It’s not easy to sort the HST facts from the spinning by both sides in the tax debate.
Start with Finance Minister Kevin Falcon’s claim that going back to the PST would blow a $3 billion hole in B.C.’s fiscal plan over this year and the next three.
That’s a stretch. The analysis by the independent panel that reviewed the HST’s impact suggests a much smaller hit.
This column will be a heavy on numbers. But numbers matter.
The referendum will result in one of two options: A return to the old PST/GST taxes; or staying with the HST, with promised future rate reductions, some new rebates, corporate tax increases and cancellation of the plan to eliminate the small business tax.
Going back to the PST would bring some costs. The federal government took over sales tax administration when the HST was introduced; the province would have to spend $20 million to re-establish the PST collection office and about $35 million a year to keep it operating, the panel found.
Axing the tax could result in reduced economic growth, reducing provincial revenues by $80 million a year, it estimated.
And the panel noted the province would have to pay back $1.6 billion the federal government put up to encourage adoption of the new tax.
The panel — including former Alberta finance minister Jim DInning and ex-B.C. auditor general George Morfitt — judged the impact of that would be an extra $85 million a year in interest costs because of the increased provincial debt.
And, based on the panel’s analysis, the PST would deliver about $610 million a year less in tax revenue for government than the HST, even if reduced from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. (That, of course, means a saving for families.)
But the panel also noted that the government would save about $441 million a year because it could cancel the rebates and tax reductions brought into cushion the HST’s impact.
All in, based on the panel’s analysis, going back to the PST would cost the government about $362 million a year, mainly because families would pay less tax.
Falcon’s estimate is much higher. The main reason is that he concludes, based on preliminary advice from the province’s comptroller general, that the $1.6 billion would have to be repaid immediately and counted as an expense.
Accounting debates aside, the panel offers a more realistic view. Provincial taxpayers wouldn’t suddenly pony up $1.6 billion; they would pay the long-term interest costs.
The claims about impacts on families are just as muddled.
Christy Clark says the revised HST would see taxpayers pay less than under the PST.
That would eventually be true. But not until 2014. In the meantime, individuals and families would be paying more in sales taxes than under the PST.
Based on the panel’s analysis, individuals and families are paying an extra $1.3 billion in sales taxes this year because of the HST’s wider reach. (The portion of a typical families’ spending subject to provincial sales tax jumped by almost 60 per cent under the HST, the panel found.)
Even with the first rate reduction, from 12 to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012, families would still pay $690 million more in sales taxes in the next fiscal year under the HST. The following year, they would pay $430 million more than under the PST.
It’s not until the following fiscal year — 2014/15 — and another one-point cut in the rate, that families would pay less than they would have under the HST - about $330 million less. That amount would increase in future years.
So families would have spent an extra $2.5 billion in sales taxes over three years before they started seeing lower taxes than under the HST. (Rebates to low-income seniors and all families with children would reduce that by about $200 million.)
There are other reasons for voting to keep or kill the HST. But understanding the numbers is a a good starting point.
Footnote: A problem with any look at the numbers is that the government did not ask the independent panel to report on its estimates after announcing the HST rate cut and corporate tax increases. Given the government’s dismal record in providing accurate HST information, that raises serious doubts. Check hstinbc.ca for more on these numbers.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Falcon heads to New York to explain two years of chaos
It's not surprising that Finance Minister Kevin Falcon went to New York to reassure big lenders about the province's books.
The last two years have been a fiscal gong show. The government's erratic policy stumbles are the kind of behaviour that makes lenders and bond rating agencies edgy.
Start with the government's botched deficit forecast in the 2009 campaign budget. The deficit, then premier Gordon Campbell vowed in the May election campaign, would not exceed $495 million.
Four months later, the government said the deficit would actually be $2.8 billion.
That's a spectacular failure, the kind that makes lenders wonder what else the government is messing up.
Then, of course, there is the HST. The Liberals ruled it out during the election campaign and then, two months later, announced the introduction of the new tax.
Leave aside the pros and cons for a moment. There is no debate that lenders and investors like stability in tax policy.
A surprise introduction of a major tax change, especially one that had been rejected months earlier, does not increase confidence. And especially when the government concedes it made the tax change without any economic analysis of its impact. (Falcon acknowledges cabinet ministers were heavily focused on the chance to get $1.6 billion from Ottawa to reduce the deficit problem.)
Then things got more erratic.
As public anger about the HST increased, Campbell went on television in November and announced a 15-per-cent income tax cut. That would knock about $1 billion a year off provincial revenues; there was no clear plan for dealing with the shortfall.
Again, a well-considered, affordable tax cut would likely find favour with rating agencies and lenders. This looked like an impulsive effort to shore up a failing government. That impression was confirmed a few weeks later, when Campbell quit and the Liberals said they weren't going ahead with the promised tax cut.
If you're watching this from a New York investment fund or bank, you are likely getting nervous about the competence and stability of the government.
How much more chaotic could things get?
Quite a bit more, it turned out. Because the government last month announced more surprise tax changes. The HST would be reduced in two steps if it survived the referendum, Premier Christy Clark said.
She had rejected that during her leadership campaign. It would be akin to bribing people with their own money and leave the province short of revenue for health care and other needed services, she said.
And the government would raise corporate taxes 20 per cent, said Clark, reversing past cuts - the most recent less than six months ago. (NDP leader Adrian Dix proposed the same increase during his campaign. George Abbott said the idea represented the "leading age of 18-century socialism." Mike de Jong said an increase would be "chasing jobs and investment away.")
You can debate all these individual changes, their benefits and costs.
But taken together, they paint a picture of an erratic, incompetent government that doesn't have a coherent tax policy.
Add to that the government's inability to provide accurate information on the HST. It claimed the tax would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020; a credible independent panel report commissioned by the government estimated 24,400. It said the tax was revenue-neutral; the panel found it was a tax increase; it said a middle-income family would pay $100 more a year under the HST; the panel said it would be five times that much.
No wonder Falcon needed to head to New York. The last two years of lurching, incoherent tax policy would likely alarm any lender or bond rating agency.
Clark should also be wondering if the last two years have alarmed B.C. voters as well. Because if so, a fall election could be highly risky for a party that has always claimed to offer stable, consistent administration.
Footnote: The latest Angus Reid poll found 56 per cent of decided voters would vote yes to get rid of the HST. It also found 40 per cent of those surveyed considered Clark credible on the tax; 35 per cent considered Dix credible; and 47 per cent thought Bill Vander Zalm credible (he's not). The media came in at 37 per cent (sigh).
The last two years have been a fiscal gong show. The government's erratic policy stumbles are the kind of behaviour that makes lenders and bond rating agencies edgy.
Start with the government's botched deficit forecast in the 2009 campaign budget. The deficit, then premier Gordon Campbell vowed in the May election campaign, would not exceed $495 million.
Four months later, the government said the deficit would actually be $2.8 billion.
That's a spectacular failure, the kind that makes lenders wonder what else the government is messing up.
Then, of course, there is the HST. The Liberals ruled it out during the election campaign and then, two months later, announced the introduction of the new tax.
Leave aside the pros and cons for a moment. There is no debate that lenders and investors like stability in tax policy.
A surprise introduction of a major tax change, especially one that had been rejected months earlier, does not increase confidence. And especially when the government concedes it made the tax change without any economic analysis of its impact. (Falcon acknowledges cabinet ministers were heavily focused on the chance to get $1.6 billion from Ottawa to reduce the deficit problem.)
Then things got more erratic.
As public anger about the HST increased, Campbell went on television in November and announced a 15-per-cent income tax cut. That would knock about $1 billion a year off provincial revenues; there was no clear plan for dealing with the shortfall.
Again, a well-considered, affordable tax cut would likely find favour with rating agencies and lenders. This looked like an impulsive effort to shore up a failing government. That impression was confirmed a few weeks later, when Campbell quit and the Liberals said they weren't going ahead with the promised tax cut.
If you're watching this from a New York investment fund or bank, you are likely getting nervous about the competence and stability of the government.
How much more chaotic could things get?
Quite a bit more, it turned out. Because the government last month announced more surprise tax changes. The HST would be reduced in two steps if it survived the referendum, Premier Christy Clark said.
She had rejected that during her leadership campaign. It would be akin to bribing people with their own money and leave the province short of revenue for health care and other needed services, she said.
And the government would raise corporate taxes 20 per cent, said Clark, reversing past cuts - the most recent less than six months ago. (NDP leader Adrian Dix proposed the same increase during his campaign. George Abbott said the idea represented the "leading age of 18-century socialism." Mike de Jong said an increase would be "chasing jobs and investment away.")
You can debate all these individual changes, their benefits and costs.
But taken together, they paint a picture of an erratic, incompetent government that doesn't have a coherent tax policy.
Add to that the government's inability to provide accurate information on the HST. It claimed the tax would result in 113,000 new jobs by 2020; a credible independent panel report commissioned by the government estimated 24,400. It said the tax was revenue-neutral; the panel found it was a tax increase; it said a middle-income family would pay $100 more a year under the HST; the panel said it would be five times that much.
