuck Canadians with inflated bills and left the forces without equipment for years as projects are delayed and delayed again.
Footnote: The other question I ponder, as I paddle past the submarine repair shed into Esquimalt Harbour, is how the government can claim the boats were urgently needed when we have managed perfectly well over the past decade without them.
Our kayaks, rentals bought at the end of a summer, were bargains.
The four used British submarines, in contrast, have been disasters.
The Defence Department confirmed just before Christmas that HMCS Victoria will stay in its custom-built shed in Esquimalt until sometime next year as repairs and refits drag on and on, and the bills mount.
The sorry history of the secondhand submarines should be a loud warning about the government’s $16-billion plan to buy new jet fighters.
The Defence Department and the government of the day celebrated the $891-million purchase of the submarines in 1998. Great boats, almost ready to go, strategically essential and a bargain for taxpayers, they said.
Victoria was delivered in 2000. The Defence Department said that after six months of maintenance in Halifax, it would be at sea keeping us safe from whatever submarines are supposed to keep us safe from.
The six months stretched into three years. Then Victoria sailed for CFB Esquimalt and, after a ceremonial welcome, was docked for 10 months to deal with new problems.
It sailed for a few months in 2004. Then a fire on Chicoutimi, another one of the subs, killed a crewman on its delivery voyage from England. Victoria was pulled from service for another seven months.
By May 2005, it was supposedly ready to sail again. But a few months later, Victoria was back into dry dock for what was supposed to be a two-year repair program.
More than five years later, it’s still sitting on land. The Defence Department has announced — and missed — a series of launch dates.
In the decade since Canada has had the ship, it has spent 115 days in service and 117 months undergoing repairs and refits, with the bills steadily mounting.
It’s like buying a used car and being able to drive it for three weeks in the first two years, with the rest of the time spent in the repair shop. And having the dealer keep telling you what a great purchase you made.
Only one of the other three submarines is in regular service. Chicoutimi has been in dry dock since the 2004 fire and is not expected to be ready until 2012.
You could argue the Defence Department just had bad luck with the submarines.
Except that it is part of a pattern of problem-plagued military purchases.
In November, auditor general Sheila Fraser slammed cost overruns and mismanagement in the purchase of two sets of helicopters.
Costs more than doubled, to $11 billion. The project to replace aging Sea King helicopters with CH-148 Cyclones is seven years behind schedule; the CH-147 Chinook program is five years behind schedule.
And, Fraser said, the contract award process for the Chinooks “was not fair, open and transparent” and the Defence Department deliberately downplayed the risks of overruns and delays.
Three big purchases, three big failures. Which, again, raises great concerns about the $16-billion plan to buy 65 F-35 jet fighters.
The costs have soared already, and no contract has yet been signed. The government and the Defence Department have struggled to justify committing to buy the jets from Lockheed Martin without a competitive bidding process. There are no guarantees of economic benefits for Canadian firms, usually part of such deals.
Fraser has warned of significant risks.
And critics suggest Canada doesn’t need the fighters to fulfill its military obligations.
The government has launched a big sales campaign to persuade Canadians that the jets are needed and the project will be properly managed. Trust us, the military and the Harper government ministers say.
But given the track record on military purchases, only a fool would trust a process that has stuck Canadians with inflated bills and left the forces without equipment for years as projects are delayed and delayed again.
Footnote: The other question I ponder, as I paddle past the submarine repair shed into Esquimalt Harbour, is how the government can claim the boats were urgently needed when we have managed perfectly well over the past decade without them.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Abbott's third place could be a good position
With the first lap of the Liberal leadership race done, George Abbott is looking a reasonable bet to be B.C.'s next premier.
Which is probably a bad thing for the struggling New Democrats.
Abbott, education minister before entering the race, isn't a front runner. He and Mike de Jong, who stepped down as attorney general. are tied for third, according to the latest Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll.
Christy Clark has the big lead. She quit cabinet in 2004 and didn't run in 2005, when the Liberals won their second term. Being out of government for five years, she can't be blamed for the HST and other problems. She's a skilled politician and has been a CKNW talk show host with a high profile in the Lower Mainland.
And she's ahead in the race. The poll found 46 per cent of British Columbians identified her as a good choice to be the next Liberal leader. That climbs to 66 per cent among Liberal voters.
Kevin Falcon, most recently health minister, is in second with the support of 28 per cent of the public and 45 per cent of Liberal voters.
And Abbott and de Jong are tied with the support of 25 per cent of the public and 33 per cent of Liberal voters. (Dr. Moira Stilwell, the fifth entrant, is at 10 per cent with both groups.)