No wonder Falcon needed to head to New York. The last two years of lurching, incoherent tax policy would likely alarm any lender or bond rating agency.
Clark should also be wondering if the last two years have alarmed B.C. voters as well. Because if so, a fall election could be highly risky for a party that has always claimed to offer stable, consistent administration.
Footnote: The latest Angus Reid poll found 56 per cent of decided voters would vote yes to get rid of the HST. It also found 40 per cent of those surveyed considered Clark credible on the tax; 35 per cent considered Dix credible; and 47 per cent thought Bill Vander Zalm credible (he's not). The media came in at 37 per cent (sigh).
Saturday, June 11, 2011
I just like this obituary on 'the Lindbergh of hobbyists'
From a Wall Street Journal obit:
"On a clear Saturday evening in early August of 2003, Maynard Hill stood on a hillside on Cape Spear, Newfoundland, started the motor on his model airplane and heaved it into a light wind.
Thirty-eight hours and nearly 1,900 miles later, the 11-pound plane with a six-foot wingspan landed in Ireland, the first radio-controlled model to make a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Mr. Hill, who died Tuesday at 85, was the dean of model airplane hobbyists and spent decades setting records for altitude, duration, speed and distance. His planes outflew those of the Soviets in competitions during the Cold War.
During the 1980s and 1990s, he developed unmanned aircraft for the armed forces, expendable models carrying radar-jamming equipment, cameras and antitank weaponry.
But despite decades spent convincing Pentagon brass to embrace his ideas, Mr. Hill was a poor fit with the gold-plated contractor's culture and dropped out of defense work.
'He didn't believe his planes should be used for war,' said his wife, Gay Hill."
The rest is here.
"On a clear Saturday evening in early August of 2003, Maynard Hill stood on a hillside on Cape Spear, Newfoundland, started the motor on his model airplane and heaved it into a light wind.
Thirty-eight hours and nearly 1,900 miles later, the 11-pound plane with a six-foot wingspan landed in Ireland, the first radio-controlled model to make a trans-Atlantic crossing.
Mr. Hill, who died Tuesday at 85, was the dean of model airplane hobbyists and spent decades setting records for altitude, duration, speed and distance. His planes outflew those of the Soviets in competitions during the Cold War.
During the 1980s and 1990s, he developed unmanned aircraft for the armed forces, expendable models carrying radar-jamming equipment, cameras and antitank weaponry.
But despite decades spent convincing Pentagon brass to embrace his ideas, Mr. Hill was a poor fit with the gold-plated contractor's culture and dropped out of defense work.
'He didn't believe his planes should be used for war,' said his wife, Gay Hill."
The rest is here.
A patient's perspective on mental health emergency services
The route to in-patient mental health care on Vancouver Island is through the Archie Courtnall Centre, or psychiatric emergency services. Patients can wait more than a week, sleeping in chairs, before a bed becomes available.
Tara Levis offers a patient's perspective.
"Psychiatric emergency services is nothing short of a nightmare. It is a holding cell for people at rock bottom, waiting for a transfer to the in-patient unit. It is a small room, overseen by a glassed-off nursing station, that at some points holds over a dozen people.
Claustrophobia sets in the minute I walk through the secured doors and if I'm not on edge to begin with, I most certainly am bordering on psychosis when the door shuts and I am confined at the mercy of an overburdened health-care system.
My personal items are examined with a fine-tooth comb and promptly locked away until further notice. I am allowed to keep a journal and a book. I want to cry when they take away my cellphone, my last connection to the outside world apart from the public phone they provide, which is always in use. The items on my person must be guarded at all times as theft is rampant in PES. Blink and my stuff would be gone, likely to be sold for cigarettes."
Read the rest, please, here.
Tara Levis offers a patient's perspective.
"Psychiatric emergency services is nothing short of a nightmare. It is a holding cell for people at rock bottom, waiting for a transfer to the in-patient unit. It is a small room, overseen by a glassed-off nursing station, that at some points holds over a dozen people.
Claustrophobia sets in the minute I walk through the secured doors and if I'm not on edge to begin with, I most certainly am bordering on psychosis when the door shuts and I am confined at the mercy of an overburdened health-care system.
My personal items are examined with a fine-tooth comb and promptly locked away until further notice. I am allowed to keep a journal and a book. I want to cry when they take away my cellphone, my last connection to the outside world apart from the public phone they provide, which is always in use. The items on my person must be guarded at all times as theft is rampant in PES. Blink and my stuff would be gone, likely to be sold for cigarettes."
Read the rest, please, here.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Nurse-family initiative means better lives
It's proven. Support disadvantaged women during pregnancy and through the first two years of their children's lives and you produce positive changes in their lives.
The B.C. government deserves full credit for being the first in Canada to launch a nurse-family partnership program that will see nurses work closely with first-time moms who need support.
Specially trained public health nurses will connect with women early in their pregnancies beginning next year. The nurses will visit once a week during pregnancy and in the infant's first months, with visits tapering to monthly by the time the child turns two.
It's not a new idea. The approach has been used in the U.S. for more than 30 years and results rigorously tracked. And they are impressive.
That's not surprising. Lots of women have great support networks when they become pregnant, and the skills and resources to solve any problems that do come up. They've learned useful lessons growing up they can apply to the challenges of pregnancy and child-rearing.
But others don't. They're poor, perhaps alone in the world or less well-educated. Some have more experience with bad parenting than with good examples.
The program targets those women, likely about 5,000 a year in this province.
The nurse visits to talk about healthy eating and living during pregnancy, planning for the birth, relationship issues -- really, anything the women wants to talk about. For women without real support or advice, the presence of one caring, competent person in their lives makes a huge difference.
The visits continue after the baby is born, with the same goals of providing support, skills and helping mothers make smart decisions and plans.
The benefits seem obvious.
But major long-term research on U.S. versions of the program, which in some cases followed the life course of the mothers and children for almost two decades, are shocking (in a good way).
Dr. Charlotte Waddell, director of the Children's Health Policy Centre in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, says nurse visits can mean dramatic improvements in life for mothers and children.
"Even if that's all you do, you can track the mother and child 15 or 20 years later and find that not only is the mom doing much better, but the kids stayed in school," she says. "They didn't get involved in crime, they were at less risk of substance abuse, and there was a significant reduction in conduct disorder."
On one level, it's stunning that a brief intervention -- less than three years -- in the lives of mother and child can set them on a course that helps determine, 19 years later, a teen will be less likely to be involved in crime.
But on another, it's not that surprising. The program sets in a motion a whole range of changes which cascade through the participants' lives.
The research found, for example, that mothers in the program tended to delay any subsequent pregnancies for a longer period than peers who did not have nurse-family support. That meant more time for their first child, and more opportunity to find work and maintain a stable life.
The research also found that mothers who had received the support were more likely to be economically self-sufficient and in stable relationships in future years.
Children were healthier and one study found a 48 per cent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect, and a 56 per cent reduction in emergency room visits during the child's second year of life. They also did better in school.
The B.C. program is part of a $23-million Health Start effort aimed at mothers and young children.
While governments are often not good at long-term efforts, particularly on social issues, this is an example of just how great the benefits can be.
Not just economically, although society can count on reduced future costs and greater contribution from those involved.
But we will, for a relatively small investment, be changing lives.
Footnote: The details will matter. Success depends, for example, on finding the right nurses to do the work and stability in the nurse-family relationship. It takes time to build trust and understanding; changes that disrupt the relationship undermine results.
The B.C. government deserves full credit for being the first in Canada to launch a nurse-family partnership program that will see nurses work closely with first-time moms who need support.
Specially trained public health nurses will connect with women early in their pregnancies beginning next year. The nurses will visit once a week during pregnancy and in the infant's first months, with visits tapering to monthly by the time the child turns two.
It's not a new idea. The approach has been used in the U.S. for more than 30 years and results rigorously tracked. And they are impressive.
That's not surprising. Lots of women have great support networks when they become pregnant, and the skills and resources to solve any problems that do come up. They've learned useful lessons growing up they can apply to the challenges of pregnancy and child-rearing.
But others don't. They're poor, perhaps alone in the world or less well-educated. Some have more experience with bad parenting than with good examples.
The program targets those women, likely about 5,000 a year in this province.
The nurse visits to talk about healthy eating and living during pregnancy, planning for the birth, relationship issues -- really, anything the women wants to talk about. For women without real support or advice, the presence of one caring, competent person in their lives makes a huge difference.
The visits continue after the baby is born, with the same goals of providing support, skills and helping mothers make smart decisions and plans.
The benefits seem obvious.
But major long-term research on U.S. versions of the program, which in some cases followed the life course of the mothers and children for almost two decades, are shocking (in a good way).
Dr. Charlotte Waddell, director of the Children's Health Policy Centre in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, says nurse visits can mean dramatic improvements in life for mothers and children.