There haven't been many big ideas in the campaign. All the candidates offer varying degrees of support for a higher minimum wage and an earlier referendum on the HST. Mike de Jong proposed lowering the voting age to 16. Falcon wants to make it easier to get farmland in the northeast out of the agricultural land reserve. Clark wants to look at an earlier election.
Four of the five candidates say they'll restore some of the cut gambling grants to charities, arts groups and community organizations, which is puzzling since three of the four were part of the government that made the cuts.
It's early in the campaign, of course. And a lot of the candidates' efforts now are targeted winning at influential Liberals and signing up new party members.
Every one who joins by Jan. 14 gets a vote in the Feb. 26 leadership election. Candidates are racing to sign up a lot of supporters.
The party will likely opt for a voting system that reduces the impact of mass sign-ups in urban areas. Every constituency will have 100 votes. They will be apportioned to reflect the voting of party members in the constituency. (So if there are 750 members in a riding, and 150 vote Christy Clark, she gets 20 leadership votes.)
The vote will also use some form of a preferential ballot, in which party members rank candidates. If no one gets a majority in the first count, the voters' second choices are considered.
Depending on the ultimate decision on rules, that could be good news for Abbott.
The provincial Liberals are a coalition, a political home for federal Conservatives, Liberals and even a few New Democrats. One of Gordon Campbell's accomplishments was keeping everyone united.
Clark is a federal Liberal; Falcon is seen as the choice of the federal Conservative faction.
The two camps have to play nice, thanks in part to the preferential ballot system. Slag the other candidate and you stand no chance of emerging as the second choice of his or her supporters.
Depending on how the preferential ballots are counted - that hasn't been settled - the divide between the Clark and Falcon camps could be a boost for Abbott. He could emerge as the compromise candidate to avoid a divided party.
Which is probably bad news for New Democrats. Both Clark and Falcon would have significant weaknesses in an election campaign. Falcon leans to the party's right and could alienate moderate voters; Clark had a spotty record during her three years in cabinet and is carrying some B.C. Rail baggage.
Abbott's third-place position isn't so bad.
Footnote: No candidates have entered the NDP leadership race. The Angus Reid poll found Mike Farnworth is the favorite choice, with 40 per cent of British Columbians and half of NDP voters saying he would be a good choice to replace Carole James. Adrian Dix is second, favoured by 24 per cent of the public 37 per cent of NDP voters.
Which is probably a bad thing for the struggling New Democrats.
Abbott, education minister before entering the race, isn't a front runner. He and Mike de Jong, who stepped down as attorney general. are tied for third, according to the latest Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll.
Christy Clark has the big lead. She quit cabinet in 2004 and didn't run in 2005, when the Liberals won their second term. Being out of government for five years, she can't be blamed for the HST and other problems. She's a skilled politician and has been a CKNW talk show host with a high profile in the Lower Mainland.
And she's ahead in the race. The poll found 46 per cent of British Columbians identified her as a good choice to be the next Liberal leader. That climbs to 66 per cent among Liberal voters.
Kevin Falcon, most recently health minister, is in second with the support of 28 per cent of the public and 45 per cent of Liberal voters.
And Abbott and de Jong are tied with the support of 25 per cent of the public and 33 per cent of Liberal voters. (Dr. Moira Stilwell, the fifth entrant, is at 10 per cent with both groups.)
There haven't been many big ideas in the campaign. All the candidates offer varying degrees of support for a higher minimum wage and an earlier referendum on the HST. Mike de Jong proposed lowering the voting age to 16. Falcon wants to make it easier to get farmland in the northeast out of the agricultural land reserve. Clark wants to look at an earlier election.
Four of the five candidates say they'll restore some of the cut gambling grants to charities, arts groups and community organizations, which is puzzling since three of the four were part of the government that made the cuts.
It's early in the campaign, of course. And a lot of the candidates' efforts now are targeted winning at influential Liberals and signing up new party members.
Every one who joins by Jan. 14 gets a vote in the Feb. 26 leadership election. Candidates are racing to sign up a lot of supporters.
The party will likely opt for a voting system that reduces the impact of mass sign-ups in urban areas. Every constituency will have 100 votes. They will be apportioned to reflect the voting of party members in the constituency. (So if there are 750 members in a riding, and 150 vote Christy Clark, she gets 20 leadership votes.)
The vote will also use some form of a preferential ballot, in which party members rank candidates. If no one gets a majority in the first count, the voters' second choices are considered.
Depending on the ultimate decision on rules, that could be good news for Abbott.