"Even if that's all you do, you can track the mother and child 15 or 20 years later and find that not only is the mom doing much better, but the kids stayed in school," she says. "They didn't get involved in crime, they were at less risk of substance abuse, and there was a significant reduction in conduct disorder."
On one level, it's stunning that a brief intervention -- less than three years -- in the lives of mother and child can set them on a course that helps determine, 19 years later, a teen will be less likely to be involved in crime.
But on another, it's not that surprising. The program sets in a motion a whole range of changes which cascade through the participants' lives.
The research found, for example, that mothers in the program tended to delay any subsequent pregnancies for a longer period than peers who did not have nurse-family support. That meant more time for their first child, and more opportunity to find work and maintain a stable life.
The research also found that mothers who had received the support were more likely to be economically self-sufficient and in stable relationships in future years.
Children were healthier and one study found a 48 per cent reduction in cases of child abuse and neglect, and a 56 per cent reduction in emergency room visits during the child's second year of life. They also did better in school.
The B.C. program is part of a $23-million Health Start effort aimed at mothers and young children.
While governments are often not good at long-term efforts, particularly on social issues, this is an example of just how great the benefits can be.
Not just economically, although society can count on reduced future costs and greater contribution from those involved.
But we will, for a relatively small investment, be changing lives.
Footnote: The details will matter. Success depends, for example, on finding the right nurses to do the work and stability in the nurse-family relationship. It takes time to build trust and understanding; changes that disrupt the relationship undermine results.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
HST adds $5 million to B.C. Ferries expenses
From B.C. Ferries latest financial report:
"On July 1, 2010, the harmonized sales tax (HST) became effective, combining the existing 7% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal goods and services tax (GST) into a single tax of 12%. We expect this tax to add approximately $5 to $6 million annually to the cost of our operations. The HST will also increase the price to our customers for our food and certain retail offerings. Our vehicle and passenger tariffs which were exempt from GST will be exempt from HST."
Which means the HST will also result in higher ferry fares,
"On July 1, 2010, the harmonized sales tax (HST) became effective, combining the existing 7% provincial sales tax with the 5% federal goods and services tax (GST) into a single tax of 12%. We expect this tax to add approximately $5 to $6 million annually to the cost of our operations. The HST will also increase the price to our customers for our food and certain retail offerings. Our vehicle and passenger tariffs which were exempt from GST will be exempt from HST."
Which means the HST will also result in higher ferry fares,
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Liberals just won't face persistent poverty problem
A Times Colonist editorial thought it "baffling" that the government has repeatedly refused to set out a plan to reduce poverty.
Any competent manager understands the need for plans, the editorial observed, and the Liberals have campaigned on claims of competence.
It's not baffling. I've been a manager. I was keen on plans for people who reported to me. If they set out their targets and what they would do to achieve them, I could look at results and assess their effectiveness.
The government wants to avoid that kind of accountability.
It's a shabby position. Especially for a government that, after a decade in power, has still left more than 500,000 people - and 87,000 children - living in poverty.
There has been progress in reducing the number of people whose lives are blighted by poverty.
But, objectively, not much. The B.C. Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell to provide reports on government effectiveness, tracks the poverty rate.
It has found B.C. has ranked tenth among provinces every year since the board was created in 2002. More people live in poverty here, year after year, than in any other province. Their numbers have been reduced, but not enough to move B.C. from last place.
B.C. has also had the highest rate of child poverty, according to StatsCan, for seven straight years. The number of children living in poverty has decreased, but, again, not fast enough to move B.C. from its ranking as the worst in Canada.
That's hard to reconcile with Gordon Campbell's claims about the best place on Earth, or Christy Clark's talk about families first.
This should be a fundamental issue for any government. Research has shown that growing up poor greatly increases the likelihood of a lifetime of problems. The Progress Board notes that "people with low income may experience more physical and mental health problems, rely more on charity, attain lower levels of education or have higher secondary school dropout rates."
Leaving aside the human cost and suffering, poverty loads costs on to future generations just as surely as large government deficits do.
The Campbell government repeatedly refused to accept the need for a plan to reduce poverty, and Premier Christy Clark has so far taken the same position. The Liberals say they are doing lots of things that reduce poverty, from policies to increase employment to tax cuts.
But it's striking that when the government decided climate change was an issue, it set legislated, specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and developed a plan to meet them.
As it's striking that, after 10 years, progress hasn't been enough to raise B.C. from its ranking as the most poverty-ridden province.
The editorial was right. "Any competent manager" knows a plan is the first step toward achieving goals.
In this case, it would start with an analysis of the current situation - the causes of poverty, the demographics, the policies that have been tried. It would look at anti-poverty efforts in other jurisdictions and learn from success and failures.
And then it would set targets and action plans with timelines, accountability and budgets. Progress would be assessed and the plan adjusted.
It's an obvious, necessary approach to dealing with any problem.
Such a review would identify easy first steps. About 37,000 children are in families living on disability or income assistance. There are among those living in poverty; a single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else. That's poverty. Addressing that - by letting parents earn some income without being cut off, or increasing rates for families - would cut child poverty by 40 per cent.
But the first step is a plan. And by refusing to accept the need - and the accountability for results - the government is ensuring too many British Columbians remain mired in destructive poverty.
Footnote: The New Democrats introduced the Poverty Reduction Act on the last day of the legislative session, which set out a reasonable approach to developing a poverty plan. The Liberals won't support it, but if Clark is serious about "families first," they should announce their own plan.
Any competent manager understands the need for plans, the editorial observed, and the Liberals have campaigned on claims of competence.
It's not baffling. I've been a manager. I was keen on plans for people who reported to me. If they set out their targets and what they would do to achieve them, I could look at results and assess their effectiveness.
The government wants to avoid that kind of accountability.
It's a shabby position. Especially for a government that, after a decade in power, has still left more than 500,000 people - and 87,000 children - living in poverty.
There has been progress in reducing the number of people whose lives are blighted by poverty.
But, objectively, not much. The B.C. Progress Board, set up by Gordon Campbell to provide reports on government effectiveness, tracks the poverty rate.
It has found B.C. has ranked tenth among provinces every year since the board was created in 2002. More people live in poverty here, year after year, than in any other province. Their numbers have been reduced, but not enough to move B.C. from last place.
B.C. has also had the highest rate of child poverty, according to StatsCan, for seven straight years. The number of children living in poverty has decreased, but, again, not fast enough to move B.C. from its ranking as the worst in Canada.
That's hard to reconcile with Gordon Campbell's claims about the best place on Earth, or Christy Clark's talk about families first.
This should be a fundamental issue for any government. Research has shown that growing up poor greatly increases the likelihood of a lifetime of problems. The Progress Board notes that "people with low income may experience more physical and mental health problems, rely more on charity, attain lower levels of education or have higher secondary school dropout rates."
Leaving aside the human cost and suffering, poverty loads costs on to future generations just as surely as large government deficits do.
The Campbell government repeatedly refused to accept the need for a plan to reduce poverty, and Premier Christy Clark has so far taken the same position. The Liberals say they are doing lots of things that reduce poverty, from policies to increase employment to tax cuts.
But it's striking that when the government decided climate change was an issue, it set legislated, specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and developed a plan to meet them.
As it's striking that, after 10 years, progress hasn't been enough to raise B.C. from its ranking as the most poverty-ridden province.
The editorial was right. "Any competent manager" knows a plan is the first step toward achieving goals.
In this case, it would start with an analysis of the current situation - the causes of poverty, the demographics, the policies that have been tried. It would look at anti-poverty efforts in other jurisdictions and learn from success and failures.
And then it would set targets and action plans with timelines, accountability and budgets. Progress would be assessed and the plan adjusted.
It's an obvious, necessary approach to dealing with any problem.
Such a review would identify easy first steps. About 37,000 children are in families living on disability or income assistance. There are among those living in poverty; a single parent with two children who is deemed employable gets up to $660 a month for housing and another $623 a month for everything else. That's poverty. Addressing that - by letting parents earn some income without being cut off, or increasing rates for families - would cut child poverty by 40 per cent.
But the first step is a plan. And by refusing to accept the need - and the accountability for results - the government is ensuring too many British Columbians remain mired in destructive poverty.
Footnote: The New Democrats introduced the Poverty Reduction Act on the last day of the legislative session, which set out a reasonable approach to developing a poverty plan. The Liberals won't support it, but if Clark is serious about "families first," they should announce their own plan.
Would you buy this submarine?
From today's Times Colonist, a photo of the HMCS Corner Brook, one of the four used British submarines Canada bought in 1998.
And the Corner Brook is actually supposed to be in good shape.
The submarine is in the news because it struck the ocean bottom in exercises this week, the latest chapter in a sad and costly bungled purchase, which I explored here.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Clerk's appointment violates democratic principles
From a good Times Colonist editorial on the appointment of Craig James as clerk of the legislature.
"Our political system includes measures designed to keep a check on potential abuses by the party in power. A key principle is that some positions must be seen to be entirely non-partisan.