The provincial Liberals are a coalition, a political home for federal Conservatives, Liberals and even a few New Democrats. One of Gordon Campbell's accomplishments was keeping everyone united.
Clark is a federal Liberal; Falcon is seen as the choice of the federal Conservative faction.
The two camps have to play nice, thanks in part to the preferential ballot system. Slag the other candidate and you stand no chance of emerging as the second choice of his or her supporters.
Depending on how the preferential ballots are counted - that hasn't been settled - the divide between the Clark and Falcon camps could be a boost for Abbott. He could emerge as the compromise candidate to avoid a divided party.
Which is probably bad news for New Democrats. Both Clark and Falcon would have significant weaknesses in an election campaign. Falcon leans to the party's right and could alienate moderate voters; Clark had a spotty record during her three years in cabinet and is carrying some B.C. Rail baggage.
Abbott's third-place position isn't so bad.
Footnote: No candidates have entered the NDP leadership race. The Angus Reid poll found Mike Farnworth is the favorite choice, with 40 per cent of British Columbians and half of NDP voters saying he would be a good choice to replace Carole James. Adrian Dix is second, favoured by 24 per cent of the public 37 per cent of NDP voters.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Political control of coroners needs review
I’m often baffled that MLAs don’t seem to push for the tools to do their jobs more effectively.
The current debate over the independence and effectiveness of the B.C. Coroners Service offers a good example.
Dr. Diane Rothon just quit or was fired as chief coroner after nine months on the job. She has said only that she had a disagreement with the government about the direction of the coroner’s service.
The Times Colonist has been digging a little deeper and found two likely issues — political interference and budget cuts making it impossible for the coroners service to do its job.
The work is important. The service is charged with investigating all “unnatural, unexpected, unexplained or unattended deaths.” Its job is to get the facts - who died, and how and why.
That’s important for families. And the reports help a whole range of organizations prevent future deaths.
In some cases, the coroner also calls inquests - a formal hearing, in front of a five-person jury, which is charged with finding the facts and make recommendations that could save lives in the future.
The work can be controversial. Inquests can highlight government failures or underfunding that costs lives. Recommendations can challenge the status quo and call for action that agencies resist.
The service also produces reports on broader issues — the deaths of children in the government’s care, for example, or youth suicide.
That’s why independence is important. Getting at the truth and making recommendations without political influence is central to the work of the coroner.
But the Times Colonist found three former chief coroners — including Terry Smith, who had the post from 2001 until 2009 - believe the service does not have the needed autonomy to do the work properly. It’s under undue government influence.
The service, for example, is under orders to submit its reports to the government’s political communications arm, the public affairs bureau, before they are released.
At the least, that order gives the government time to plan the best way to spin the report when it is released. But it also raises the spectre of greater influence — of pressure to change the contents of the report before it is made public.
There is an obvious solution. Smith says the government should consider making the coroner an independent officer of the legislature, removing the service from direct political control. “I think in order to have an effective Coroners Service, it needs to have a much higher level of independence," said Smith, who had eight often difficult years in the job. (The proposal is supported by Children and Families Representative Mary ETurpel-Lafond.)
That seems a sensible, practical change. Independent officers - like the children’s representative, information commissioner and auditor general - don’t report to a government minister. They report to committees of MLAs with representatives from all parties. They are, to a significant extent, insulated from political pressure.
MLAs from all parties also review and set the independent officers’ budgets. That makes it harder for politicians to use funding cuts to punish or silence agencies.
The coroners service, for example, has seen its staff fall from 91 in 2007-08 to 81 today. Its budget has been cut 18 per cent in two years and more cuts are likely ahead. The Child Death Review Unit, set up as a result of the Hughes report, is threatened.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman dismisses all the concerns. The service has plenty of independence and can handle the budget cuts, he says.
But simply saying something doesn’t make it so. Three former chief coroners - the people who did the work - say the service doesn’t have the required independence.
At the least, that should be enough to force an outside review of the issues.
It’s surprising that MLAs, given the importance of the work, aren’t calling for a review that might lead to a greater role for them in an area of importance to their constituents.
Footnote: The review should also look at the appropriate qualifications for coroners, especially chief coroners. Most provinces have placed doctors in the top job. B.C., until Rothon’s appointment, has generally opted for chief coroners without medical qualifications, often with a policing background.
The current debate over the independence and effectiveness of the B.C. Coroners Service offers a good example.
Dr. Diane Rothon just quit or was fired as chief coroner after nine months on the job. She has said only that she had a disagreement with the government about the direction of the coroner’s service.
The Times Colonist has been digging a little deeper and found two likely issues — political interference and budget cuts making it impossible for the coroners service to do its job.
The work is important. The service is charged with investigating all “unnatural, unexpected, unexplained or unattended deaths.” Its job is to get the facts - who died, and how and why.
That’s important for families. And the reports help a whole range of organizations prevent future deaths.
In some cases, the coroner also calls inquests - a formal hearing, in front of a five-person jury, which is charged with finding the facts and make recommendations that could save lives in the future.
The work can be controversial. Inquests can highlight government failures or underfunding that costs lives. Recommendations can challenge the status quo and call for action that agencies resist.
The service also produces reports on broader issues — the deaths of children in the government’s care, for example, or youth suicide.
That’s why independence is important. Getting at the truth and making recommendations without political influence is central to the work of the coroner.
But the Times Colonist found three former chief coroners — including Terry Smith, who had the post from 2001 until 2009 - believe the service does not have the needed autonomy to do the work properly. It’s under undue government influence.
The service, for example, is under orders to submit its reports to the government’s political communications arm, the public affairs bureau, before they are released.
At the least, that order gives the government time to plan the best way to spin the report when it is released. But it also raises the spectre of greater influence — of pressure to change the contents of the report before it is made public.
There is an obvious solution. Smith says the government should consider making the coroner an independent officer of the legislature, removing the service from direct political control. “I think in order to have an effective Coroners Service, it needs to have a much higher level of independence," said Smith, who had eight often difficult years in the job. (The proposal is supported by Children and Families Representative Mary ETurpel-Lafond.)
That seems a sensible, practical change. Independent officers - like the children’s representative, information commissioner and auditor general - don’t report to a government minister. They report to committees of MLAs with representatives from all parties. They are, to a significant extent, insulated from political pressure.
MLAs from all parties also review and set the independent officers’ budgets. That makes it harder for politicians to use funding cuts to punish or silence agencies.
The coroners service, for example, has seen its staff fall from 91 in 2007-08 to 81 today. Its budget has been cut 18 per cent in two years and more cuts are likely ahead. The Child Death Review Unit, set up as a result of the Hughes report, is threatened.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman dismisses all the concerns. The service has plenty of independence and can handle the budget cuts, he says.
But simply saying something doesn’t make it so. Three former chief coroners - the people who did the work - say the service doesn’t have the required independence.
At the least, that should be enough to force an outside review of the issues.
It’s surprising that MLAs, given the importance of the work, aren’t calling for a review that might lead to a greater role for them in an area of importance to their constituents.
Footnote: The review should also look at the appropriate qualifications for coroners, especially chief coroners. Most provinces have placed doctors in the top job. B.C., until Rothon’s appointment, has generally opted for chief coroners without medical qualifications, often with a policing background.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Starting your pre-Christmas Saturday
I suggest preparing for the day with a little music here. And then buying more music by the Mountain Goats. The writing is as good as you'll find in music today.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Why the BC Rail scandal shouldn't be forgotten
The B.C. Rail scandal is back in the news, a good thing. New information from search warrants has been released thanks to a media application.
If British Columbians decide just to forget about this scandal, we’ll have given up something as a society.
The issues are huge — corruption tainting the sale of a public railway, broken promises, bribery to exert influence in two cabinet ministers’ offices and a $6-million benefit to two offenders, at taxpayers’ expense, that encouraged guilty pleas and stopped the trial.
This is like stuff from some sleazy Florida municipal government.
The new search warrant information is grim.
It hasn’t been proved in court, but police swore that Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, told them he started paying bribes to Dave Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001 — long before the B.C. Rail bribes.
The money was to pay for “his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters,” Bornman said.
After the election, Gary Collins became finance minister, and Basi was named his political aide. Bornman was with Pilothouse Public Affairs, a lobbying firm. Both Bornman and Basi were political operatives, working in federal and provincial Liberal campaigns, particularly active in the federal ones.
Bornman says he paid Basi, and in return Basi steered lobbying clients his way. He also got special treatment for the people who paid Pilothouse to influence government and “political support.”
There is a serious stench about this. Companies or individuals have a concern about government policy. They raise it and are told it might be wise to hire a specific lobbyist. The lobby firm pays a bribe to help get the problem solved.
And all involved co-operate to ensure the re-election of the party in power.
Too many questions remain unanswered.
Why wasn’t Bornman charged with bribery or tax fraud, since he told police he paid less in taxes because he made the bribes look like a legitimate business expense?
Who decided the people who took the bribes were a more important target than those who paid them?
And how much effort was spent ensuring these practices weren’t more common?