"Once again, the Liberal government has violated that principle.
"This week, the government imposed its candidate for clerk of the legislature, a lifetime appointment. The quaint title doesn't reflect the position's importance. The clerk, through advice to the Speaker, interprets the rules of the legislature for MLAs from all parties."
Read the rest here.
For background, here's the column I did on the same issue when James was appointed interim chief electoral officer by the Liberals - another post that's supposed to be made by all parties.
The clerk appointment highlights how wrong the Liberals were in putting James in the chief electoral officer role for 15 months. The officer is supposed to be completely independent and serves a fixed term of two elections plus one year.
But the inevitable perception is that James knew he was a candidate for the $250,000-a-year clerk job during his times as interim chief electoral officer. And that taints the public view of his true independence in making decisions on recall efforts, the HST initiatives and other issues.
"Our political system includes measures designed to keep a check on potential abuses by the party in power. A key principle is that some positions must be seen to be entirely non-partisan.
"Once again, the Liberal government has violated that principle.
"This week, the government imposed its candidate for clerk of the legislature, a lifetime appointment. The quaint title doesn't reflect the position's importance. The clerk, through advice to the Speaker, interprets the rules of the legislature for MLAs from all parties."
Read the rest here.
For background, here's the column I did on the same issue when James was appointed interim chief electoral officer by the Liberals - another post that's supposed to be made by all parties.
The clerk appointment highlights how wrong the Liberals were in putting James in the chief electoral officer role for 15 months. The officer is supposed to be completely independent and serves a fixed term of two elections plus one year.
But the inevitable perception is that James knew he was a candidate for the $250,000-a-year clerk job during his times as interim chief electoral officer. And that taints the public view of his true independence in making decisions on recall efforts, the HST initiatives and other issues.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Maybe we just don't need MLAs any more
Do we really need MLAs?
They're nice enough people. But as the legislative session ended Thursday after just 24 sitting days, I wondered if we need to pay 85 people salaries starting at $100,000 a year to fill the seats in the red-carpeted chamber.
At least as it operates now.
It's not as if they changed anything in the 24 days. The government introduced its budget. The Liberal MLAs voted for every element of it; the NDP voted against.
There was debate on spending, but because the session was so short MLAs were reviewing and approving about $2.5 billion in spending a day. People spend more time choosing a new sofa.
Bills were passed, but the debates and votes were largely irrelevant. Once the governing party introduced the legislation, passage was a done deal.
There were some excellent private members' bills - legislation advanced by MLAs without official government support. But they went nowhere, as is the norm.
The opposition got the chance to raise issues in question period, which is 30 minutes each day. But maybe there's a cheaper, better way to accomplish that. Issues were raised in other debates, but who reads Hansard?
Really, the elected MLAs could have stayed home. A few performers could have read the expected lines from both sides of the house, MLAs could have given their proxies to the party leaders and nothing would be much different.
MLAs do other work, of course. But constituents' issues could he handled by a competent manager in each riding. And I am unconvinced that the views of a backbench member often have a great role in shaping party policy.
And if MLAs hadn't shown up, they would have been spared the embarrassment of thumping their desks on cue and shouting insults - or watching as their peers shouted - across the floor.
In fact, do we even need candidates to stand for election in 85 ridings, if their role is peripheral? Perhaps it would be more efficient to just let people vote for the parties in each riding, and give the leaders chits for each one they win. They could then use those to cast votes in the legislature.
Since the 2009 election, the legislature has sat for less than 120 days. That's not an indication that there is much pressing work to do.
It might seem radical to suggest MLAs' time in the legislature is largely irrelevant.
But Liberal House leader Rich Coleman apparently shares the view.
The New Democrats had suggested spending another two weeks to deal properly with the budget and the legislation.
But Coleman said no, the government would use closure to end debate on any outstanding business and force bills and budget through the legislature.
He could offer no reason for shutting down the legislature. It's not as if MLAs are exhausted after 24 days, or have somewhere else pressing to be.
Coleman is not out on some partisan limb here. The New Democrat governments of the 1990s showed no more respect for MLAs and the legislature. (Though they did have the legislature in session about 76 days a year, much more than the Liberals have done since 2001.)
I'm overstating the case. Debate can be useful and even, on occasion, bring improvements to bills. MLAs get a chance to raise issues of concern to constituents, or propose legislation. (Independent MLA Bob Simpson had several useful proposals.)
But those are the exceptions.
It's not supposed to be like this. Traditionally, voters would elect MLAs. Those who won the most seats would chose someone to be premier. The premier would owe allegiance to MLAs, who would have the support of voters. We've turned the relationship upside down. And as MLAs' roles have shrunk, the pay scale has risen.
Party leaders have little interest in giving up power. That means MLAs have to find some way to demand it - more Independent MLAs would be a start - or voters have to reward a party committed to real change.
Footnote: It was interesting to see the attention focused on the way Simpson and fellow Independent Vicki Huntington voted on the HST changes. (They both supported them, without saying they supported the tax.) Presumably, their votes mattered because they were the only two MLAs actually using their own judgment on the issue.
They're nice enough people. But as the legislative session ended Thursday after just 24 sitting days, I wondered if we need to pay 85 people salaries starting at $100,000 a year to fill the seats in the red-carpeted chamber.
At least as it operates now.
It's not as if they changed anything in the 24 days. The government introduced its budget. The Liberal MLAs voted for every element of it; the NDP voted against.
There was debate on spending, but because the session was so short MLAs were reviewing and approving about $2.5 billion in spending a day. People spend more time choosing a new sofa.
Bills were passed, but the debates and votes were largely irrelevant. Once the governing party introduced the legislation, passage was a done deal.
There were some excellent private members' bills - legislation advanced by MLAs without official government support. But they went nowhere, as is the norm.
The opposition got the chance to raise issues in question period, which is 30 minutes each day. But maybe there's a cheaper, better way to accomplish that. Issues were raised in other debates, but who reads Hansard?
Really, the elected MLAs could have stayed home. A few performers could have read the expected lines from both sides of the house, MLAs could have given their proxies to the party leaders and nothing would be much different.
MLAs do other work, of course. But constituents' issues could he handled by a competent manager in each riding. And I am unconvinced that the views of a backbench member often have a great role in shaping party policy.
And if MLAs hadn't shown up, they would have been spared the embarrassment of thumping their desks on cue and shouting insults - or watching as their peers shouted - across the floor.
In fact, do we even need candidates to stand for election in 85 ridings, if their role is peripheral? Perhaps it would be more efficient to just let people vote for the parties in each riding, and give the leaders chits for each one they win. They could then use those to cast votes in the legislature.
Since the 2009 election, the legislature has sat for less than 120 days. That's not an indication that there is much pressing work to do.
It might seem radical to suggest MLAs' time in the legislature is largely irrelevant.
But Liberal House leader Rich Coleman apparently shares the view.
The New Democrats had suggested spending another two weeks to deal properly with the budget and the legislation.
But Coleman said no, the government would use closure to end debate on any outstanding business and force bills and budget through the legislature.
He could offer no reason for shutting down the legislature. It's not as if MLAs are exhausted after 24 days, or have somewhere else pressing to be.
Coleman is not out on some partisan limb here. The New Democrat governments of the 1990s showed no more respect for MLAs and the legislature. (Though they did have the legislature in session about 76 days a year, much more than the Liberals have done since 2001.)
I'm overstating the case. Debate can be useful and even, on occasion, bring improvements to bills. MLAs get a chance to raise issues of concern to constituents, or propose legislation. (Independent MLA Bob Simpson had several useful proposals.)
But those are the exceptions.
It's not supposed to be like this. Traditionally, voters would elect MLAs. Those who won the most seats would chose someone to be premier. The premier would owe allegiance to MLAs, who would have the support of voters. We've turned the relationship upside down. And as MLAs' roles have shrunk, the pay scale has risen.
Party leaders have little interest in giving up power. That means MLAs have to find some way to demand it - more Independent MLAs would be a start - or voters have to reward a party committed to real change.
Footnote: It was interesting to see the attention focused on the way Simpson and fellow Independent Vicki Huntington voted on the HST changes. (They both supported them, without saying they supported the tax.) Presumably, their votes mattered because they were the only two MLAs actually using their own judgment on the issue.
Only dead sex workers get our support
From Jody Paterson's column:
"So we’ve got an inquiry into a B.C. mass murder headed up by a man tainted by his political connections, presiding over a process that shuts out almost everyone on the side of the victims.
"Yup, that sounds like a solid way to get at the truth about the Robert Pickton case.
"Only sex workers could draw straws this short. Then again, only sex workers would be left to go missing and murdered on our streets for so long in the first place. It’s baffling and heartbreaking, this misery we sustain in the name of 'morality.'"
It's worth reading the rest here.
"So we’ve got an inquiry into a B.C. mass murder headed up by a man tainted by his political connections, presiding over a process that shuts out almost everyone on the side of the victims.