The search warrants include the claim Basi had bank deposits that showed unexplained income of $870,000 between 2000 and 2004. Defence lawyers say the Crown’s expert showed the real unexplained amount was $112,000.
But that’s much more than bribes paid by Bornman and capital region developers paying for Basi’s influence getting land out of the agricultural land reserve. Who else paid and benefited?
The warrants also reveal that Brian Kieran, a principal in Pilothouse, paid Basi $3,000 in cash. Basi and Bob Virk, political aide to then transport minister Judith Reid, took a free trip to an NFL game in Denver, thanks to Omnitrax, a bidder for B.C Rail. They paid for their airplane tickets to make it look legit, the warrants say, and Kieran came through with cash so no one would know about the freebie. He billed the client.
It’s all sordid and corrupt. At least some people paid money and got special treatment and favours from government. It mattered who you could pay and who you knew.
The important question is whether these are aberrations, or symptoms of an unhealthy relationship between people who float back and forth between lobbying, campaigns and political jobs in government.
And British Columbians really can’t know, based on the information that is currently available.
They know, for example, that a police search found Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark’s brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents “improperly disclosed” by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But how did he get the information, and what did he do with it? Those facts have never been revealed.
The Liberals would like people to forget about the scandal. To do that, without more answers, would be to say that British Columbians are comfortable with the threat of a government corruption.
If British Columbians decide just to forget about this scandal, we’ll have given up something as a society.
The issues are huge — corruption tainting the sale of a public railway, broken promises, bribery to exert influence in two cabinet ministers’ offices and a $6-million benefit to two offenders, at taxpayers’ expense, that encouraged guilty pleas and stopped the trial.
This is like stuff from some sleazy Florida municipal government.
The new search warrant information is grim.
It hasn’t been proved in court, but police swore that Erik Bornman, a lobbyist and political foot soldier, told them he started paying bribes to Dave Basi even before the Liberals were elected in 2001 — long before the B.C. Rail bribes.
The money was to pay for “his political support, his support in referring clients to my business and for assistance on client matters,” Bornman said.
After the election, Gary Collins became finance minister, and Basi was named his political aide. Bornman was with Pilothouse Public Affairs, a lobbying firm. Both Bornman and Basi were political operatives, working in federal and provincial Liberal campaigns, particularly active in the federal ones.
Bornman says he paid Basi, and in return Basi steered lobbying clients his way. He also got special treatment for the people who paid Pilothouse to influence government and “political support.”
There is a serious stench about this. Companies or individuals have a concern about government policy. They raise it and are told it might be wise to hire a specific lobbyist. The lobby firm pays a bribe to help get the problem solved.
And all involved co-operate to ensure the re-election of the party in power.
Too many questions remain unanswered.
Why wasn’t Bornman charged with bribery or tax fraud, since he told police he paid less in taxes because he made the bribes look like a legitimate business expense?
Who decided the people who took the bribes were a more important target than those who paid them?
And how much effort was spent ensuring these practices weren’t more common?
The search warrants include the claim Basi had bank deposits that showed unexplained income of $870,000 between 2000 and 2004. Defence lawyers say the Crown’s expert showed the real unexplained amount was $112,000.
But that’s much more than bribes paid by Bornman and capital region developers paying for Basi’s influence getting land out of the agricultural land reserve. Who else paid and benefited?
The warrants also reveal that Brian Kieran, a principal in Pilothouse, paid Basi $3,000 in cash. Basi and Bob Virk, political aide to then transport minister Judith Reid, took a free trip to an NFL game in Denver, thanks to Omnitrax, a bidder for B.C Rail. They paid for their airplane tickets to make it look legit, the warrants say, and Kieran came through with cash so no one would know about the freebie. He billed the client.
It’s all sordid and corrupt. At least some people paid money and got special treatment and favours from government. It mattered who you could pay and who you knew.
The important question is whether these are aberrations, or symptoms of an unhealthy relationship between people who float back and forth between lobbying, campaigns and political jobs in government.
And British Columbians really can’t know, based on the information that is currently available.
They know, for example, that a police search found Bruce Clark, a federal Liberal activist, lobbyist and Christy Clark’s brother, had B.C. Rail sale documents “improperly disclosed” by Basi and Virk. Clark was working for the Washington Marine Group, which was interested in buying the B.C. Rail line to the Roberts Bank superport.
But how did he get the information, and what did he do with it? Those facts have never been revealed.