"Yup, that sounds like a solid way to get at the truth about the Robert Pickton case.
"Only sex workers could draw straws this short. Then again, only sex workers would be left to go missing and murdered on our streets for so long in the first place. It’s baffling and heartbreaking, this misery we sustain in the name of 'morality.'"
It's worth reading the rest here.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Clark betrays participants in missing women's inquiry
Christy Clark faced a serious issue in her first question period as premier.
Her response was empty. Attorney General Barry Penner was a more capable government spokesman.
The issue is the missing and murdered women's inquiry.
Commissioner Wally Oppal, a former Liberal attorney general, had to decide who had a right to participate in the inquiry - to question witnesses and play an active role.
Oppal ruled 13 groups had a legitimate interest. They included families of the women killed by Robert Pickton, a coalition of sex-worker groups, several aboriginal organizations and some agencies who worked with the Downtown Eastside people who were Pickton's prey.
And he said that to play their proper role, they would need public funding to help with legal costs.
The government rejected Oppal's recommendation. The families of the missing women would get funding for a shared lawyer. No one else would get public money.
Except, of course, police. They will have a battery of publicly funded lawyers to look after their interests when the botched investigation is examined. Crown prosecutors will have taxpayer-funded lawyers. So will the government and any politicians who might be called as witnesses or even referred to during the inquiry.
But the organizations supporting prostitutes, whose concerns about missing women were ignored, they're shut out. First Nations who want to ask questions to see if racism played in the role in the lack of urgency when women began disappearing, they're on their own.
Oppal said he had only recommended funding for those who had a role to play in getting answers and had "satisfied me that they would not be able to participate fully without financial support."
The government decided to exclude those groups from full participation. Police and politicians would have a battalion of lawyers to protect their interests. Natives, poor women, the disadvantaged - they would have no one.
And it made the decision despite having provided funding for groups with standing at the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, who died after being left in an alley by Vancouver police.
The NDP basically repeated a single question - would Clark and the government accept Oppal's judgment and fund some legal costs for all parties that should be part of the inquiry.
Clark expressed sympathy. She did a bizarre little riff about families first and the HST rate reduction and B.C. Ferries fares and ICBC, although what that had to do with murdered women was unclear.
But she never addressed the questions or Oppal's recommendations or the issue.
MLA Carole James noted the inquiry would not have been called without the efforts of some of the groups.
Clark responded that "the government said at the time that they would support an inquiry when the legal proceedings were complete. The government kept their promise."
That's not true. The Liberal government consistently refused to commit to an inquiry even when police called for one.
And she maintained the groups could participate even if they didn't have lawyers to represent them at the inquiry. Oppal disagrees.
And if Clark is serious, she could prove it by announcing no public funds will be spent on lawyers for politicians, police and prosecutors. But she won't.
Penner at least addressed the issue. It would cost too much to pay for the legal representation. There were parts of the inquiry where people who didn't have lawyers could be heard.
But he also failed to address the fact that insiders - police and prosecutors and politicians past and present - have unlimited public funding for legal representation.
The outsiders get nothing.
Inquiries do become costly as legal fees mount. But why not impose limits on all involved, while providing equitable funding?
Instead, the government decided that the powerful would have all the funding needed to protect their interests at the inquiry. The powerless could watch from the spectators' gallery.
And Clark never really defended the decision, or even showed that she understood its significance.
Footnote: One aspect of the question period was welcome. Because of the serious topic, MLAs on both sides refrained from the normal shouted insults, rants and cheap theatrics that degrade the legislature.
Sadly, some journalists seemed disappointed by the lack of rudeness and stupidity.
Her response was empty. Attorney General Barry Penner was a more capable government spokesman.
The issue is the missing and murdered women's inquiry.
Commissioner Wally Oppal, a former Liberal attorney general, had to decide who had a right to participate in the inquiry - to question witnesses and play an active role.
Oppal ruled 13 groups had a legitimate interest. They included families of the women killed by Robert Pickton, a coalition of sex-worker groups, several aboriginal organizations and some agencies who worked with the Downtown Eastside people who were Pickton's prey.
And he said that to play their proper role, they would need public funding to help with legal costs.
The government rejected Oppal's recommendation. The families of the missing women would get funding for a shared lawyer. No one else would get public money.
Except, of course, police. They will have a battery of publicly funded lawyers to look after their interests when the botched investigation is examined. Crown prosecutors will have taxpayer-funded lawyers. So will the government and any politicians who might be called as witnesses or even referred to during the inquiry.
But the organizations supporting prostitutes, whose concerns about missing women were ignored, they're shut out. First Nations who want to ask questions to see if racism played in the role in the lack of urgency when women began disappearing, they're on their own.
Oppal said he had only recommended funding for those who had a role to play in getting answers and had "satisfied me that they would not be able to participate fully without financial support."
The government decided to exclude those groups from full participation. Police and politicians would have a battalion of lawyers to protect their interests. Natives, poor women, the disadvantaged - they would have no one.
And it made the decision despite having provided funding for groups with standing at the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, who died after being left in an alley by Vancouver police.
The NDP basically repeated a single question - would Clark and the government accept Oppal's judgment and fund some legal costs for all parties that should be part of the inquiry.
Clark expressed sympathy. She did a bizarre little riff about families first and the HST rate reduction and B.C. Ferries fares and ICBC, although what that had to do with murdered women was unclear.
But she never addressed the questions or Oppal's recommendations or the issue.
MLA Carole James noted the inquiry would not have been called without the efforts of some of the groups.
Clark responded that "the government said at the time that they would support an inquiry when the legal proceedings were complete. The government kept their promise."
That's not true. The Liberal government consistently refused to commit to an inquiry even when police called for one.
And she maintained the groups could participate even if they didn't have lawyers to represent them at the inquiry. Oppal disagrees.
And if Clark is serious, she could prove it by announcing no public funds will be spent on lawyers for politicians, police and prosecutors. But she won't.
Penner at least addressed the issue. It would cost too much to pay for the legal representation. There were parts of the inquiry where people who didn't have lawyers could be heard.
But he also failed to address the fact that insiders - police and prosecutors and politicians past and present - have unlimited public funding for legal representation.
The outsiders get nothing.
Inquiries do become costly as legal fees mount. But why not impose limits on all involved, while providing equitable funding?
Instead, the government decided that the powerful would have all the funding needed to protect their interests at the inquiry. The powerless could watch from the spectators' gallery.
And Clark never really defended the decision, or even showed that she understood its significance.
Footnote: One aspect of the question period was welcome. Because of the serious topic, MLAs on both sides refrained from the normal shouted insults, rants and cheap theatrics that degrade the legislature.
Sadly, some journalists seemed disappointed by the lack of rudeness and stupidity.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Mangling the facts on 'social entrepreneurs'
I was intrigued when MLA Gordon Hogg stood up in the legislature to talk about "social entrepreneurs."
"Some of the world's leaders in social innovation live right here in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland was recently called by the Ottawa Citizen: 'The Silicon Valley of social innovation in Canada,'" Hogg said.
That would be a useful article to get a better handle on the government's push for social entrepreneurship, I thought.
Except the Ottawa Citizen never said any such thing.
The closest thing was a quote from Axiom News — a website paid by clients to share positive news. "Vancouver was praised as 'the social Silicon Valley' and other glowing accolades as the city played host to the first Canadian Social Innovation and Social Finance tour," said a report on the website.
Members' statements are written in advance; Hogg gets an extra $15,000 on top of the base $100,000 for the parliamentary secretary job; it seems reasonable to assume they would be accurate.
"Some of the world's leaders in social innovation live right here in British Columbia. The Lower Mainland was recently called by the Ottawa Citizen: 'The Silicon Valley of social innovation in Canada,'" Hogg said.
That would be a useful article to get a better handle on the government's push for social entrepreneurship, I thought.
Except the Ottawa Citizen never said any such thing.
The closest thing was a quote from Axiom News — a website paid by clients to share positive news. "Vancouver was praised as 'the social Silicon Valley' and other glowing accolades as the city played host to the first Canadian Social Innovation and Social Finance tour," said a report on the website.
Members' statements are written in advance; Hogg gets an extra $15,000 on top of the base $100,000 for the parliamentary secretary job; it seems reasonable to assume they would be accurate.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
ICBC and the politicians
From Craig McInnes in the Sun:
"On the flip side, the government also gets to decide what to do when ICBC is deemed to have collected more cash than it needs to meet claims. The B.C. government chose to take for itself $778 million over three years that was collected from motorists in premiums that were subsequently judged to be excessive.
In Manitoba, when the Public Utilities Board found recently that the public insurance company had over-estimated the amount it needed to charge to cover claims, it ordered the money to be returned to the people who paid it rather than be turned over to the government.
The refunds averaged $450 per customer, or about 45 per cent of the previous year's premiums."
You can and should read the rest here.
"On the flip side, the government also gets to decide what to do when ICBC is deemed to have collected more cash than it needs to meet claims. The B.C. government chose to take for itself $778 million over three years that was collected from motorists in premiums that were subsequently judged to be excessive.
In Manitoba, when the Public Utilities Board found recently that the public insurance company had over-estimated the amount it needed to charge to cover claims, it ordered the money to be returned to the people who paid it rather than be turned over to the government.
The refunds averaged $450 per customer, or about 45 per cent of the previous year's premiums."
You can and should read the rest here.
Friday, May 27, 2011
CLBC funding per-client chopped every year since its creation
The cuts to supports for people with "developmental disabilities" - what we once called the mentally handicapped - are taking a terrible toll. And worse times are ahead.
According to Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation set up to provide services, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created six years ago.
In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. By 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.
If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006. (There is a small amount of additional money for a personalized supports initiative; it doesn't change the reality of the annual cuts.)
The result is damaging. People who have lived in group homes for years, happily and in a family-like setting, are being forced out as homes are closed to save money.
People who once had full lives - supported in jobs and social activities - are now spending all day alone. The supports that involved them in the community, helped them keep jobs and gave them rich lives have been pulled away.
Waiting lists for services are growing and, in many cases, services are just denied. No money, says CLBC.
CLBC says several factors, all predictable, are pushing up demand for services.
The corporation takes responsibility for supports when people turn 19. CLBC says parents, after seeing their children assisted through the school years, expect quality services to continue.
Too often, they don't. Teens who have been thriving with effective supports face disaster when they become adults.
Like Jonathan Martin of Burnaby. He has Down syndrome and autism. He's been supported as a youth and CLBC's own report says he needs continued support and access to day programs next month when he leaves high school. "There is a grave concern that Jonathan's independence and acquired skill would quickly decline after he finishes school and if day program is not available," the agency's report says, according to the Burnaby NewsLeader. "Constant supervision is required for huge safety concerns."
But CLBC says it has no money. Jonathan will go on a wait list, with no real chance of getting support.
At the other end of the age spectrum, CLBC reports that people with developmental disabilities are living longer and needing more support as they age.
At the same time, many aging family caregivers, usually parents, can no longer provide as much support and are turning to CLBC.
They are finding the support isn't there.
That is particularly cruel. All parents worry about their children. But most enter old age knowing that their sons and daughters are launched.
Imagine the anguish in fearing that your death or incapacity will leave your developmentally disabled adult child at risk of exploitation or neglect. Knowing that the efforts you made to help ensure a safe, productive, satisfying life could end in tragedy.
The B.C. Association for Community Living has supported CLBC since its creation and continues to applaud the efforts to provide individualized supports.
But executive director Faith Bodnar says underfunding has reached a critical point. "Insufficient funding to CLBC has meant reacting to crisis only and the real danger of relegating people to lives of isolation and subsistence as their supports and services are cut," she wrote this month. "For people with developmental disabilities and their families it has created uncertainty, desperation, vulnerability and real suffering as they experience cuts to services or are placed on waitlists without hope."
There are pragmatic reasons for providing these services.
But this is also a moral issue. These are vulnerable people who, with help, can live rich, satisfying lives. They have the right to that opportunity. We have the collective ability to give them the chance.
But the government, on our behalf, has decided that would cost too much.
Footnote: CLBC notes that part of the pressure from services comes from the province's "five great goals," set by the government in 2005. The third goal called for B.C. to "build the best system of supports fpr persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors." It turns out families believed the government was serious.
According to Community Living B.C., the Crown corporation set up to provide services, the amount of funding per client has fallen every year since it was created six years ago.
In 2006/7, the first full year of operation, funding provided an average $51,154 per client. This year, funding will be $45,306. By 2013, according to the government projections, it will be cut to $41,225 per client.
If you factor in inflation, by 2013 the funding available for each client will be 30 per cent less than it was in 2006. (There is a small amount of additional money for a personalized supports initiative; it doesn't change the reality of the annual cuts.)
The result is damaging. People who have lived in group homes for years, happily and in a family-like setting, are being forced out as homes are closed to save money.
People who once had full lives - supported in jobs and social activities - are now spending all day alone. The supports that involved them in the community, helped them keep jobs and gave them rich lives have been pulled away.
Waiting lists for services are growing and, in many cases, services are just denied. No money, says CLBC.
CLBC says several factors, all predictable, are pushing up demand for services.
The corporation takes responsibility for supports when people turn 19. CLBC says parents, after seeing their children assisted through the school years, expect quality services to continue.
Too often, they don't. Teens who have been thriving with effective supports face disaster when they become adults.
Like Jonathan Martin of Burnaby. He has Down syndrome and autism. He's been supported as a youth and CLBC's own report says he needs continued support and access to day programs next month when he leaves high school. "There is a grave concern that Jonathan's independence and acquired skill would quickly decline after he finishes school and if day program is not available," the agency's report says, according to the Burnaby NewsLeader. "Constant supervision is required for huge safety concerns."
But CLBC says it has no money. Jonathan will go on a wait list, with no real chance of getting support.
At the other end of the age spectrum, CLBC reports that people with developmental disabilities are living longer and needing more support as they age.
At the same time, many aging family caregivers, usually parents, can no longer provide as much support and are turning to CLBC.
They are finding the support isn't there.
That is particularly cruel. All parents worry about their children. But most enter old age knowing that their sons and daughters are launched.
Imagine the anguish in fearing that your death or incapacity will leave your developmentally disabled adult child at risk of exploitation or neglect. Knowing that the efforts you made to help ensure a safe, productive, satisfying life could end in tragedy.
The B.C. Association for Community Living has supported CLBC since its creation and continues to applaud the efforts to provide individualized supports.
But executive director Faith Bodnar says underfunding has reached a critical point. "Insufficient funding to CLBC has meant reacting to crisis only and the real danger of relegating people to lives of isolation and subsistence as their supports and services are cut," she wrote this month. "For people with developmental disabilities and their families it has created uncertainty, desperation, vulnerability and real suffering as they experience cuts to services or are placed on waitlists without hope."
There are pragmatic reasons for providing these services.
But this is also a moral issue. These are vulnerable people who, with help, can live rich, satisfying lives. They have the right to that opportunity. We have the collective ability to give them the chance.
But the government, on our behalf, has decided that would cost too much.
Footnote: CLBC notes that part of the pressure from services comes from the province's "five great goals," set by the government in 2005. The third goal called for B.C. to "build the best system of supports fpr persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors." It turns out families believed the government was serious.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Desperate, expensive gamble to save HST
Governments aren’t supposed to make tax policy — or prepare budgets — like this.
The Liberals’ last-ditch attempt to save the HST is a dramatic flip-flop on tax principles they once said were essential for the province’s future.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says that if voters decide to stick with the HST in this summer’s referendum, the government promises to cut the rate from 12 per cent to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012. There would be another cut to 10 per cent on July 1, 2014, assuming the Liberals are still in office.
By 2014, Falcon claimed, the tax burden on individuals and families would be less than it was under the provincial sales tax,
But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there’s more. If voters stick with the HST, the government will send out one-time payments to help cover some of the increased tax burden. Families with children under 18 will get $175 per child; low-income seniors would also get $175. (Using taxpayers’ money to send cheques to the province’s richest families hardly seems sound public policy.)
Cutting the HST rate by one percentage point, according to Falcon, would cost the government about $850 million a year. So by 2014, the government would be taking in about $1.7 billion less in revenue than it had planned.
No worries, says Falcon. The government would still balance the budget by 2013/14 and manage despite the lost revenue.
If the HST is approved, he said, the government would raise the corporate income tax rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, reversing past cuts. That would bring in about $400 million a year.
And the government would cancel the planned elimination of the small business tax, adding about $250 million a year to government revenues.
That still means government revenue would fall by $1.7 billion a year when the HST rate reductions were in place.
The other tax changes would bring in about $650 million, leaving a billion-dollar gap.
Falcon’s claim the budget can still be balanced on schedule rests on the fact that the full impact of the HST cuts won’t hit until after the target date. Even so, the government’s forecast allowance and contingency funds — the cushions against unexpected revenue losses or spending needs, like a bad forest fire season — are now committed. There is no margin for unforseen events And the budget already called for spending cuts in most ministries this year, with a freeze in place for the following two years. (Health being a notable exception.)
Given the Liberals’ track record of HST misinformation, Falcon should present a clear budget plan showing how the revenue shortfalls will be handled before people vote in the referendum.
The Liberals’ credibility overall is hurt by the latest lurch from tax policies they once said were critical to the province’s future.
Take the corporate tax increase. When NDP leader Adrian Dix advocated the same tax change, Falcon said corporate tax increases would threaten the fragile economic recovery. Education Minister George Abbott said the proposal represented “the leading edge of 18th-century socialism in this province.”
Or the HST rate cut. When Falcon proposed an HST rate reduction during his leadership campaign, Christy Clark was critical, saying the government couldn’t afford to give up billions in revenue. Anyway, she said, changing the rate before the referendum would just look like the Liberals were trying to buy people’s support for the tax with their own money.