The Liberals would like people to forget about the scandal. To do that, without more answers, would be to say that British Columbians are comfortable with the threat of a government corruption.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Why Frank Paul died and everything after
I've been writing about Frank Paul since 2002. It was 12 years ago this month that he died in alley where Vancouver police dumped him. He had been picked up for being drunk and dragged into Vancouver cells. But a police officer said he was OK, so he was dragged out and left in an the alley in the cold. (You can read a primer on the sorry case here.)
The police investigation was sloppy and self-serving. Prosecutors did a shoddy job of reviewing the file. The police complaints commissioner and provincial politicians stonewalled calls for an inquiry for nine years.
The inquiry is concluding. Stephen Kelliher, lawyer for the Paul family, offered a clear explanation for how this all happened Tuesday, and it's reported here. It is important to read.
The police investigation was sloppy and self-serving. Prosecutors did a shoddy job of reviewing the file. The police complaints commissioner and provincial politicians stonewalled calls for an inquiry for nine years.
The inquiry is concluding. Stephen Kelliher, lawyer for the Paul family, offered a clear explanation for how this all happened Tuesday, and it's reported here. It is important to read.
Welfare rates, rules keep people down
Take the time to look into welfare rates and policies and you might wonder why the government dislikes some citizens so much.
The National Council on Welfare released a report this week noting how destructive welfare rates and eligibility polices are across Canada.
A young Victoria woman put the reality simply years ago. She said it seemed the government wanted to provide enough income that she and her son could survive. But not enough that they could escape from the welfare trap. (That was, I note, under the NDP government.)
Premier Gordon Campbell said much the same thing last year. He made an unsuccessful pitch for federal money to increase welfare payments during the recession.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote in an op-ed piece in The Globe and Mail. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
In other words, they get trapped.
There's a perverse moral judgment involved. People should just try harder, the unspoken - or sometimes spoken - argument goes. If they can't get a job, they're flawed and don't deserve a decent life.
Of course, 58 per cent of the 132,000 people in income assistance in B.C. have disabilities that keep them from working. Another 8,000 have "multiple persistent barriers to employment."
And then are the kids dependent on income assistance and the people who have lost jobs, run out of employment insurance, used their savings and themselves on welfare, a little unsure how this happened.
And trapped.
If you're single parent with two children and the government has deemed you employable, income assistance provides up to $660 for rent (about half the cost of a two-bedroom place in Victoria).
Between welfare and the family bonus, there's another $623 a month to cover everything else for a family of three - food, clothes, bus passes, a phone, maybe cable, school fees. That's about $20 a day to cover all those things.
All in, the family is supposed to live on less than $300 a week - less than minimum wage. (A single person gets up to $375 for rent and less than $8 a day to live on. Try launching a job hunt while living on $8 a day.)
People get by. But their lives are crappy. And children raised in this kind of poverty face a lifetime of health, educational and work problems.
It's not just a question of income assistance rates, although they have only been increased once since 1994.
The rules grind people into perpetual poverty. In B.C., for example, people on disability assistance or with persistent barriers to employment can earn up to $500 a month without penalty.
But for 48,000 people on income assistance, the government claws back any part-time employment income. Hustle up some work cutting lawns and make $40, and it's deducted from your welfare cheque.
It's a cruel disincentive for people trying to get back into the workforce.
In Alberta, recipients get to keep the first $230 they can earn and one-quarter of any earnings above that. The government says people are "encouraged and supported to work" while on welfare. "Employment can increase their total income and provide valuable work experience."
The National Council on Welfare noted the requirement that applicants exhaust their savings before being eligible was also destructive.
Don Drummond, former chief economist of the TD Bank, supported that observation. "Those in need must essentially first become destitute before they qualify for temporary assistance," he said. "But the record shows once you become destitute you tend to stay in that state. You can't afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade your skills."
The current policies are cruel and ineffectual. Leadership candidates, for both parties, should be asked what they would do differently.
Footnote: The council report found B.C. support for two-parent families with two children was the third lowest in the country, exceeding only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Benefits are, in constant dollars, well below 1990 levels.
The National Council on Welfare released a report this week noting how destructive welfare rates and eligibility polices are across Canada.
A young Victoria woman put the reality simply years ago. She said it seemed the government wanted to provide enough income that she and her son could survive. But not enough that they could escape from the welfare trap. (That was, I note, under the NDP government.)
Premier Gordon Campbell said much the same thing last year. He made an unsuccessful pitch for federal money to increase welfare payments during the recession.
"Income assistance is clearly the last social safety net into which any worker wants to fall," he wrote in an op-ed piece in The Globe and Mail. "Not only are the monthly benefits often less than those payable under EI, but those who are forced to go on welfare risk entering a cycle of dependency that is tough on families, communities and our economy."