Credibility is a big referendum problem. The Liberals have provided misinformation on the HST every step of the way, underestimating the costs to families, inflating the economic benefits and claiming it was revenue-neutral. All the claims were contradicted by an expert panel the government appointed.
And now they are offering a new tax policy and making new claims with only weeks to go before the referendum, leaving no time to commission a new independent analysis to replace the now largely useless one.
Trust us, Clark says. This time we’ve got it right.
Some voters will. Some will look at the costs of getting out of the HST and decide it’s best to stick with the tax.
But many will likely be seeking much more information before buying the government’s claims this time.
Footnote: The New Democrats seized on past comments from Clark in question period Wednesday. During the leadership campaign, she rejected Falcon’s call for a rate cut. “Cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get that money, because we’re either going to have a $1.6-billion bigger deficit, or we’re going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms.”
The Liberals’ last-ditch attempt to save the HST is a dramatic flip-flop on tax principles they once said were essential for the province’s future.
Finance Minister Kevin Falcon says that if voters decide to stick with the HST in this summer’s referendum, the government promises to cut the rate from 12 per cent to 11 per cent on July 1, 2012. There would be another cut to 10 per cent on July 1, 2014, assuming the Liberals are still in office.
By 2014, Falcon claimed, the tax burden on individuals and families would be less than it was under the provincial sales tax,
But wait, as they say on late-night infomercials, there’s more. If voters stick with the HST, the government will send out one-time payments to help cover some of the increased tax burden. Families with children under 18 will get $175 per child; low-income seniors would also get $175. (Using taxpayers’ money to send cheques to the province’s richest families hardly seems sound public policy.)
Cutting the HST rate by one percentage point, according to Falcon, would cost the government about $850 million a year. So by 2014, the government would be taking in about $1.7 billion less in revenue than it had planned.
No worries, says Falcon. The government would still balance the budget by 2013/14 and manage despite the lost revenue.
If the HST is approved, he said, the government would raise the corporate income tax rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, reversing past cuts. That would bring in about $400 million a year.
And the government would cancel the planned elimination of the small business tax, adding about $250 million a year to government revenues.
That still means government revenue would fall by $1.7 billion a year when the HST rate reductions were in place.
The other tax changes would bring in about $650 million, leaving a billion-dollar gap.
Falcon’s claim the budget can still be balanced on schedule rests on the fact that the full impact of the HST cuts won’t hit until after the target date. Even so, the government’s forecast allowance and contingency funds — the cushions against unexpected revenue losses or spending needs, like a bad forest fire season — are now committed. There is no margin for unforseen events And the budget already called for spending cuts in most ministries this year, with a freeze in place for the following two years. (Health being a notable exception.)
Given the Liberals’ track record of HST misinformation, Falcon should present a clear budget plan showing how the revenue shortfalls will be handled before people vote in the referendum.
The Liberals’ credibility overall is hurt by the latest lurch from tax policies they once said were critical to the province’s future.
Take the corporate tax increase. When NDP leader Adrian Dix advocated the same tax change, Falcon said corporate tax increases would threaten the fragile economic recovery. Education Minister George Abbott said the proposal represented “the leading edge of 18th-century socialism in this province.”
Or the HST rate cut. When Falcon proposed an HST rate reduction during his leadership campaign, Christy Clark was critical, saying the government couldn’t afford to give up billions in revenue. Anyway, she said, changing the rate before the referendum would just look like the Liberals were trying to buy people’s support for the tax with their own money.
Credibility is a big referendum problem. The Liberals have provided misinformation on the HST every step of the way, underestimating the costs to families, inflating the economic benefits and claiming it was revenue-neutral. All the claims were contradicted by an expert panel the government appointed.
And now they are offering a new tax policy and making new claims with only weeks to go before the referendum, leaving no time to commission a new independent analysis to replace the now largely useless one.
Trust us, Clark says. This time we’ve got it right.
Some voters will. Some will look at the costs of getting out of the HST and decide it’s best to stick with the tax.
But many will likely be seeking much more information before buying the government’s claims this time.
Footnote: The New Democrats seized on past comments from Clark in question period Wednesday. During the leadership campaign, she rejected Falcon’s call for a rate cut. “Cutting the HST by one point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a two-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we’re going to get that money, because we’re either going to have a $1.6-billion bigger deficit, or we’re going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms.”
Friday, May 20, 2011
Poll results support early election call
There’s good and bad news for both B.C. parties in the first big poll after the leadership races.
For starters, they’re both probably relieved to be in a tie.
The Liberals have the support of 41 per cent of decided voters, the New Democrats 39 per cent, according to the Ipsos Reid poll released this week. That’s within the margin of error.
And both parties are even likely heartened that people think the Liberals are unethical and doing a lousy job of governing, for different reasons, of course.
It has to be reassuring for Christy Clark and company that the Liberals have 41-per-cent support when the government is widely seen as incompetent, according to the poll. That indicates a deep concern about the NDP would be even worse.
The survey found dissatisfaction with the Liberal government on every issue.
Respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of the government’s performance since the 2009 election. The only positive was on its handling of the economy — 51 per cent approved, 43 per cent disapproved.
But on education, environment and crime and justice, a significant majority of those polled gave the government thumbs down.
The results were even more negative for the government’s handling of taxes and health care — and on spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Sixty-five per cent of those polled thought the government is doing a poor job in managing spending; only 29 per cent gave the Liberals positive grades.
And the results were worst for ethics and accountability. Only one in five respondents approved of the government’s performance in this area; 70 per cent found the Liberals wanting in terms of ethics and public accountability.
That’s why Clark has been working so hard to distance herself from Gordon Campbell — no easy task given the presence of all his key lieutenants at her side — and reduce obvious irritants, like parking fees in parks. If the party is doing well in the polls now, while people think it’s doing a poor job, there’s a chance of gains.
But Adrian Dix and the New Democrats can take encouragement from the Liberals’ poor marks as well.
They show Clark is vulnerable if the NDP can convince voters that it’s ready to provide better government.
And the poll results suggest that’s possible.
Clark scored much better when the pollster asked about the leaders. Almost 50 per cent of voters said she would make the better premier; only 25 per cent picked Dix.
And 36 per cent of voters said they have a positive impression of Clark, while 22 per cent have a negative impression.
Dix scores the same for negative ratings, but only 20 per cent have an overall positive impression.
That means, of course, that almost 60 per cent of voters don’t have views one way or another on Dix. His challenge is to shift more of those people into the positive column, while hoping Clark faces enough tough choices that her numbers slide.
That’s certainly possible. Being premier, even a new, election-mode premier, means you have to do some things people don’t like.
But when former NDP leader Carole James started, polls found a large portion of the public had no opinion of her and she had difficulty in shifting them into the “positive” camp.
The poll included another finding, one that adds to the factors encouraging Clark to call an election in the coming months.
The relaunched provincial Conservative party — which hasn’t been a significant factor — had the support of 10 per cent of decided voters. That’s a serious base for party leader John Cummins to build on. And it’s already enough to raise the threat of vote-splitting in close ridings. If enough Liberal voters opt for the Conservatives, then New Democrat candidates have a much better chance.
All in, the poll suggests Clark should be looking at an election as soon as possible. Her approval is high, Dix is unknown and the Conservatives aren’t yet organized.
All those could have change by the end of the year.
Footnote: NDP support is concentrated on Vancouver Island; the Liberals are strongest in the Interior and North, while the parties are even in the Lower Mainland. Conservative support in the Interior is above 15 per cent.
And, significantly, the Liberals have a lead among people over 34 — the ones most likely to vote.
For starters, they’re both probably relieved to be in a tie.
The Liberals have the support of 41 per cent of decided voters, the New Democrats 39 per cent, according to the Ipsos Reid poll released this week. That’s within the margin of error.
And both parties are even likely heartened that people think the Liberals are unethical and doing a lousy job of governing, for different reasons, of course.
It has to be reassuring for Christy Clark and company that the Liberals have 41-per-cent support when the government is widely seen as incompetent, according to the poll. That indicates a deep concern about the NDP would be even worse.
The survey found dissatisfaction with the Liberal government on every issue.
Respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of the government’s performance since the 2009 election. The only positive was on its handling of the economy — 51 per cent approved, 43 per cent disapproved.
But on education, environment and crime and justice, a significant majority of those polled gave the government thumbs down.
The results were even more negative for the government’s handling of taxes and health care — and on spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Sixty-five per cent of those polled thought the government is doing a poor job in managing spending; only 29 per cent gave the Liberals positive grades.
And the results were worst for ethics and accountability. Only one in five respondents approved of the government’s performance in this area; 70 per cent found the Liberals wanting in terms of ethics and public accountability.
That’s why Clark has been working so hard to distance herself from Gordon Campbell — no easy task given the presence of all his key lieutenants at her side — and reduce obvious irritants, like parking fees in parks. If the party is doing well in the polls now, while people think it’s doing a poor job, there’s a chance of gains.
But Adrian Dix and the New Democrats can take encouragement from the Liberals’ poor marks as well.
They show Clark is vulnerable if the NDP can convince voters that it’s ready to provide better government.
And the poll results suggest that’s possible.
Clark scored much better when the pollster asked about the leaders. Almost 50 per cent of voters said she would make the better premier; only 25 per cent picked Dix.
And 36 per cent of voters said they have a positive impression of Clark, while 22 per cent have a negative impression.
Dix scores the same for negative ratings, but only 20 per cent have an overall positive impression.
That means, of course, that almost 60 per cent of voters don’t have views one way or another on Dix. His challenge is to shift more of those people into the positive column, while hoping Clark faces enough tough choices that her numbers slide.
That’s certainly possible. Being premier, even a new, election-mode premier, means you have to do some things people don’t like.
But when former NDP leader Carole James started, polls found a large portion of the public had no opinion of her and she had difficulty in shifting them into the “positive” camp.
The poll included another finding, one that adds to the factors encouraging Clark to call an election in the coming months.
The relaunched provincial Conservative party — which hasn’t been a significant factor — had the support of 10 per cent of decided voters. That’s a serious base for party leader John Cummins to build on. And it’s already enough to raise the threat of vote-splitting in close ridings. If enough Liberal voters opt for the Conservatives, then New Democrat candidates have a much better chance.
All in, the poll suggests Clark should be looking at an election as soon as possible. Her approval is high, Dix is unknown and the Conservatives aren’t yet organized.
All those could have change by the end of the year.
Footnote: NDP support is concentrated on Vancouver Island; the Liberals are strongest in the Interior and North, while the parties are even in the Lower Mainland. Conservative support in the Interior is above 15 per cent.
And, significantly, the Liberals have a lead among people over 34 — the ones most likely to vote.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Criminal record searches, free, public, online
That's what the B.C. government has provided. Wonder if your son's girlfriend has a criminal record? Your boss? Check them out.
Jody Paterson has the info here. Like her, I'm still thinking about this. (A triumph for information freedom, or a destructive invasion of privacy. I'm leaning toward the former.)
UPDATE
Jody Paterson has the info here. Like her, I'm still thinking about this. (A triumph for information freedom, or a destructive invasion of privacy. I'm leaning toward the former.)
UPDATE
I'm reminded the criminal record information has been available, at no charge, since the fall. Fees were lifted as a result of the award-winning Access Denied project by Times Colonist reporters Lindsay Kines, Rob Shaw and Louise Dickson. The series looked at the erosion of access to information that was supposed to be public in courthouses.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
So what if the world is going to end Saturday?
The Times Colonist has some useful thoughts in an editorial today.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Clark promises more democratic nomination contests
Colin Hansen's convention pitch for a new name for the Liberals sparked much talk - and many jokes.
It's interesting. But much more significant was Premier Christy Clark's pledge to end the party's practice of preventing nomination challenges for incumbent MLAs. That's been an unwritten, but strictly enforced, rule.
It's profoundly undemocratic. Someone who wins a Liberal nomination in a safe seat can sleepwalk through a couple of decades in the legislature without having to worry about being challenged for the party nomination.
There's little incentive to pay much attention to the concerns of local residents. The nomination is guaranteed and, in many ridings, victory in the election would be almost certain no matter who the party ran.
And there is considerable incentive to place the interests of the party brass ahead of local residents, because they're the key to job security.
And there's little chance for party renewal. A brilliant potential candidate, with great credentials and broad community support, might be in the wings. But unless the incumbent decides to retire, it's impossible to challenge for the nomination.
It's an odd position for the Liberals, who talk a lot about how free competition brings the best results. Except when it comes to competition for MLA jobs, with their $100,000 base salary and dandy benefits.
Clark said that's going to change. Well, actually, she claimed that there had never been a ban on nomination challenges and wouldn't be as we head toward an election. "The B.C. Liberals have never had a policy of protecting incumbents," she told the Globe and Mail, "and we are not going to start doing that now."
Clark's claim was immediately contradicted by MLA Kevin Krueger, who said he enforced the ban on nomination challenges as caucus whip. People who wanted to challenge an incumbent were "encouraged" to look elsewhere, he said. "It was not 'open season' and it won't be 'open season' this time," he said.
Krueger is more believable. That raises the possibility that Clark doesn't really want to end the practice, just to pretend it's not happening.
That would be a shame.
There are risks to allowing open nomination contests. A well-funded, ambitious would-be candidate could hijack a constituency association, sign up a bunch of instant party members and take over without real support from party members.
But simple rules could prevent that. Something as basic as requiring people to be members of the party for at least six months before being allowed to vote in a nomination contest reduces the risks.
And the benefits, for the public interest, are great. MLAs would have to pay much more attention to the concerns of the riding, rather than the interests of the party, to ensure they weren't replaced.
Meanwhile, Hansen's call for a new party name had to have been made with Clark's blessing. Many voters are confused and think the provincial party has some connection with the federal Liberals, he said. Which is not a good thing these days.
Perhaps a different name might better reflect the party's coalition of centre and centre-right voters, Hansen said.
A name change would mean a pretty short run for the modern incarnation of the Liberal party, revived by Gordon Wilson in 1991. It's interesting that after winning three elections, the party still doesn't feel comfortable with its name. Or believe that it has built loyalty among voters.
It's possible that nothing will come of the idea - that simply floating it was a way to suggest to voters that the party is keen to distance itself from its own record. (No wonder Gordon Campbell chose to skip the convention.)
Whatever the party is called, it would be welcome if it loosened the straitjacket that prevents party members from nominating the best candidates to represent their ridings in favour of a system based on seniority, not performance.
Footnote: The convention also saw Clark promise some sort of changes to the HST in an effort to win a yes vote in next month's mail-in referendum. And she continued to signal a desire for an early election, urging delegates to prepare for the campaign.
It's interesting. But much more significant was Premier Christy Clark's pledge to end the party's practice of preventing nomination challenges for incumbent MLAs. That's been an unwritten, but strictly enforced, rule.
It's profoundly undemocratic. Someone who wins a Liberal nomination in a safe seat can sleepwalk through a couple of decades in the legislature without having to worry about being challenged for the party nomination.
There's little incentive to pay much attention to the concerns of local residents. The nomination is guaranteed and, in many ridings, victory in the election would be almost certain no matter who the party ran.
And there is considerable incentive to place the interests of the party brass ahead of local residents, because they're the key to job security.
And there's little chance for party renewal. A brilliant potential candidate, with great credentials and broad community support, might be in the wings. But unless the incumbent decides to retire, it's impossible to challenge for the nomination.
It's an odd position for the Liberals, who talk a lot about how free competition brings the best results. Except when it comes to competition for MLA jobs, with their $100,000 base salary and dandy benefits.
Clark said that's going to change. Well, actually, she claimed that there had never been a ban on nomination challenges and wouldn't be as we head toward an election. "The B.C. Liberals have never had a policy of protecting incumbents," she told the Globe and Mail, "and we are not going to start doing that now."
Clark's claim was immediately contradicted by MLA Kevin Krueger, who said he enforced the ban on nomination challenges as caucus whip. People who wanted to challenge an incumbent were "encouraged" to look elsewhere, he said. "It was not 'open season' and it won't be 'open season' this time," he said.
Krueger is more believable. That raises the possibility that Clark doesn't really want to end the practice, just to pretend it's not happening.
That would be a shame.
There are risks to allowing open nomination contests. A well-funded, ambitious would-be candidate could hijack a constituency association, sign up a bunch of instant party members and take over without real support from party members.
But simple rules could prevent that. Something as basic as requiring people to be members of the party for at least six months before being allowed to vote in a nomination contest reduces the risks.
And the benefits, for the public interest, are great. MLAs would have to pay much more attention to the concerns of the riding, rather than the interests of the party, to ensure they weren't replaced.
Meanwhile, Hansen's call for a new party name had to have been made with Clark's blessing. Many voters are confused and think the provincial party has some connection with the federal Liberals, he said. Which is not a good thing these days.
Perhaps a different name might better reflect the party's coalition of centre and centre-right voters, Hansen said.
A name change would mean a pretty short run for the modern incarnation of the Liberal party, revived by Gordon Wilson in 1991. It's interesting that after winning three elections, the party still doesn't feel comfortable with its name. Or believe that it has built loyalty among voters.
It's possible that nothing will come of the idea - that simply floating it was a way to suggest to voters that the party is keen to distance itself from its own record. (No wonder Gordon Campbell chose to skip the convention.)
Whatever the party is called, it would be welcome if it loosened the straitjacket that prevents party members from nominating the best candidates to represent their ridings in favour of a system based on seniority, not performance.
Footnote: The convention also saw Clark promise some sort of changes to the HST in an effort to win a yes vote in next month's mail-in referendum. And she continued to signal a desire for an early election, urging delegates to prepare for the campaign.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