In other words, they get trapped.
There's a perverse moral judgment involved. People should just try harder, the unspoken - or sometimes spoken - argument goes. If they can't get a job, they're flawed and don't deserve a decent life.
Of course, 58 per cent of the 132,000 people in income assistance in B.C. have disabilities that keep them from working. Another 8,000 have "multiple persistent barriers to employment."
And then are the kids dependent on income assistance and the people who have lost jobs, run out of employment insurance, used their savings and themselves on welfare, a little unsure how this happened.
And trapped.
If you're single parent with two children and the government has deemed you employable, income assistance provides up to $660 for rent (about half the cost of a two-bedroom place in Victoria).
Between welfare and the family bonus, there's another $623 a month to cover everything else for a family of three - food, clothes, bus passes, a phone, maybe cable, school fees. That's about $20 a day to cover all those things.
All in, the family is supposed to live on less than $300 a week - less than minimum wage. (A single person gets up to $375 for rent and less than $8 a day to live on. Try launching a job hunt while living on $8 a day.)
People get by. But their lives are crappy. And children raised in this kind of poverty face a lifetime of health, educational and work problems.
It's not just a question of income assistance rates, although they have only been increased once since 1994.
The rules grind people into perpetual poverty. In B.C., for example, people on disability assistance or with persistent barriers to employment can earn up to $500 a month without penalty.
But for 48,000 people on income assistance, the government claws back any part-time employment income. Hustle up some work cutting lawns and make $40, and it's deducted from your welfare cheque.
It's a cruel disincentive for people trying to get back into the workforce.
In Alberta, recipients get to keep the first $230 they can earn and one-quarter of any earnings above that. The government says people are "encouraged and supported to work" while on welfare. "Employment can increase their total income and provide valuable work experience."
The National Council on Welfare noted the requirement that applicants exhaust their savings before being eligible was also destructive.
Don Drummond, former chief economist of the TD Bank, supported that observation. "Those in need must essentially first become destitute before they qualify for temporary assistance," he said. "But the record shows once you become destitute you tend to stay in that state. You can't afford to move to where jobs might be or upgrade your skills."
The current policies are cruel and ineffectual. Leadership candidates, for both parties, should be asked what they would do differently.
Footnote: The council report found B.C. support for two-parent families with two children was the third lowest in the country, exceeding only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Benefits are, in constant dollars, well below 1990 levels.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Grim picture behind cheery jobs news release
You expect a bit of spin in government news releases, but the one on the latest employment numbers left me dizzy.
It read more like party advertising. And that's wrong when the government is apparently ignoring a real problem.
"More people working in B.C. than ever before," said the headline. Employment was at a record level in November, topping the previous mark set in July 2008, before the recession.
True, and good news. But not anywhere near to a complete picture. In November, StatsCan reported 2,326,000 people were working, 2,000 more than in 2008.
But in July 2008 1,874,000 of those working had full-time jobs; the rest were part-time.
Last month, there were 84,000 fewer full-time jobs than before the recession - the ones that matter to people trying to make a life. The gains were entirely in part-time work.
And while there were more jobs overall, there were also more people living in the province and more people looking for work.
In 2008, 108,000 British Columbians were trying, unsuccessfully, to find a job.
Today, 173,000 people are seeking work. The unemployment rate has climbed from 4.4 per cent to 6.9 per cent.
The factors involved reach far beyond this province.
But B.C. has lagged the rest of the country in returning to pre-recession stability.
Nationally, full-time employment is basically at July 2008 levels. In B.C., it's down 4.5 per cent.
The number of unemployed people looking for jobs has increased by 29 per cent nationally and by 60 per cent in this province.
One result has been a steep increase in the number of people relying on income assistance - from 39,405 in July 2008 to 56,000 in October of this year. (That's not including disability income assistance.)
Those people are dirt poor. A single-parent family of three gets $623 a month, plus up to $700 for rent. (If they're crashing with family, they don't get the $700.)
All this is grim for the people out of work or on welfare. But it's also bad for communities. People with decent jobs shop and go to restaurants and fix up their homes. Businesses benefit.
A press release celebrating record employment doesn't reflect economic reality, without at least a paragraph noting the challenges in finding full-time work. It could leave people convinced they are failures, rather than casualties of an economic.
There are other issues in all this. The economy might recover after a recession and people might find work. But many of the new jobs will be lower paying, less secure and without pension plans or other benefits.
StatsCan released a report earlier this year that tracked people who had been laid off. Between 2002 and 2006, almost half returned to work at lower wages, while one-quarter made wage gains in their new jobs.
That's not surprising. Across B.C., more than 10,000 forest-sector jobs have disappeared since 2000, many in the last few years. Some of those people - trades workers, for example - might have found comparable work. But a lot of people left $60,000 a year jobs with good benefits and found $40,000 a year work with no pension or benefit plan.
Governments might not be able to stop global market trends. (Though it is astonishing how incoherent and ineffective B.C.'s forest policy has been over the last 15 years.)
But they should acknowledge the shift and say what they plan to do to ensure the best outcome for citizens. (It's not enough to issue press releases about wood sales to China. That's welcome, but not a coherent plan to address the problems in the job market.)
If fewer people have pension plans, for example, where is the new plan Premier Gordon Campbell promised more than two years ago as art of his 10-point action plan to deal with the recession? If more people are relying on part-time work, where is the overdue increase in the minimum wage to help them?
People's lives are shifting. They deserve more than a cheery press release from the government.
Footnote: The leadership campaigns - for both parties - provide a chance to at least try to get answers from candidates about what they would do to address the major economic shifts that see many British Columbians worse off and some in desperate circumstances.
It read more like party advertising. And that's wrong when the government is apparently ignoring a real problem.
"More people working in B.C. than ever before," said the headline. Employment was at a record level in November, topping the previous mark set in July 2008, before the recession.
True, and good news. But not anywhere near to a complete picture. In November, StatsCan reported 2,326,000 people were working, 2,000 more than in 2008.
But in July 2008 1,874,000 of those working had full-time jobs; the rest were part-time.
Last month, there were 84,000 fewer full-time jobs than before the recession - the ones that matter to people trying to make a life. The gains were entirely in part-time work.
And while there were more jobs overall, there were also more people living in the province and more people looking for work.
In 2008, 108,000 British Columbians were trying, unsuccessfully, to find a job.
Today, 173,000 people are seeking work. The unemployment rate has climbed from 4.4 per cent to 6.9 per cent.
The factors involved reach far beyond this province.
But B.C. has lagged the rest of the country in returning to pre-recession stability.
Nationally, full-time employment is basically at July 2008 levels. In B.C., it's down 4.5 per cent.
The number of unemployed people looking for jobs has increased by 29 per cent nationally and by 60 per cent in this province.
One result has been a steep increase in the number of people relying on income assistance - from 39,405 in July 2008 to 56,000 in October of this year. (That's not including disability income assistance.)
Those people are dirt poor. A single-parent family of three gets $623 a month, plus up to $700 for rent. (If they're crashing with family, they don't get the $700.)
All this is grim for the people out of work or on welfare. But it's also bad for communities. People with decent jobs shop and go to restaurants and fix up their homes. Businesses benefit.
A press release celebrating record employment doesn't reflect economic reality, without at least a paragraph noting the challenges in finding full-time work. It could leave people convinced they are failures, rather than casualties of an economic.
There are other issues in all this. The economy might recover after a recession and people might find work. But many of the new jobs will be lower paying, less secure and without pension plans or other benefits.
StatsCan released a report earlier this year that tracked people who had been laid off. Between 2002 and 2006, almost half returned to work at lower wages, while one-quarter made wage gains in their new jobs.
That's not surprising. Across B.C., more than 10,000 forest-sector jobs have disappeared since 2000, many in the last few years. Some of those people - trades workers, for example - might have found comparable work. But a lot of people left $60,000 a year jobs with good benefits and found $40,000 a year work with no pension or benefit plan.
Governments might not be able to stop global market trends. (Though it is astonishing how incoherent and ineffective B.C.'s forest policy has been over the last 15 years.)
But they should acknowledge the shift and say what they plan to do to ensure the best outcome for citizens. (It's not enough to issue press releases about wood sales to China. That's welcome, but not a coherent plan to address the problems in the job market.)
If fewer people have pension plans, for example, where is the new plan Premier Gordon Campbell promised more than two years ago as art of his 10-point action plan to deal with the recession? If more people are relying on part-time work, where is the overdue increase in the minimum wage to help them?
People's lives are shifting. They deserve more than a cheery press release from the government.
Footnote: The leadership campaigns - for both parties - provide a chance to at least try to get answers from candidates about what they would do to address the major economic shifts that see many British Columbians worse off and some in desperate circumstances.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Is something happening here?
Former Liberal cabinet minister Bill Bennett has some interesting ideas about politics in B.C. that could bring some very large changes. You can read them exclusively at Sean Holman's publiceyeonline.com here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
